OK, OK. Scotland's proposed changes are not remotely that extreme. But it is decidedly different.
The Scotsman - Top Stories - MSP calls for stiff penalties for non-voters: COMPULSORY voting as a way of countering the increasing problem of voter apathy and persuading more of the electorate to turn out at the polls is to be considered by a committee of MSPs. The controversial measures - which could result in voters being fined or taken off the electoral roll if they fail to vote - will be debated by the parliament's local government committee, which is currently considering the introduction of proportional representation (PR) in council elections. The committee members will be urged to persuade Scottish Executive ministers to raise the issue with their counterparts at Westminster, as they would need to bring forward UK legislation if the change is to be made.
... If they need to bring forward UK legislation just to change voting in Scotland ... what on earth does the devolved Scottish parliament actually do, then?
But I digress.
MSPs in Scotland have voiced growing concern about voter apathy following the Scottish Parliament election last May, when just under 50 per cent of the voters turned out. They believe efforts must now be made to ensure there is a marked improvement in the number of people voting and that compulsory voting, while regarded as an extreme measure by some, should be considered.
I suppose the question is: does Scotland consider voting to be a right, a privilege, or a duty? If it's a right, then you should not force people to vote. After all, refusing to choose is, in fact, a choice in and of itself, for "none of the above". Surely it goes against the tenets of a rights-based democracy to force people to exercise that right to choose someone they don't want ... or the person they loathe least, as may be.
If voting is a privilege, then, while it is still somewhat antithetical to require people to vote, it makes sense that not-voting would be penalized. Most democracies treat their various rights as privileges as well. That's why, for example, in this country, people convicted of federal felonies lose their right to vote in federal elections, because they have offended the body politic and that's the penalty.
If voting is a positive duty owed toward the society by its members, however, then it makes perfectly good sense to require people to vote, and to penalize them when they fail to perform this duty. It's pretty much the same thing as people who receive jury summonses but fail to respond; when the society calls on you to perform that duty, you are required to do so, one way or another.
Somehow, compulsory voting does rather seem in line with Europe's form of top-down democracy. Mind, such a system will probably not catch on here, or even ever be proposed. Quite apart from the fact that it does seem rather antithetical to our particular flavor of democracy, it would depend almost entirely on the combination of which party was in power in Congress and which party had a substantial edge in voter registration. In general, although the gap has narrowed quite a bit in recent years, more people are registered Democrats than Republicans; Democrats are also more likely to decline to vote than Republicans. Thus, the Republicans would have absolutely no reason to propose or allow to be passed any sort of proposition for compulsory voting in national elections.
Posted by iain at January 12, 2004 05:27 PM
