Question: Should the U. S. have Mandatory Voting?

In Australia, those who do not show up are subject to fines although those who were ill or incapable of voting on election day can have their fines waived. This law was passed in 1924. With Australia's compulsory (required) voting system comes additional flexibility for the voter - elections are held on Saturdays, voters who aren’t at home can vote in any state polling place, and voters in remote areas can vote before an election (at pre-poll voting centers) or via mail.

Voter turnout of those registered to vote in Australia was as low as 47% prior to the 1924 law. But in the decades since 1924, voter turnout has risen to 94 to 96 percent. In 1924, Australian officials felt that compulsory voting would eliminate voter apathy (lack of interest). But some Australians strongly disagree with the system. Their reasons are included below.
In countries that require voting, the biggest predictor of those who will vote is whether they voted in the previous election. That may be one reason why the youngest age group (18 – 25) is the least likely to vote, while senior citizens (above 65) are most likely. Income and education also influence voting patterns. (Be sure to look at the tables in the back!)

Arguments used in favor of compulsory voting:

• 
  Voting is a civic duty comparable to other duties citizens perform (like paying taxes, compulsory education, and jury duty).
  
• 
  Parliament (their Congress) reflects more accurately the "will of the electorate."
  
• 
  Governments must consider the total electorate in making and carrying out the laws.
  
• 
  Candidates can concentrate their campaigning energies on the issues rather than trying to get voters to turn out.
  
• 
  The voter isn't compelled to vote for a particular candidate because voting is by secret ballot.
  

• 
  Some suggest that it is undemocratic to force people to vote and is an infringement of liberty.
  
• 
  The "ignorant" and those with little interest in politics are forced to the polls.
  
• 
  It may increase the amount of “random” voting by people who feel that they are required to vote by law, but really don’t know who or what to vote for.
  
• 
  It may increase the number of illegitimate votes (ballots that aren’t filled in correctly).
  
• 
  It may encourage candidates to put most of their energy into “swing” districts and states where fewer people identify with a political party. Regions leaning strongly democratic (blue) or republican (red) might not get as much attention as those that are “toss-ups.”
  
• 
  Resources (money and time) must be spent to make sure those who failed to vote have "valid and sufficient" reasons.
  

Second, as William Galston of the Brookings Institution argues, it would temper the polarization of our politics. In today’s electorate, hardcore partisan believers are over-represented; independents and moderates are under-represented. If the full range of voters actually voted, our political leaders, who are exquisitely attuned followers, would go where the votes are: away from the extremes. And they would become more responsive to the younger, poorer and less educated Americans who don’t currently vote.

Third, mandatory voting would prompt more Americans to pay attention to the choices. Those of us who lament the decline of civic knowledge generally focus on the supply side of the equation: more civics education. A mandate would stimulate the demand side, motivating more voters to learn what they were voting on (just as a draft makes the drafted motivated to learn what they’d fight for).

There are many arguments against mandatory voting; each reflects a lack of faith in democracy itself. One says that increasing the number of uninformed voters will lead to worse policymaking. That presumes, however, that policymaking today sets a high-water mark of enlightenment. It also sets up a viciously antidemocratic circle: if you don’t vote you must be stupid and if you are stupid you mustn’t vote.

Another critique claims that requiring the vote devalues it, and that compelled voters will protest by voting carelessly. But in Australia, where voting became compulsory in 1924, that’s been a marginal issue. The existence of a mandate has made voting a meaningful shared national experience. 

Some Republicans will oppose mandatory voting for the reason they now push voter IDs: to win. (Conventional wisdom says the more people who vote, the worse the GOP does). But if a tactic of disenfranchisement and electorate-amputation makes sense for the party (which is debatable), it is terrible for the country. As former director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orzsag said, we can’t know what the ultimate partisan impact would be. One day Republicans could benefit.

The most visceral critique is that mandating voting is just un-American. Yet jury duty, the draft, going to school, and taxpaying all have been compulsory without being called communist (OK, three out of four). At issue is what makes something American — and what makes liberty liberty. The Revolution and the framing of the Constitution were not about the right merely to be let alone or to do whatever one pleased. They were about our liberty to govern and represent ourselves. Core to that liberty is electing representatives and voting on public issues.

That is why the best reason for mandatory voting has nothing to do with today’s politics. It’s about redeeming the central promise of American citizenship. Generations marched, fought and died for the right to vote. The least we can do now is treat that right like a responsibility.

As you can see in the next table, the more income and education a person has, the more likely they are to vote. Because of this, socioeconomic class (which is often tied to race and immigration status) can keep the powerful in power and further marginalize recent immigrants, those with low incomes and people of color. There are complicated reasons for this: laws in some places require photo I.D.s and permanent addresses (which students, homeless people and immigrants may not have). Polling stations may have limited hours, which people who have multiple jobs and children may have a hard time getting to. Sometimes the I.D. required costs money that many people can’t afford.