Around the world, democratic societies are experiencing a seismic shift toward populist anger. This is a complex problem with many contributing factors, including rising inequality, the proliferation of social media, and the rise of politicians such as Donald Trump. One potentially effective policy solution to this problem is the introduction of compulsory voting.
Elections are the foundation of any democracy. Politicians compete for power by getting more votes than their competitors to ensure that only those with popular support govern. One might naively expect politicians to make an effort to communicate their ideologies and values to the electorate. In reality, however, voters must not only choose their preferred candidate but also decide to participate in elections- a process that can be uncomfortable.
Voting involves effort. The paperwork involved in finding the polling station, visiting the polling station during working hours, and standing in lines is tedious. These inconveniences may seem insignificant, but they are significant enough to make one doubt whether the benefits of voting are worth it.
Moreover, voting offers no guarantee that political goals will be achieved. The outcome of elections, while important, is independent of how individuals vote. Your vote depends on two uncontrollable factors: the number of people supporting your preferred candidate and those supporting other candidates. Your voice is meaningless if your candidate wins by an avalanche of votes or is overwhelmingly defeated. Even in close elections in the United States, more than one vote is needed to succeed. Moreover, the margin of error in voting is more considerable than you might imagine.
This "irrationality" of voting leads many citizens to abstain from voting, even if they favor a particular party. It also highlights the challenges politicians face when trying to secure votes. In a world where the inconvenience of voting is a deterrent, politicians have three strategies at their disposal to win elections:
- convince voters to support them.
- encourage voters to vote.
- discourage the opponent's voters from voting.
The first option aligns with the democratic ideal, in which politicians defend their political views and values against their opponents in open and public debates. However, modern political tactics often undermine this democratic process.
The second option plays an essential role in developing modern democratic politics. Politicians try to motivate their supporters to vote, often using hyperbolic narratives of good and evil that, unfortunately, can distort the political process.
The third option is to increase the cost of voting for those who might vote for the opposition. This can be done by enforcing strict election laws or limiting the availability of polling stations. Although this strategy is undemocratic, it is the logical outcome of a democratic competition in which politicians can influence the cost of voting.
These dramatic narratives encourage voters to go to the polls, offering them a psychological reward that outweighs the inconvenience of voting. This also explains why political advertising tends to be damaging and excessively frequent. Over time, this dynamic intensifies, creating a vicious cycle of increasing partisanship.
A small population finds these narratives compelling enough to adopt them as part of their identity. It tends to vote in primaries, leading to the selection of politicians who reflect their polarized views. What began as a strategy to win votes leads a minority of avid supporters to reject politicians who do not reflect their views.
This partisan escalation has led to the election of populists like Boris Johnson and Donald Trump in democracies. It has also fostered the emergence of voters who take their political discourse so seriously that they reject electoral defeat.
The solution is to focus on the first option: encouraging a competition of ideas. To do so, we need to reduce the cost of voting through automatic registration, setting voting days on holidays, and simplifying remote voting procedures. At the same time, we could impose a small fine for those who do not vote, regardless of where the user is located.
Force citizens to participate in the election process. If citizens were encouraged to vote, politicians could no longer try to persuade or dissuade certain groups from voting. Still, they must develop and communicate effective political programs that resonate widely with the population.
Compulsory voting is not a new concept. Several countries, such as Australia, Belgium, and Brazil, have already introduced such laws. The political landscape of these countries gives an idea of the possible consequences of compulsory voting. In Australia, compulsory voting has led to higher voter turnout (about 90 percent), more moderate politicians, and less polarized public policies. Politicians must appeal to the average voter rather than focusing on radical narratives to motivate their most loyal supporters.
However, this approach has its challenges. Legitimate concerns about freedom of expression and the risk of uninformed voting exist. On the one hand, forced voting violates the individual right not to vote. On the other hand, forcing all citizens to vote could lead to more votes cast without understanding the issues. However, these challenges are manageable.
To counter the fear that forced voting might violate individual rights, we might consider including a "neither" option on ballots. In this way, people who do not want to vote for any candidate or object on principle could exercise their right to freedom of expression without fear of sanctions.
To address the problem of uninformed voting, we might consider strengthening civic education. Schools and community organizations could be crucial in imparting knowledge about the democratic process and the importance of informed voting. At the same time, digital platforms could disseminate information about candidates and their policy proposals so voters can make informed choices.
In addition, compulsory voting could help address the problem of unequal political participation. Studies have shown that wealthier and more educated people are more likely to vote. This tendency leads to policies catering to these groups' interests and increasing wealth and opportunity inequality. By introducing compulsory voting, we can ensure a more equitable representation of interests in political decision-making.
In sum, if the rising tide of populist anger is closely linked to several socio-economic factors, changing voting behavior can play an essential role in reducing its harmful effects. Compulsory voting, combined with measures to reduce election costs and improve voter education, could redefine the dynamics of political competition. The focus would shift from divisive rhetoric and scaremongering to a contest of ideas that would engage a broader population segment. This would promote more moderate politics and policies that serve the general interest rather than that of a genuine minority, ultimately contributing to the health and stability of our democracies.
Art: midjourney.com