Voting: Why Some US Citizens Choose Not To Participate - Research Paper

Introduction

In the United States, all citizens are allowed to vote. The legal age for voting is eighteen years. However, even though citizens of America have the right to vote, some of them choose not to turn up during election day. People choose not to vote because of various reasons. For example, they might lack an understanding of politics, laziness to go to the polls, busy schedules, and some of them lack trust in the government to an extent they do not feel the need to vote. The debate on the legalization of voting has been rife. Opponents of the legality of voting base their arguments on self-interest and morality. According to them, they have the moral duty to vote, but should not have the legal duty to participate in elections. On a broader perspective, people have interests, which make them vote. The most important interest is political participation and knowledge. Most citizens who do not vote have no interest in political participation. In the U.S. 2018 midterm election, the voter turnout was 65% for women and 68% for men (Misra 1). This was an 11% increase from the 2014 midterm election (Misra 1). Even though the voter turnout went up in the 2018 midterm election, the percentage, 65% was still low. In democracies, proponents contend that mandatory voting is justified because it encourages high levels of voter turnout and alleviates inequalities within different social groups. Also, another argument, which proponents make on the issue of compulsory voting is that it helps to avoid free-riding of non-voters on voters. The debate on voluntary versus compulsory voting has its focus on electoral outcomes. All citizens should be required by law to vote because it would help mitigate low turnout and facilitate the equal distribution of resources among social classes.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Case of Compulsory Voting

Since American citizens fought hard to ensure that every one had the equal opportunity to vote, it is reasonable to say that the law should require citizens to vote. Compulsory voting means high turnout rates. Compulsory voting has no significant costs and it helps to prevent low turnout and unequal representation at the polls (Lever 12). Undoubtedly, because non-voters are free riders on the efforts of voters, such free-riding can be prevented by making voting compulsory. Besides, compulsory voting does not involve any form of threat on voters during election day and for that reason, it is morally justified. In a democracy, particularly the electoral system, there is the aspect of the collective good. Due to the aspect of the collective good, preventing free-riding should be done by mandatory voting.

The case of compulsory voting is democratic in various ways. Lever (12) articulated that mandatory voting is democratic because it is concerned with low and unequal turnouts, which is a reflection of the democratic ideas of the nature of representation, equality, and legitimacy. Furthermore, Lijphart (2) described equality as a floor. In his text, he indicated that equality requires a floor where people cannot fall and a ceiling that prevents them from rising higher than their fellows (Lijphart 2). The author asserted that one person one vote puts a ceiling on voting, considering the acknowledgment of the importance of the ceiling (Lijphart 2). From the author's view, democracies fail to put a floor under electoral participation and the absence of that floor causes serious inequalities (Lijphart 2). Compulsory voting, according to the author, can be seen as such as floor. Compulsory voting strengthens democratic rights and duties of its citizens. As Lever (13) contended, compulsory voting fosters democratic competition for political power and alleviates the problems associated with political parties who seek to represent unprivileged and uneducated members of society. In a country like Australia and Brazil, compulsory voting is present (Bugrain & Portugal 2). The government of Australia and Brazil imposes fines for non-voters. Worldwide, the countries such as Australia and Brazil have a reputation for individualism even with its compulsory voting system (Bugrain & Portugal 2).

Argument for Compulsory Voting

Compulsory voting is necessary for various reasons. When every individual is mandated by law to vote, then it means that the government, which a majority of voters chose, will protect their interests. Additionally, through compulsory voting, the government will have a duty to provide equal opportunities to its citizens since every one of them was obligated to vote.

Legal duties to vote is necessary to protect the right to vote in an event where the state is weak and where there is evidence of unequal distribution of power across states. Bugrain and Portugal (4) argued that mandatory voting allows a country to reach its political competition equilibrium, which will make it closer to reaching its desired policy. As the authors added, areas with low voter turnout are likely to be ignored by politicians and political parties (Bugrain & Portugal 4). They stated that in an equilibrium, the winning political party will likely to reflect upon the preferences of the higher turnout class (Bugrain & Portugal 4). The authors affirmed that in a case where voting is made mandatory, there would be high turnout in poll stations (Bugrain & Portugal 7). Politicians would in turn put that high turnout into consideration when calculating their optimal platforms (Bugrain & Portugal 7). As the authors suggested, high levels of democratic participation would enforce the equal distribution of income across all levels of society.

All citizens should be allowed to vote by law because of the positives it will bring after the election results. Singh (38) conducted a study to investigate whether compulsory voting is linked to vote-seeking strategies. From his theory, political parties are more likely to perceive more utility in emphasizing their stance and ideological positions where voting is mandatory compared to where it is not (Singh 38). The author stated that the relationship between electoral structures and parties' vote seeking strategies are driven by the outcome of electoral rules on the character of the electorate (Singh 38). The author emphasizes that compulsory voting shapes citizens (Singh 38). Political parties usually take in to account the citizen's demographics, attitudes, and political preferences when seeking votes (Singh 38). Due to that, compulsory voting will affect the way political parties and their politicians seek votes. Singh (38) asserted that compulsory rules shape participation and electoral outcomes in cases where sanctions for abstention are steep and enforced. Also, another argument, which the author made is that compulsory voting would instill citizen's civic duty to have political knowledge and interest (Singh 38). Making voting compulsory would, undoubtedly, enhance representation among voters and also increase their political knowledge.

Chapman (101) asserted that elections are significant because they promote democratic values and equal receptiveness. The author contended that compulsory voting is a way of increasing the percentage of voter turnout, which would in turn result in more feasible electoral reforms (Chapman, 101). Moreover, the author claimed that the method of compulsory voting has the ability to reinforce distinctive values during election day (Chapman, 101).

Critics of Compulsory Voting

Critics argue that making voting mandatory is a violation of people's rights of choice, expression, and participation. According to critics, the issue of compulsion in political participation in a democracy is astonishing because some citizens have no interests in politics. Lever (19) stated that citizen's self-interests is an unlikely justification for forcing people to vote. From the critics' lines of argument, citizens have the moral duty to vote but it should not be legally enforced because it would interfere with their freedoms of choice, expression, and participation. Lever (19) contended that to force people to vote on paternalist grounds means that the election of one of the candidates is likely to threaten voters with serious harms, which from the moral perspective, they have to avoid.

The critic's argument has merit. In fact, their argument has comparative weight since not all citizens have interests in political participation. However, when considering the argument that compulsory voting would bring unintended harms to voters, they have to consider that the political parties and candidates are genuinely democratic. Usually, democratic politicians gravitate towards policies that are unequally distributed. Due to that, it would be hard to construe the arguments by critics regarding serious harms during elections. Nevertheless, the benefit of compulsory voting outweighs its costs. The reason mandatory voting has no costs is that the compulsion is to increase voter turnout. Therefore, components regarding liberties of thought, expression, or participation are not endangered. Chapman (102) argued that compulsory voting reinforces the unique and treasured role, which elections play in a contemporary democracy. The argument by critics that voting is undemocratic neglects the importance of voting role in modern democracy. Chaoman (102) affirmed that mandatory voting improves the government's approachability towards marginalized groups, which are less likely to vote. Evidently, the case for compulsory voting rests solely on voter turnout and the equal distribution of resources among all citizens after the release of election results.

The case of compulsory voting is democratic. The reason for this rebuttal for the critic's argument is that in a democracy, the distribution of resources is equal. To ensure that every citizen receives equality in a democracy, it is important to vote. After most elections, most citizens, particularly those who do not vote, often complain that the winning candidate did not deserve their win. Besides, after statistics are produced on the winning margin between the winner and the loser, in most occasions, the winning margin is always slim. To avoid regrets after election, it is significant to cast vote during election day. Failure to vote or not to vote in elections can cause regrets. For this reason, all citizens should be required by law to vote to prevent complaints. Besides that, if all citizens are required by law to vote, then their political hopes and prospects would not be threatened. Individuals can avoid such burdens if the law requires them to vote. Every citizen's vote matters. Failure to vote may mean that individuals face the risk of joblessness, loss of businesses, higher taxes, and loss of state benefits.

Conclusion

Research on the legal duty to vote found that proponents of making voting compulsory believe that non-voters are free-riders who benefit from the good of an electoral system. without a doubt, making voting compulsory for all citizens to solve collective action issues in society is consistent with democratic concerns of the freedom and equality of all people. This paper has argued that people should be entitled to vote in democratic politics on legal grounds. The argument, which the paper makes is that if the government makes voting mandatory, then it would be obligated to ensure that all citizens in every state receive a fair share of resources and equality because they all went to the polls to choose their political party. The paper draws one conclusion. Compulsory voting is superior to voluntary voting. Opponents of compulsory voting should understand that the benefits of making voting legal outweigh its costs.

Works Cited

Bugrain, Mauricio., & Portugal, Adriana. "Should voting be mandatory? the effect of compulsory voting rules on candidates' political platforms." Journal of...