Why Compulsory Voting is Not the Answer

SUMMARY

• Electoral turnout in the UK is low and uneven. Compulsory voting has been advocated by The Constitution Society, Labour Together, and the IPPR.
• But universal turnout on its own will do little good if people are unjustly excluded from the franchise to begin with or if the electoral system fails to reflect how people vote.
• Before we force people to vote, we should ensure that their votes will be meaningful.
• Compulsory voting will not be enough on its own. We need electoral reform.

David Klemperer has recently advocated ‘Australian-style’ compulsory voting in two reports for The Constitution Society and Labour Together. He argues that this measure would revitalise British democracy, by increasing and equalising electoral turnout. This would give politicians more incentive to cater for those currently less likely to vote, including the young, poor, and ethnic minorities.

Klemperer proposes the introduction of a legal obligation to vote, backed by the threat of a small fine (£10) for those who do not. This obligation is tied to a particular conception of citizenship, in which rights come with responsibilities. Nonetheless, Klemperer permits some exceptions. First, he concedes that it may be impractical to extend the requirement to British citizens living abroad. Though they now retain voting rights indefinitely, they would not be under a legal obligation to vote. Second, he also suggests that exemptions could be allowed for those with conscientious objections. (It isn’t entirely clear what might qualify, given his claim that compulsory voting does not impinge on freedom of conscience.)

An Unrepresentative Electorate?

Klemperer objects that UK elections are currently decided by an unrepresentative electorate, who are generally richer, older, and whiter than the population as a whole. It is true that voters differ from the wider population. However, this is not only because of differences in turnout; it is also a consequence of electoral eligibility. Most obviously, voters must be above a minimum age (whether that be 18 or 16). Thus, age difference is not down to turnout alone. Eligible voters are older on average than the whole population, which includes younger children.

The most that compulsory voting can achieve is making those who actually vote more representative of the eligible electorate. However, this highlights the importance of electoral eligibility. Groups that are excluded from the franchise, such as many immigrants, will be unrepresented even with full turnout. Representing their views would require extending the franchise, rather than compulsory voting. The result could represent more people, even if the turnout rate (as percentage of eligible electors) were to fall.

Conversely, the existing franchise might also be over-inclusive. For instance, some think it wrong that expatriates are enfranchised, because they are less affected by domestic decisions. Indeed, some expatriates may choose to abstain for this reason. Nonetheless, since they are eligible to vote, their abstention would lower turnout, despite making decisions more representative of the UK’s resident population.

There is little point in worrying about turnout amongst eligible voters if the eligibility rules are wrong in the first place. So, the first thing we need is to get clear on who should be represented in British democracy. Otherwise, we risk giving voice to the wrong people.

Electoral Reform

Another problem is that the UK electoral system systematically fails to reflect how people vote. There are two reasons for this.

First, MPs are elected by plurality. That is, the candidate with most votes wins, even if they do not have a majority (over half the votes). This means one might win the seats, even though most constituents would have preferred another candidate. For instance, two left-wing parties might each take 30% of the vote, leaving a right-wing candidate to win with 40%.

Second, even if each MP did have majority support in their constituency, the system of single-member constituencies can still produce disproportional results overall. Even in a two-party case, one party could win a legislative majority with little over a quarter of the popular vote. (That is, just over half the vote in just over half the constituencies.)

In consequence, many votes are wasted or rendered largely meaningless. Many people find that their votes are unlikely to make a difference, because they live in safe seats. Even if they do vote, they might find themselves torn between voting for what they really want and voting tactically. It’s unsurprising then that many people see little point in voting. In such circumstances, forcing them to do so is unlikely to achieve much. Indeed, it might even lead to greater frustration and cynicism, when people find that their votes make little difference.

While Klemperer does discuss electoral reform, he argues that it would not be enough on its own to solve the problem of low and uneven turnout. He concludes that compulsory voting would still be needed, even with other reforms. However, I suggest that it is wrong to judge electoral reform on the basis of turnout.

Turnout matters because it affects government responsiveness. Low turnout need not be a problem if it were representative. In this case, government might still be responsive to the national interest. On the other hand, high turnout would do little good if the government simply ignored how people had voted. This is what might happen without electoral reform.

Therefore, I would reverse Klemperer’s conclusion. Compulsory voting will not be enough, on its own, to ensure government responsiveness. We need electoral reform. Moreover, I suggest that this reform should come first. There is no justification for forcing people to vote without assurance that their votes will matter.

Conclusion

I agree that there are problems with the UK’s democratic system, but compulsory voting is not the answer. Forcing people to vote will almost certainly increase turnout, but this will simply paper over the cracks. Universal turnout on its own will do little good if people are unjustly excluded from the franchise to begin with or if the electoral system fails to reflect how people vote. These are more urgent issues to address, before we worry about turnout.

One might respond that compulsory voting is still needed as well as these other reforms. However, government time and energy are limited resources. I would suggest that they should be focused on the more pressing problems. If these are resolved, we may see more representative and responsive politicians, without compulsory voting.