What if We Had to Vote?

Peter Orszag, former director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama administration, recently wrote an editorial in which he advanced the idea of making voting compulsory. Like many forward thinking commentators, Orszag laments the low voter turnout in the U.S. and sees it as diminishing democracy. The fewer the people who vote, the fewer the people who decide the direction of government and and the narrower policy becomes. To remedy the low turnout rates, averaging below 60 percent, (lower for state and local elections) Orszag advances the idea of making voting mandatory in the U.S. Orszag is one of those who see voting as not a right or a privilege, but a duty, and too many Americans are shirking their duty.

Those chagrined by the low voter turnout in the U.S. see it as undermining our democracy by leaving elections in the hands of a small slice of the American population. To the extent that elections are typically dominated by an unrepresentative segment of those eligible to vote, i.e. the White middle class, policy is often skewed in their favor. For those who perceive politics in the United States as a struggle of class, race, and gender, the scales have to be balanced, even tipped.

Orszag and others are correct. The more people who vote, the better our system works, but how do you get people who are disinclined to vote to go to the polls? You cannot throw people in jail for not voting. Pressure must be applied through other means. One method advanced by Orszag is to fine voters who shirk their duty. That is the stick. To soften the burden of mandatory voting some have floated the idea of adding a lottery funded by the fines placed on those who did not show up at the polls. By casting a vote voters would make themselves eligible to win a pot of money. That is the carrot. He suggests that the idea recently put forward by others that a cash incentive in the form of a lottery is worth consideration. Naturally the pot would be filled with the fines placed upon those who refuse to carry out their duty.

The flaw in this theory is that the quantity of votes cast is given greater importance than the quality of votes cast. Driving millions of unmotivated and uninformed voters to the polls will do nothing to improve government. Many would vote by lists given to them by special interests with little or no thought to the issues. Some would likely vote straight tickets out of reflex or simply to save time with little thought given to the candidates or understanding of the issues and only the vaguest understanding of policy. Free health care is good. Candidate Smith supports free health care. So a vote is cast

Orszag asserts that by compelling people to vote we can achieve two laudable objectives: it would decrease the influence of money on elections and ensure that winners would elected by a true majority. Secondly, any money spent to discourage voters from showing up at the polls to support your opponent would be wasted. Obliging people to vote would greatly reduce the effect of special interest groups in getting people to the polls. Since everyone would have to vote there would be no point in spending millions to get sympathetic citizens to turn out on election day. Any weight added by the increase of numbers would be problematic. It would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to sift the informed and motivated votes from the random and coerced ones. 

There is absolutely no reason to believe that our republic would be better off if people were driven and enticed to the polls. Padding elections with millions of uninformed and unmotivated votes would amount to giving winners a blank check. Politicians would claim that their positions were vindicated by the thousands and millions that cast votes for them when in truth it would be nothing of the sort.

Coercing people to the polls will not make our country or our government any better. More than likely it would make things worse. Who would they vote for? On what basis would they choose one candidate over another? Adding millions of uniformed, thoughtless, and reflexive votes would have the effect of writing government a blank check. There would be no additional scrutiny of politicians' actions or examination of policy. There would be no increase in voter awareness. There would simply be more votes cast.

Orszag concludes by stating that compulsory voting would "make our democracy work better" because it would be "more reflective of the population at large." It is unclear what he means by that. If he means ethnically, racially, and sexually his argument is based on a disturbing assumption. Such an argument presumes that each demographic has a peculiar and exclusive interest that can only be represented by politicians who share that distinction. If he means to ensure that the electorate be accurately represented by class and economic interest, he is flirting with a Marxist concept of class struggle except that, unlike Marx, he believes that some sort of compromise between competing interests can be found. That compromise might be construed as a "common interest", but it might also be little more than a demarcation line. Once the balance of power shifted, the struggle would begin anew.

There is a great deal of rhetoric about voting being a solemn duty. The fact is, it is not. It is a right and a privilege. As such, people are free to choose whether they want to claim their privilege and exercise that right. The choice is theirs.

Compelling and bribing people to cast a vote will not make our democracy work better. It would only make it look better.