Should voting in national elections be compulsory?

Write my answer and get scored

Compulsory voting divides democracies that otherwise resemble each other closely, which suggests the question is genuinely difficult rather than merely contested. I believe the obligation is justified, though the case against it deserves a serious hearing. Those who oppose compulsion argue from freedom. A vote produced under threat of a fine is not obviously an expression of consent, and a citizen who has concluded that no candidate deserves support is making a political statement by staying at home. Critics add that compelled voters may choose more or less at random, which adds noise to the result rather than legitimacy. Those in favour answer that voluntary turnout is not a neutral sample of the population. It falls hardest among the young, the poor and the recently arrived, so parties learn that they can win by serving older and wealthier voters attentively while ignoring everyone else. Australia, where turnout stays above ninety per cent, shows what changes: campaigns address the whole electorate because the whole electorate will be present. My own position is that voting is better understood as a duty, in the way jury service is. The fine is small, the ballot may be left blank, and what compulsion removes is not choice but the profitable neglect of people unlikely to turn up. A democracy in which non-voting is concentrated among the least powerful is not freer than one in which everybody appears. It simply conceals the exclusion more effectively.