Compulsory voting – is it a good thing to force it?

Наскоро президентът Росен Плевнелиев изложи идеята за референдум за промяна на изборните правила. От трите предложени въпроса един заслужава особено внимание – искаме ли да се въведе задължителното гласуване?

The first point to note is that such a question is very general in nature and citizens do not really know what exactly they are voting for – who and how will control compulsory voting, what the sanctions will be, will the incentive be positive (tax relief) or negative (fine), will it apply to all elections, will it apply to all citizens in the same way, will there be an age limit (like in Luxembourg and Greece), what would be the “valid” reasons for not voting? These questions do not have a clear answer and the referendum in this case is a kind of blank check with which the government can act in a way that will be surprising to the majority that voted “Yes”.

Let's leave aside the formal formulation of the question and its implementation and focus on the case: should or should not voting be mandatory?

Even the current Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria provides an answer. In Art. 42 it is clearly and unambiguously written that citizens “have the right to elect state and local bodies and to participate in referendums.” The attempt to transform a right into an obligation through a referendum is clearly unconstitutional and it is worrying that such a decision is even being discussed.

And what about other countries? In Europe, compulsory voting is available in Belgium, Greece and Luxembourg. These three countries are extremely different in terms of structure, standard of living and economic development, which shows that compulsory voting in itself is not a panacea. It is also worth noting the fact that the voter turnout in the 2014 “elections” in North Korea was 99.97%.

It is of great importance whether there are sanctions for not voting in these countries and what they are. In Belgium, for example, there are effective sanctions, and voter turnout there in the last 25 years has been around 90%, while the lack of effective sanctions in Greece has led to a drop in turnout from 83% to 63%. For comparison, the voter turnout in the parliamentary elections in Bulgaria in 1991 was 84%, while in the recent ones it was 51%. [1]

We must draw two important conclusions from analyzing these numbers:

• First: voter turnout (which compulsory voting aims to increase) in itself has no value – it does not lead to an increase in the standard of living, wealth of the population, effective fight against corruption, etc.
• Second: over the last 25 years, the percentage of Bulgarian citizens who have decided not to participate in the electoral process has increased dramatically.

The latter finding is particularly important. It shows the growing distrust of the people towards the political elite and their unwillingness to support any of the parties. The majority of citizens who choose not to vote do so not so much because they are somehow irresponsible (as if compulsory voting would make them responsible?), but because they do not see a candidate who deserves their vote. In this line of thought, abstaining from voting is an effective tool through which many people declare to politicians: none of you defend my ideas and I refuse to participate in the process that legitimizes the empowerment of individuals whom I consider immoral and/or professing a wrong philosophy. [2]

The attempt of the authorities to oblige voters to vote is in sharp contradiction with the idea of freedom and free choice. It is against all logic for those responsible for the low voter turnout (politicians) to shift the blame onto the victims (citizens), instead of the first to correct their ideas and practices. The introduction of the “obligation” to vote is a move typical of totalitarian countries such as Venezuela and North Korea and evokes a dark memory from our not-so-distant past.

What is the purpose of compulsory voting? Various opinions are creeping into the public space. They range from very specific (to reduce the parliamentary representation of parties with a "solid electorate") to extremely vague and abstract (such as the idea that voting is a duty to society and thus we will strengthen democratic traditions in our country). A realistic look at the situation shows several things:

• Compulsory voting will not bring a new player to the political arena, only more votes and possibly a different redistribution for the well-known parties.
• Compulsory voting will not cause a change in the policies of today's parties - on the contrary, confident that they will be voted for compulsorily due to the lack of an alternative, they will continue to follow the course they have taken.
• The financial aspect of compulsory voting will be the following – state subsidies for parties (from 11 leva per vote received) will become larger – that is, parties will receive more undeserved money from taxpayers. Political parties cost us 35.6 million leva per year after the last elections with a 51% turnout. The calculation with a 90% turnout is not particularly difficult – 62.8 million leva per year. Moreover – if there is a financial penalty for not voting, this would mean a new dose of financial extortion by the state towards its citizens.
• Compulsory voting would distort the process of information transmission – instead of politicians getting the important signal that no platform is adequate for a large number of people, as would happen if we had the right to abstain from voting, that signal would be eliminated because everyone would go to the polls. This would potentially mean even more populism, a total halt to the few positive reforms, and a lower likelihood of a party that pays attention to the views of people who don’t vote.

If those in power are so keen to introduce compulsory voting, it would be a good idea to consider the following suggestion: it would not be bad to include the option “None of the above.” Since democracy is a form of government in which the majority has the final say, the majority should have the right to say that it does not support any of the candidates for the reasons outlined above. Because it is morally wrong to force a person to choose between unacceptable alternatives. [3] However, when we go into a store and we do not like the product there, we do not necessarily buy the least bad product, but simply leave. Because this is the most natural reaction. There is no reasonable reason for there to be any other logic in the democratic electoral process.

Compulsory voting will not make citizens more responsible, more "democratically minded" or richer. It will not reduce corruption, will not increase pensions, will not attract investors. The policies that would lead to such results are completely different. Moreover, compulsory voting is immoral, as it forcibly forces individuals to perform an action they do not want and to defend views they would not defend. Because as the old Bulgarian wisdom says - "Force does not make beauty!".

[1] A more detailed comparison between individual countries that have introduced compulsory voting can be found here.

[2] For a critical analysis of the theses according to which compulsory voting and voting in general is something necessary and right, see the article " For God's sake, brothers, don't vote! ".

[3] On the morality and logic of voting, see the article “ How to (not) vote. Elections to extend the transition.”

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!