Recently there have been a number of policy proposals in popular discourse aiming to address a perceived problem in the US democratic system. The problem is that of "voter turnout", the fraction of eligible voters who actually vote. (This is contrasted with the slightly more nuanced "registered voter turnout", the fraction of registered voters who actually vote. The latter is less meaningful due to self-selection among registered voters, especially in the US where registration is manual and voting is not compulsory.) Compulsory voting and related measures such as automatic voter registration are employed in many OECD nations with the intention of bolstering voter turnout for national elections. The data show that the US lags behind a significant majority of OECD nations in voter turnout. Further, the data unsurprisingly suggest a positive correlation between compulsory voting and related measures, and voter turnout.
 |
| [interactive chart available here] |
Low voter turnout may be considered advantageous if one's policy preferences clashes with the would-be aggregate votes of the abstaining population. Certainly the National Rifle Association has cause to be glad when you don't show up to the polls, considering that 92% of US voters support universal background checks for gun purchases [1] [2]. However, being more democratic (or at least appearing so) ought to be desirable for a nation which claims to be a democracy and derives much of its identity from this claim (important: 'nation' here is shorthand for 'collection of residents/citizens' and I don't mean to ascribe personhood to a nation).
Intuitively, higher voter turnout seems more democratic, or perhaps more just, because it suggests a result more representative of the population. Those familiar with statistics may rightly counter that a sample sufficiently representative of the entire population may be as little as few thousand persons. They may also object that increasing voter turnout may be less democratic if it results in a less representative sample of voters. Despite these objections, I maintain that higher voter turnout must be more just. Why? Read on.
Consider first the opposite: selectively restricting voter eligibility. This is a lingering issue, though much less than it was the past (e.g. Jim Crow). Forgetting the moral implications for a moment, restricting votes this way is legally impermissible because:
(1) The powers of a democratic government are derived from the consent of the governed, and voting restrictions preclude such consent.
(2) The equal protection clause provides for equal protection under federal law.
It is this concept of the consent of the governed that will clarify what attitude we should have toward compulsory voting and related measures to increase voter turnout. It is clear from (1) that there is a close relationship between the act of voting and the attitude of consent. Eligible voters who abstain engage in passive consent, subjugating themselves to the collective will of their peers.
Active voters engage in an authoritative relationship with the body of law, effectively demonstrating an attitude of affirmative consent (Those familiar with issues of sexual misconduct will notice I have borrowed a term which to me seems applicable here). Those who vote may not agree with, nor abide by the whole body of law. However, by contributing to the political process they explicitly demonstrate their consent to be governed. This collective consent alone justifies the power of a democratic government to enforce the law. Since affirmative consent is stronger than passive consent, it must be the case that a higher voter turnout results in a more just system of government. Therefore, if we desire a more just system we ought to enact policies such as compulsory voting to increase voter turnout.
*I know I may have belabored an uncontroversial point, but my goal was to bring attention to a significant issue in the US and to examine our intuition regarding this point. Thanks for reading!*
(1) The powers of a democratic government are derived from the consent of the governed, and voting restrictions preclude such consent.
(2) The equal protection clause provides for equal protection under federal law.
It is this concept of the consent of the governed that will clarify what attitude we should have toward compulsory voting and related measures to increase voter turnout. It is clear from (1) that there is a close relationship between the act of voting and the attitude of consent. Eligible voters who abstain engage in passive consent, subjugating themselves to the collective will of their peers.
Active voters engage in an authoritative relationship with the body of law, effectively demonstrating an attitude of affirmative consent (Those familiar with issues of sexual misconduct will notice I have borrowed a term which to me seems applicable here). Those who vote may not agree with, nor abide by the whole body of law. However, by contributing to the political process they explicitly demonstrate their consent to be governed. This collective consent alone justifies the power of a democratic government to enforce the law. Since affirmative consent is stronger than passive consent, it must be the case that a higher voter turnout results in a more just system of government. Therefore, if we desire a more just system we ought to enact policies such as compulsory voting to increase voter turnout.
*I know I may have belabored an uncontroversial point, but my goal was to bring attention to a significant issue in the US and to examine our intuition regarding this point. Thanks for reading!*
Hey Great post.
ReplyDeleteCompulsory voting seems problematic. Recall that voting is a positive right that we have in virtue of being citizens of America, similar to the right to free speech or freedom of religion (of course, we have these rights not solely in virtue of being American citizens but also because we are humans). However, each of these rights can also be viewed as a "negative right", if you will. What i mean by negative right is the right not to utilize some positive right. Thus, while I do have the right to freely choose my religion, i also have the right to not assent to any theological belief. I may have the right to freedom of speech, but i also have the right to hold my tongue, so to speak. Similarly to voting, while i have the right to vote, i also have the "negative right" to not vote.
Also, forcing people to vote might actually infringe on their religious-politico beliefs. Suppose i am an anarchist that is disguised with America. Or suppose I am a certain sort of radical that believes that America was built on exploitation and, therefore, i refuse to engage the political process. If there was a law forcing me to engage the very process that I actively disassociate myself from, then it seems that that law, namely the law of compulsory voting, is infringing on my religious-politico belief (indeed, i include "religious" because certain peoples antipathy towards the American system may have some cosmic element to it).'
Also, it seems that the argument for compulsory voting presupposes that voting is a essential constitutive part of our lives as citizens. But, one can make the argument, that free speech is also an essential part of our lives as citizens. It follows, that the same logic for compulsory voting can be use to force people to utilize their freedom of speech. However, that just seems odd to force people to utilize their freedom of speech because, again, the very act of speaking could be against someones religious beliefs (i.e. someone who takes a vow of silence). But also, like mentioned above, the positive right to freedom of speech entails the right not to speak. Thus, forcing someone to speak or forcing them to vote seems problematic.
Thanks for reading & for this constructive comment. A few points I'd like to make in reply:
DeleteGenerally I agree with your claims. In fact, the title to this post was first going to be "Compulsory Voting and Related Measures" because I intend to make a normative claim about policy goals, not a claim about the pragmatic, moral, or legal status of particular policies such as compulsory voting. In the context of my claims you are free to substitute "compulsory voting" for "making election day a national holiday" because the policy goal is the same.
Since you covered some legal and moral problems with compulsory voting, I'll say a bit about the pragmatic concerns. From the Wikipedia article on compulsory voting: "[In Brazil, voting is] compulsory for literate citizens between 18 and 70 years". I recall reading an anecdotal account from a Brazilian citizen which suggested that this policy leads to apathetic voters supporting celebrity and parody candidates. It seemed the case that this has actually led to multiple elections of such candidates. Clearly there are legal, moral, and practical problems with compulsory voting.
I find your assertions about "negative rights" to be especially compelling. To deny such rights would have pernicious consequences such as allowing prohibition of atheism and/or agnosticism. People generally seem to have an intuition for this, but many fall short of applying it to the right to life. An honest admission that positive rights entail negative rights results in the conclusion that individuals have a right to end their own life. Of course there are other considerations such as soundness of mind, but largely there does not seem to be popular support for this right even when soundness of mind is not in question.
Interesting that you applied the concept of negative rights to an inalienable right, namely, the right to life. As you well know, our government recognizes three inalienable rights which include: Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. If "inalienable" rights are no different than the rights enumerated in the Constitution then surely the "negative right" concept could be applied. However, there seems to be a problem with that and it is this: Lets suppose I have a son that is dying of a terrible condition. There is no doctor in the whole world that can save him except this one doctor, say, in Iowa. Suppose I fly to Iowa and ask if he, the doctor, could save my son. He asserts that he will only save my son if and only if after he saves him, I will be his personal slave for the rest of my life. Suppose I agree and we get the agreement in writing. Alas, he saves my son and I become his personal slave for the rest of my life and he could do whatever he wants with me. Would any judge honor that contract? Moreover, am I really his slave? Can I really forfeit my inalienable right to liberty and willingly become someones slave? Intuitively, there seems like there is something wrong with this thought experiment, namely, that I can't forfeit my liberty even if I so desired.
DeleteI say all of this to assert the point that applying the "negative right" concept to inalienable rights presupposes that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are of the same kind as the inalienable rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence; it may be that they are of the same kind but I think an argument needs to be provided.
I'm not sure that the inalienable rights discussed in the Declaration of Independence are the same kind as those outlined in the Bill of Rights. Still, I maintain that the concept of negative rights applies to both sets of rights. I think it is reasonable to assume that negative rights apply to all rights unless provided otherwise by law.
DeleteIn your thought experiment, it is correct that such a contract would not be upheld today in the US. However, this is due to an explicit ban on indentured servitude. Barring this law, such a contract would be upheld in court because it otherwise meets the four basic criteria: mutual assent, consideration, capacity, and legality.
In your example, you are forbearing an inalienable right in exchange for some reward. To count as possessing a negative right you must be permitted simply to forbear the right in some case. If you are not be permitted to forbear it as part of a contract it may still be the case that you can forbear the right under other circumstances.
With respect to liberty: any felon willfully forbears his right to liberty, at least temporarily. Further, the law does not prevent an individual from imprisoning himself in a cage of his own and thereby removing his own liberty. Any person may engage in sloth and cease the pursuit of happiness without fear of legal repercussions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete