Experimenting with compulsory voting
Let’s find out whether it works
This blog has long argued that for governance to improve more citizens must vote. So what should we make of the Gujarat state’s decision to make voting compulsory in all local body elections?
Constitutional and philosophical reasons apart (see Pratap Bhanu Mehta’s op-ed for this) this is an interesting experiment and it will be valuable to see what it leads to.
Narendra Modi, Gujarat’s chief minister and a proponent of compulsory voting calls it a “historic move to strengthen democracy” that will take “drawing room politics to the polling booth level.” But Mr Modi might be making the OMIPP—mistaking correlation for causation.
High voter turnouts might bring about responsive accountable governments because voting rate is a sign of an engaged electorate. But forcing everyone to vote might not have the same effect, because the people are merely forced to queue up and press a button on the voting machine—they are not being forced to “engage”. A non-engaged, apathetic electorate when forced to vote, might vote randomly, whimsically or spoil the ballot.
So compulsory voting might be equivalent to introducing a political wild-card without necessarily improving governance outcomes. The effect might vary ward by ward, constituency by constituency and region by region—it’s hard to answer the question of “who will it benefit?”
The experiment should be allowed so that we can add empirical evidence to the list of criteria we use to assess whether the idea of compulsory voting is a good one.
Will you allow Eugenics because it is interesting?
Setttng aside philosophical objections is as silly is this case too.
This highlights the advantage of federalism. I would oppose compulsory voting on a national level; but it’s a fine experiment on the local level. If it works–it can be scaled up. Otherwise, it can be discarded with little harm done.
Look at Nitin Gadkari–his attempt at BOT in Maharashtra is now the dominant thinking for road building. We need to expand the scope of local bodies to experiment in this fashion (as Gujarat has done in other areas as well) and publicize the successes and failures at the local level for other states to examine.
I don’t see how such an assault on basic freedom can be seen as interesting. I am sure you are aware of all the arguments, slippery slope etc. This is not only silly, its dangerous. Modi must be really careful as anyway he is termed ‘Fascist’ by opponents
Putting this another way, the experiments can’t include taking away rights and thereby alter the very definition of a government. That’s not just out of bounds, it’s been done several times in several places at various points across human civilization.
I have a conspiracy theory… The real reason this is being attempted is that the BJP knows that its main support base is the middle class and obviously the middle class have the poorest record for voting turnout. It is simply a method to boost its chances of capturing power. Though I say conspiracy theory, I see this as a very real motive behind the move.
-Pradeep
Agree with Nilu – citizens are not guinea pigs. If I do not want to vote, I do not want to vote.
But if it is being done, there must be an option of “none of the above”. (One thing we do not understand is those who do not vote is because of logistical/laziness reasons or not-good-enough-candidate reasons)
Harsh,
The test of what is permissible is constitutionality. If it is constitutional—and even Pratap Bhanu Mehta concedes that it might not be unconstitutional—there is no harm running an experiment to see if it leads to better governance. Remember local governments being the “laboratory for policy innovation”?
Of course, we can debate whether something ought to be constitutional or not. But that is an altogether different debate.
Nitin,
Its a smart move to make it compulsory at the local lvel, since the participation can be tied to benefits like good water supply to that house.
PPl are not going to vote, just because there is a law that says its compulsory. The main question ppl will be asking is – if I dont vote, what will modi do? How is he going to punish me? or enforce the law? If ppl find out that current supply, water supply are tied to the vote in a very direct and clear way…they will vote
Umm, neither you nor Mehta is an expert on Constitutional Law. So, what you are left with is the ought to part. Sadly. Or happily, as the case may be. And a blog is not a court of law, so what people will discuss here is the ought to part. And you endorse the experiment by invoking the ought to aspect.
I am just baffled how you shifted to what is from the ought to.
Always amusing to see people opposing anything different and new that the Indian system throws up. Heck, an increase in income tax or sales tax or VAT or GST is arguably a greater & material assault on individual freedom, but that is acceptable because that has always been the case.
But someone trying out a new idea in political reform is violating freedoms. I would say some of our commenters are an indulged lot!
Udayan, you seem to not differentiate a system’s extent from scope.
I may disagree with both but the differentiation is still important.
Agree with Nitin. Let’s find out whether it works.
From this interview with Modi (see after 3 minutes, when speaks in Hindi), it appears that there won’t be any punitive action; but there will be some incentives — like, those who voted will get some preference over those who haven’t voted when it comes to availing various services.
The “ought to” part is not an “altogether” different debate by any stretch. You have taken a stand that this experiment “should” be allowed. Your post is not that mandated voting is constitutional because of such and such Supreme Court precedents. Therefore, if you have taken a normative position, others should also be allowed to reply with a normative position.
Local govts (or state govts, as Arpit notes) should be laboratories of democracy indeed. But there is more nuance there as not anything goes at sub-national units – some individual rights are deemed inviolable even at lower levels of government. Will you allow slavery at the municipal level? No. In American jurisprudence, for example, there is a concept called “incorporation” which means some individual rights trump federalism.
Therefore, the debate gets reduced to whether being forced to move one’s sorry ass to the voting booth is enough of a violation or not.
You have taken the stand its not enough of a violation. Fair enough.
I have taken a stand it is.
@Ranjith
“there won’t be any punitive action; but there will be some incentives — like, those who voted will get some preference over those who haven’t voted when it comes to availing various services.”
That is definitely an improvement.
Now, if they would have an option of “None of the above” it would be an even bigger improvement.
Yet my basic premise is that if someone does not want to vote for whatever reason, he should not be penalized. We are a republic – not a pure democracy.
Some of us who feel like it to have a say in how to run the republic. Some of us do not want to avail that opportunity.
And that is how it should remain in a free country
India as it is has a flawed democracy. IMO any move that can take India towards a more matured and perfect democracy should be welcome.
Regarding your aprehension that “A non-engaged, apathetic electorate when forced to vote, might vote randomly, whimsically or spoil the ballot “.
Who are we to judge what peole would vote for?
One person commented “But if it is being done, there must be an option of “none of the above”. ”
Similar provision already exists even in general elections, pity some are not aware.
@udayan
It is always a sign that you have lost the debate, when you indulge in ad hominem attacks.
You call me and others who oppose compulsory voting an “indulged lot”. I have in fact written a fair bit about taxation issues, and being a moderate libertarian have almost always opposed tax increases. I have also proudly voted whenever I have been in my constituency.
But even if I was a person who wanted tax increases and did not vote, your attacks remain unwarranted.
@nilu
People who talk about eugenics while discussing voting shouldn’t go on about extent and scope and suchlike. The simple point is compulsory voting is trivial compared to the everyday subtractions from individual liberties that we suffer.
@sanjay.
I think you are referring to 49-O. Maybe it is the same as “None of the above”, but I remember it being somewhat different. But I am not sure.
@harsh
Citing American jurisprudence is neither here nor there. Are you saying that principle applies in India? If not, what’s the point?
Talking about eugenics or slavery is besides the point. What’s that got to do with a discussion on voting?
@udayan
I said it is called “incorporation” in American jurisprudence. It might be called something else in Indian. The concept is important, not its nomenclature or genesis.
My slavery example was about incorporation for Nitin/Arpit. You can ignore it.
For you, this is the relevant summary. I think it is a grave infringement of liberty. You might think it is not. Fine. We can agree to disagree, right?
Or should I still expect some name calling
And, Udayan, just because “bigger” infringments of liberty exist and people might not roll back them easily or even realize that they are infringments in the first place, does not mean that we allow a “smaller” infringement to be also enacted.
You can still support complusory voting, but giving the above reason is illogical.
@harsh,
Yes i am refering to 49-O, which can be used by those who want to vote for “None of the Above” as well.
Harsh,
Wrong. I do not take a normative position. In fact, I explicitly set aside that discussion because it ends up in a fanciful discussion of what ought to be. I’m sure it will be an interesting discussion, but I’m afraid I neither have the inclination, the energy nor the expertise to get into that. Hence the choice of words “constitutional & philosophical reasons apart.”
Having said that, I’m not framing the issue fancifully or with certitude: it might not be unconstitutional and it has already been enacted, so it’s a real issue not a hypothetical one.
So you could perhaps oppose the move on constitutional grounds or on other philosophical grounds. Maybe the courts will rule it unconstitutional. Maybe they won’t. I’m merely saying that it’ll be interesting to see what it does to governance. It’s nicely ringfenced so it’s a nice democratic experiment.
Nitin,
“The experiment should be allowed so that…”
This is a normative position
Sanjay,
49-O is not an answer to a fundamental position — I do not want to vote.
If you want to say the cost of my citizenship is that I should vote by law and cannot have the liberty not to, we have different ideas of political dignity with regards to an individual. I do not intend to give any government the right to set my personal schedule.
As Harsh said earlier, Federalism does not trump the argument of individual liberty simply because the individual is last unit in that chain — not a state or local government. Not even a street council or a family member for that matter.
Harsh,
Forgot to add: I agree with Udayan on what he says about American jurisprudence and the bit about slavery.
Unless it applies to India it doesn’t serve any useful purpose in this discussion. The invocation of slavery is merely the use of a combination of Schopenhauer’s 19th and 32nd tricks. Slavery is neither constitutional nor a subject of this discussion, so it is totally irrelevant.
LOL.
Why is an opinion that an experiment should be allowed to achieve an end not normative?
A non-normative position would have been
“Compulsory voting is happening. Given that its happening, its results on governance would be interesting to study” With this, I would have fully agreed.
The moment you said it “should” be allowed, you took a normative stance – notwithstanding your earlier disclaimers.
Slavery was an example of individual infringement. Its sensationalism overshadowed my point, so my bad choice.
Let me Indianize the example – should municipalities be allowed to ban inter-caste marriage?
And I am not withdrawing the Eugenics example because if the only parameter to allow an experiment is “interest” with its cost being individual liberty — eugenics fits right in there.
Harsh
The moment you said it “should” be allowed, you took a normative stance – notwithstanding your earlier disclaimers.
Wrong again. It would have been normative if the statement read “Compulsory voting should be allowed.” But I state that it should be allowed so that we have empirical evidence we can use to take the normative position of whether it should be allowed or not.
Nitin,
That opinion is normative because that “experiment” will curtail individual rights, and by endorsing the experiment you endorse the curtailment of the individual rights.
You cannot endorse curtailing individual rights, and then say the curtailment of individual rights is a philosophical issue that is off-topic.
Nitin,
Your reasoning is funny.
It does not matter for what reason you endorse X, you still endorsed X. And by endorsing X, you took a normative position
Nitin,
“When a person calls something—call it R—a reason for doing X, he expresses his acceptance of norms that say to treat R as weighing in favour of doing X. ”
That’s how the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines Normative expressivism. In this case your R and X are well defined. Now, please explain how Harsh is wrong.
Harsh,
Of course, such an experiment will be an infringement of individual freedom, but the edifice of a state (yes, even a republic) is constructed on some infringement of some freedoms. The question of whether and to what extent a freedom can be infringed is answered in the constitution. In this case, I presume (but am not certain) that the constitution allows it.
If you find the reasoning funny, you still have the uncurtailed freedom to laugh at it.
Now you want to shift the argument to absolutist positions! Did you not say even the ought to was another debate altogether?!
Moreover, Nitin, to address even your specific reason – if you will endorse X based on data of “X-light” (the state-level experiment) then you have already endorsed X from a normative point of view.
You have only not endorsed it from a positivist point of view, which you will depending on the data of X-light.
And if the data is also favorable, you will then not reject X. Hence the normative question will not arise in this sub-case.
Therefore, even in this special case of X-light and X, you have normatively endorsed X and not just X-light.
Nitin, I was just responding to your “lol”s and “wrong”s.
Just to conclude the discussion from my side – given that it is happening, the econometric analysis of the data should be interesting indeed. Did it lead to better governance?
But I am afraid to get conclusive trends will take a long time-series and multiple states, so if compulsory voting does happen on a national scale eventually – it will not happen or not not happen based on Nitin’s desire for better development, but on partisan calculations.
@ Nilu,
Individual liberty can not be unlimited, especially when it is in conflict with larger interest. A society has the right to define fundamental duties, you may call it the cost of enjoying your rights. Everyone can’t have his cake and eat it too.
Cant resist one more comment.
@Sanjay – you really want to force me to choose between super-egotistical Mamata, India-hating Communists, pseudo-secular Congress, and increasingly regressive BJP in the 2011 Bengal elections?
Yaar, have some pity. I would vote for anybody who just reads – just reads – INI over those buffoons.
@ Harsh
>> “you really want to force me to choose between super-egotistical Mamata, India-hating Communists, pseudo-secular Congress, and increasingly regressive BJP in the 2011 Bengal elections?”
The bill intends to clip the wings of the very parties who despite not deserving to be in power are able to do so, one of the reason being low voter turnout. whether it will achieve that objective or not is debatable, some might say “let’s do it and see”, but citing individual liberty over all else or maintaining status quo will certanly not change anything.
@ Sanjay
You are right. Citing individual liberty, if loudly enough, will certainly not change current voting laws. And that is what I want!
But, you can have the last word between us. We both want development and better politics – we may disagree over the means. In addition to that, I put some measures outside those means. You might not.
Sanjay, I agree with you on the fact that individual liberty is a function of a complicated equilibrium between the individual and the state/ society. Which is exactly why the government ideally cannot and practically should not usurp my individual rights. Just as I will not and should not and cannot say I have a right dump mercury on my own land.
You may disagree over the means, but you can help a great deal by giving an alternative which can result in better development and politics without infringing on individual liberties, but i certainly don’t agree with the “means” you want to adopt to stall the change.
Nilu,
agreed, govt should not and IMO does not usurp anybody’s rights without very good reasons to do so, you’ll find most of the fundamental duties infringing on someones rights, but that’s another debate, though not unrelated, isn’t it?
Things to ponder :
1. Australia, Switzerland etc. have compulsory voting…and these are pure/evolved democracies .India , on the other hand is a partial democracy and yet to evolve .How does one reach the conclusion that what is beneficial for an evolved democracy is detrimental to a partial one?
2. does the right to education include the right not to get educated ? ..got it?
3.How rational is the premise that the 40% people who vote today are doing it rationally ?…if you know the answer, how rational is it to assume that forcing them to vote will spoil the ballot.Agreed ..for a couple of times some people will vote in their ‘resentment’…but do you really think that it would reflect in the third poll??
4.We guys get a holiday on voting day….a compulsory holiday ..how many of you are opposing that compulsory holiday!??
So is Nitin agreeing with the basic definition of normative expressivism now? In that case will he say he takes his endorsement of the experiment back?
Individual liberty can not be unlimited, especially when it is in conflict with larger interest. A society has the right to define fundamental duties, you may call it the cost of enjoying your rights.
Who the HELL are you or for that matter any one else to decide “larger” interests ? Who gave you that power/right? And whose larger interests are we talking about here ? i suppose it is yours and is cloaked under garbage like “society”.
Society does not have “rights”. Individuals do. Your lovely society may one day decide that it will be well served if say a particular caste was restricted to performing one set of duties. like it already has done with casteism.
The bill intends to clip the wings of the very parties who despite not deserving to be in power are able to do so, one of the reason being low voter turnout. whether it will achieve that objective or not is debatable, some might say “let’s do it and see”, but citing individual liberty over all else or maintaining status quo will certanly not change anything.
There are solutions to this problem without circumscribing individual liberty.You dont cut your face to spite your nose.
This blog has opined that if you want to see changes in governance, you may want to compete in elections – local body elections would be better than state or national to begin with. Show leadership and give people your thoughts on how to improve basic governance.Make an effort, whether you succeed or not.
Remember, not voting in an election goes both ways – you have the freedom to say that you dont want to vote for any one – but at the same time you have to implicitly accept that you cannot complain much about how bad it is. If you want to change the status quo, you cannot remain on the sidelines.
All of this can be attempted before we start using coercion to force citizens to vote.
As Fredreick Bastiat reminds us – laws are meant to be DEFENSIVE i.e. defend individual rights. Using the law to coerce citizens against their own free will is a slippery slope to tyranny.
Sanjay,
Here is my article about anti-defection laws which presents an alternative to revolutionize politics – and by extension, development in our country. link
I am amazed and confused at some of the “indignant” feeling among readers for losing their rights not to vote. The tone of debate feels as though we live in a free society like say Sweden or something(I have never been outside my State..much less India..I am assuming Sweden as a hypothetical heaven..;-)).But though we professed libertarianism..and even pretend to enjoy individual freedom, let me break it to you that our social/legal system is still very much oppressive.eg:Live-in relationships,adultery is punishable by law,trade union goondaism is prevalent,compusory to wear helmets and seatbelts(though in Indian roads..seat-belts are useless & helmets disrupt situational awareness),honor-killing is considered cool and just,repulsive amount of sexism,pornography is banned(after 26/11..even viewing is banned),consensual sex is “banned” outside marriage,there is brutal corporal punishment and abuse at schools and colleges etc etc..comes to mind. I love voting and does at every chance..since that is the only tool I got..In western countries..similar middle-class apathy lead to special interest groups to consolidate their power. Will Harsh vote if there is none of the above option is there?..Harsh & Nilu are clearly living in some gated communities with lots of freedom..I presume..Dont see much around here..
Btw I am from kerala..
I see a lot of intellectual masturbation going on here. So if you don’t like to vote but are compelled to, what’s the big deal? Go and cast an invalid vote. Or demand a “none of the above” option (which you should be doing at any rate, whether compelled to vote or not). What is the refusal to vote supposed to signify, apart from being lazy-assed, that is? Rejection of democracy? Long live the Revolution?
Being coerced to vote is no more serious an infringement of individual ‘liberties’ than the legal requirement to NOT appear naked in public. Walking around without clothes is liable to get one arrested, and I haven’t seen any freedoms-lover getting hugely upset about it.
@Nagarajan Sivakumar,
>> Who the HELL are you or for that matter any one else to decide “larger” interests? Who gave you that power/right? And whose larger interests are we talking about here? i suppose it is yours and is cloaked under garbage like “society”.
I have no powers, rights or such illusions to “decide” larger interests, but the govt certainly has the mandate to do that.
>> Society does not have “rights”. Individuals do.
May be not, but it does have a jurisdiction, and IMO it is well within its jurisdiction.
>> If you want to see changes in governance, you may want to compete in elections – local body elections would be better than state or national to begin with. Show leadership and give people your thoughts on how to improve basic governance. Make an effort, whether you succeed or not.
Thanks, but my hands are full. And i don’t buy the argument that if I don’t hold a position of power I can’t ask for a change.
>> As Fredreick Bastiat reminds us – laws are meant to be DEFENSIVE i.e. defend individual rights. Using the law to coerce citizens against their own free will is a slippery slope to tyranny.
Aren’t there laws which are contrary to Fredreick Bastiat’s template? When fundamental rights are already defined in the constitution, do we need any more laws to defend them? Why have them at all?
@ Oldtimer,
nice one. i’ve been ROTFL.
@ Oldtimer,
Regarding public nudity, I could teach you the difference between public and private property rights, but I decided not to. You see I am “lazy”
@Sanjay,
I once again request you to kindly explore other alternatives to reform the political culture. Repealing of anti-defection laws, campaign finance laws, and so on.
@ Kannan,
I will definitely vote if there is a “None of the above option” in the Bengal 2011 elections. I have so far voted for a supposed center-right party, but I am gravely disappointed of late with them.
And you are absolutely right, we do not have libertarianism in India. But does that mean that we cede even more liberty? Maybe we should, maybe we should not – but why would we cede liberty because we have already lost a lot of it? Why would that be a smart thing to do?
Btw, Kerala is a great place! In many ways, especially in winter, it is better than Scandinavia:)
I think compulsory voting, repealing of anti-defection laws and campaign finance laws address different “ailments” that our flawed democracy suffers from, some of them infringes on individual liberty some don’t, I would welcome all of them in whatever sequence, and if at the end we get closer to a healthier democracy, a little inconvenience once in a couple of years is worth it by me.
Sanjay, I think that is a reasonable summary on your part. Thank you for considering other options also.
But, I must say once again that any “results” you will get from this “experiment” will NOT be conclusive since you would need more states and a longer time period, to be reasonably sure about the effects of compulsory voting. And if does get implemented throughout the nation, it will be because of partisan reasons – not academic reasons anyway.
The BJP might think there is a silent Hindu majority, the Congress might think there is a silent majority waiting for more NREGA kind of entitlements.
It could still be useful for democracy, notwithstanding individual rights et al, but please be sure that will NOT be a criteria at all. We would be lucky if the interests of democracy and politicians coincide.
If the public vote was actually an accurate feedback on the performance of the politicians, maybe this makes sense. If we look at the history of Indian elections (state and central), there is no such correlation.
If the real reason for the re-election of a candidate over and over has nothing to do with competent governance, then it seems unlikely that forcing more people to vote will necessarily translate to good governance.
For example, Madhu Koda’s wife won the elections in Jharkand today — that is the level of lack of awareness (or maybe it is just parochialism) among the Jharkand public of why Koda or anyone associated with him should not hold public office on their behalf.
>> Who the HELL are you or for that matter any one else to decide “larger” interests? Who gave you that power/right? And whose larger interests are we talking about here? i suppose it is yours and is cloaked under garbage like “society”.
I have no powers, rights or such illusions to “decide” larger interests, but the govt certainly has the mandate to do that.
I think you have not heard of the phrase “consent of the governed. Governments are not given “mandates” – they are given the duty to protect individual liberties and govern by the rule of law. And none of these “mandates” are an open invitation to use co-ercion and limit individual rights.
India is a republic ,atleast in theory. Not a mobocracy.It is stunning how people are ready to fall at the feet of “Government”. Not to mention disgusting.
>> Society does not have “rights”. Individuals do.
May be not, but it does have a jurisdiction, and IMO it is well within its jurisdiction.
Sanjay, i think we have very fundamental differences of what society is and what its powers are.
I am confused by your use of the term, jurisdiction with respect to society.
>> If you want to see changes in governance, you may want to compete in elections – local body elections would be better than state or national to begin with. Show leadership and give people your thoughts on how to improve basic governance. Make an effort, whether you succeed or not.
Thanks, but my hands are full. And i don’t buy the argument that if I don’t hold a position of power I can’t ask for a change.
Who said you could not ask for change ?You can shout for change from the rooftops, but dont be surprised if you are ignored by politicians of all stripes. What then ? Let me guess, you will vote for the “other” party ? What happens if they are no better or worse than the previous thugs in power? Havent we seen this in India too much already, no matter what state you are in ?
If you are content to stay on the sidelines, then its your problem. There are people who take up leadership and propose solutions, ideas – not just wait for some angel to hand it to them on a silver platter.
Even if you dont want to run to elected office, you can take leadership positions in your community. Start out somewhere – but know this. It is always better to be involved then passively waiting for some pol to rescue you.
>> As Fredreick Bastiat reminds us – laws are meant to be DEFENSIVE i.e. defend individual rights. Using the law to coerce citizens against their own free will is a slippery slope to tyranny.
Aren’t there laws which are contrary to Fredreick Bastiat’s template? When fundamental rights are already defined in the constitution, do we need any more laws to defend them? Why have them at all?
I am not exactly sure at what you are getting at. Neither am i sure if you even understood what i meant.
So, let me rephrase – laws are not meant to co-erce people against their own free will when they have not caused any harm – physical, material, or otherwise in any quantifiable way to any one else.
They are meant to protect individual liberties and govern by known and well established rules – not ad hoc ones that are spung up by politicians who are looking out for their own benefit .
I am not asking for any new laws that protect my right not to vote/participate in my election. I only ask people to respect my liberties and freedoms in the same way that i respect their’s – even if they dont agree with me and my philosophy to life.
You can always disagree with some one but respect their opinions. And respect is not shown by coercing people to think the way that you do or you would like.
So Sanjay, if you dont agree with me and are therefore open to co-ercing people to vote in elections, I am not going to co-forcibly try to change your mind. That would repudiate my philosophy. Not to mention that the only body in this universe that has LEGALLY ALLOWED coercion is Government.
Unfortunately, you dont afford me that chance – you not only think that compulsory voting is fine but you want to shove it down my throat. And you say that this is all good because…. it is in the “jurisdiction” of society !
Btw, you still did not answer my question about casteism – Do you think that society is well within its jurisdiction to decide who must be doing what job? do you think a Govt could be given “mandates” to do what it thinks its best, even if these ideas are flawed ?
In other words, where does the power of Government over you as an individual citizen end ?
I see a lot of intellectual masturbation going on here. So if you don’t like to vote but are compelled to, what’s the big deal? Go and cast an invalid vote. Or demand a “none of the above” option (which you should be doing at any rate, whether compelled to vote or not). What is the refusal to vote supposed to signify, apart from being lazy-assed, that is? Rejection of democracy? Long live the Revolution?
@OldTimer, your post signifies the problem that i have been trying to illustrate – it may not be a big deal for you, but it surely is a big deal for me. I am not going to go all the way to a polling booth to cast an invalid vote when i am free not to choose any idiot on the ballot.
You can be judgemental all you want of me being lazy – but at the end of the day, no one can force me or any one else for that matter to act against their own free will.
In short, allow me to decide what is a big deal or not a big deal in my life – you can do what ever you want in yours.
Being coerced to vote is no more serious an infringement of individual ‘liberties’ than the legal requirement to NOT appear naked in public. Walking around without clothes is liable to get one arrested, and I haven’t seen any freedoms-lover getting hugely upset about it.
That you would even venture to offer a silly fifth grader analogy, when there is a serious debate going on about the nature of relationship between Government and individual, tells me why Governments can continue to abuse their powers and toy with people’s Constitutional freedoms.
By the way, I must ask both you and Sanjay to answer the following questions.
A) How will this law be enforced ? Do we have cops going out to each and every home and forcing them to go and vote ? Saddam Hussein seemed to love that idea.
B) What happens if i dont vote – i have now “broken the law”. What is the punishment that will be meted out for my desecration of democracy ?
If the public vote was actually an accurate feedback on the performance of the politicians, maybe this makes sense. If we look at the history of Indian elections (state and central), there is no such correlation.
If the real reason for the re-election of a candidate over and over has nothing to do with competent governance, then it seems unlikely that forcing more people to vote will necessarily translate to good governance.
@SR Murthy, you probably are the winner of this thread ! You have actually made a very persuasive argument as to why this idea is deeply flawed – of course people seem to be 100000% sure that this is constitutional in the first place – but even if you get past that, you have shown the practical limitations.
For example, Madhu Koda’s wife won the elections in Jharkand today — that is the level of lack of awareness (or maybe it is just parochialism) among the Jharkand public of why Koda or anyone associated with him should not hold public office on their behalf.
That example was the icing on the cake – It is nothing more than mob rule and false pride – we saw this with Laloo Prasad Yadav, Mulyam Singh Yadav… omg, Yadav becoming a CM, is a huge thing for Yadavs no matter how good or bad he is. Mayawati is a similar example – Dalits blindly vote for her.
>>That you would even venture to offer a silly fifth grader analogy, when there is a serious debate going on
It is a “silly fifth grader analogy” only because you have no answer for it. Try some logic instead of passing unsolicited editorial judgement.
The larger point is that there already are laws that ought to get you all worked up for being potential compromisers of individual’s “free will”. Yes, the requirement to wear clothes is one. Kannan pointed another: the rule mandating bikers to wear helmets. How about seat belts? For that matter, why should one pay taxes? As we all know, Thoreau preferred to go to prison than compromise his free will on the subject of taxes. I don’t see compulsory voting being any more of a nuisance than any of these laws, as long as your only opposition to it is the fifth-grader excuse of being lazy.
But if you indeed have some serious argument, such as non-vote being a tool for repudiating democracy, I’m all ears; and please do focus on how your alternative system where one doesn’t need to vote or wear seat belts offers perfect protection for individual free will without the slightest exception.
>>How will this law be enforced ?
They have been doing this in some countries (eg: Australia) for quite some time now; maybe we could begin by studying their system?
@ oldtimer
you still have not replied to the public vs private property rights point regarding the public nudity example.
regards
“A non-engaged, apathetic electorate when forced to vote, might vote randomly, whimsically or spoil the ballot”
Probably the worst, least thought-out blog on the consistently brilliant Acorn.
Engagement and interest will follow, not precede, the increased voting.
“The people don’t know what they want, because the people don’t know what they can get”- Akio Morita
>> you still have not replied to the public vs private property rights point
Can you elaborate that point? And explain how it applies to the law prohibiting public nudity?
@oldtimer
you have more or less complete freedom to do what you want on private property unless you harm others (although there is zoning etc.)
on public property you cannot do anything you wish
so i was just pointing out that your example of banning of public nudity was not a good example of an anti-liberty example. but of course it is easy to come up with anti-liberty example, in which case you can revert to my previous argument that we can choose to give up the liberty of not voting, but it should be for some reason other than that “hey, we already do not have X liberty, so why oppose losing Y liberty”
regards
@ Nagarajan Sivakumar
Let’s not miss the woods for the trees. We are neither debating about the definition of powers, rights or jurisdictions, nor to decide the constitutionality of the compulsory voting law. One need not even be literate to decide what’s good or bad for him and the society (by way of voting every individual does that), it is about the pros and cons or merits and demerits or may be even the ethicality of such an act. I hope you get the gist.
@lexferanda: “Engagement and interest will follow, not precede, the increased voting. ”
Could you expan on that please? What is the reasoning a common man will have if his compulsory vote continues to make no difference to his existence?
This possibility is likely even if compulsory voting is made the law. Such elections may still end up throwing up guardians of parochial interests rather than the best candidate to serve the public interest.
I see no motivation for the common man to believe that participating in the system pays dividends if there is no change in his/her quality of life after every election. However, just because not voting would be “breaking the law” under compulsory voting, a petulant voter might just vote arbitrarily and the apathetic voter would just do a mental “eenie meenie mynie mo” and push some button.
I fail to see why people think human behaviour can be changed through legislation. If that was the case, there would be no crime. What kind of law can make people behave responsibly?
Harsh,
As far as I know the laws forbidding public nudity have nothing to do with the public nature of the property on which the nudism is exhibited. The nude body is the private property of the owner after all.
These laws implement a social code that considers public display of nudity as offensive. In other words, naturalist X is forced to dress up against his free will so that he may not offend the sensibilities of Y and Z.
human behavior is complex, compulsory voting may not be able to achieve its desired objective partially or may be even at all, if there is a way of finding that accurately, that would have rendered voting obsolete, however, there may be a point. but it should not not be enacted because some people feel that it’s useless.
@oldtimer
nitin is going to be really pissed (how to all discussions end up at nudity ; ),
but you are only partially correct. if you are naked on your roof – then is it your fault that someone else can see you? on this, maybe laws differ from country to country.
but i am pretty sure that if you have a huge estate, you can do what the hell you wish
on the other hand, even if you are in a depopulated national reserve forest, I am guessing some officer could still prosecute you for “obscenity” etc.
therefore, the public nature of the display does matter, but private/public property matters even more.
anyway, we have truly “stripped” this debate to its “bare” bones. merry christmas.
I guess I’m late to the party. I have a question to you folks. Let’s say three guys contest in the election – Person A, person B, and person C. A and B are corrupt the core. C is an independent candidate whom no one has heard of. Let’s say that everyone in the constituency is forced to vote. 30% of folks vote for A. 25% of folks vote for B. 5% vote for C. And 40% use the ‘49-0′ option which means they do not want to vote for anyone.
In this situation, who will be considered the winner? Person A, obviously. Isn’t this exactly what is happening now? Even if the voter turnout is just around 40%, the person who gets the maximum number of votes is declared the winner. Our system does not consider the fact that a majority of people are apathetic. So, even if we have a 100% voter turnout, things are going to remain exactly the same. Instead of saying that 60% of the people didn’t come to the voting booth at all, we might say that 60% of them didn’t choose to elect anyone.
The question is – what difference does it make?