In
recent years, voter turnout has been declining in many democracies around the
world. This trend has led to growing concerns about the legitimacy of elected
governments and the health of democratic systems. One proposed solution is to
make voting compulsory, as is the case in some countries. Should voting be made
compulsory? Discuss the potential benefits and drawbacks of mandatory voting,
considering its impact on democracy, civic engagement, and representation.
☆Let’s Read
Read
the following excerpt from and article of Harvard International Review, picking
up why mandatory voting is recommended and what problems can be expected.
Compulsion
Emboldens Democracy: A Deep-dive into Australia’s Mandatory Voting 12/10/2023
Expanding to Democracies Around the
World
As a direct comparison to the turnout at past Australian referendums,
the United Kingdom’s referendum to leave the European Union only had a 72.2
percent voter turnout. The lack of voter turnout appears to plague many of the
most prominent countries in the world. In India, 67.4 percent of eligible
voters voted in the 2019 election. In the United States, 66.8
percent of eligible voters went to the booths in the 2020 election. To further
prove the lack of voter turnout, Canada had
a 62.6 percent turnout in the 2021 elections. Democratic governments are
founded upon the people’s voice, but when nearly a third of the population is
left out of the consideration in a country, it is hard to call the country
democratic.
Australia’s model, which will be on display in the upcoming
referendum, could possibly serve as a mechanism by which to increase
participation across the world; however, transposing the Australian voting
system to democratic systems across the world requires a conversation within
the respective countries among its citizens and the government on the way in
which it is implemented.
A common argument made against accessible elections is the
possibility of voter fraud and the reduction in democratic security; the
potential trade-off requires a consideration about the different mechanisms
that should be implemented to achieve both simultaneously instead of having to
comprise one. In Australia, voter fraud was found to be fairly low because
of the methods they have instituted behind the scenes to confirm votes and to
reduce the likelihood of fraud including digital cross-referencing. On the
surface, voting is largely accessible, but the intensive review process
provides security on the back-end: accessibility and security do not have to be
mutually exclusive.
The benefits of compulsory voting does not mean the implementation
can be completely uniform. Voters in every country often go through personal
struggles that limit their ability to vote, do not agree with any of the
candidates running for election, which might necessitate the need
for blank ballots to be an option for citizens as a sign of protest,
or simply cannot afford the punishments that would ensue if they are unable to
vote. So while the system is rigid, it ought to be fluid enough for people to
avoid being trapped: they cannot vote, and when they do not, they cannot afford
the punishment. The ultimate goal of compulsory voting is to maximize the
amount of people interested in the voting process—not contribute to people
loathing it because of the punishments they face.
When implementing a voting system, countries have to seriously
consider the difficulties citizens face when attempting to vote in their
country. Who are those citizens? The people who work on weekends because they
do not make enough for a two-day break might require a national holiday; the
people who live in areas that do not have polling stations nearby; the people
who need access to public transportation to reach the booths; the people who
are simply disinterested in the democratic process because of a lack of
political education, or even the people who are unaware about voter
registration. Implementing drastic policy change requires intensive policy
analysis to ensure people do not get left out of consideration.
In the end, regardless of the voting model adopted by countries
across the world, the bottom line is clear: the means for people to vote in an
election are crucial for higher voting rates.
☆Let’s Think
1.
What
are the voting rates in Japan?
2.
Why
is low voter turnout bad?
3.
What
are the advantages and disadvantages of mandatory voting?
☆Hints for Points
True
democracy
1.
Forced
voting is not a form of true democracy.
2.
Civics
classes must be a required subject before making voting mandatory.
Civic
engagement
1.
People
who are poor, who will most benefit from political reforms, are the least to
vote. Thus, mandatory voting will give them a chance that they will appreciate
in the end.
2.
Other
means to attract people to the poll station such as referendum that
Representation
1.
Poorly
informed, uneducated citizens will vote for a wrong candidate or agenda.
2.
Good
candidates will mobilize voters.
☆Sample
Answer
【Thesis】I
don’t really agree with mandatory voting. Though Eliza’s logic that higher
voting rates reflect the will of the public may apply to a working democracy,
the real world won’t work that way, where people are not properly informed and are
discouraged from choosing the best candidate for them. In the worst-case
scenario, it could be a good tool for dictatorship. Russia and North Korea are
proud of extremely high voting rates of their presidential elections.
【Supporting
Details】Providing
correct information and education about politics and candidates to promote
voluntary voter participation is necessary as Tim says. Democracy is government
of the people by the people for the people. If there is a referendum on mandatory
voting, probably it won’t pass. People don’t like to be controlled. Neither are
they ignorant. Rather, accessing their needs and interests and connecting them
to politics through realization that everything in their lives is related to
politics, in the way that is often said that although you are not interested in
politics, politics is very much interested in you, will lead to active civic engagement that will realize good
representation and true democracy.
【Counterargument-treatment】In
an ideally democratic world, voters would be well-informed through the media
that check candidates’ legitimacy, political visions, and specific strategies;
good election campaign like accessible townhall meetings and direct contact
with the candidates; active union rallies; and individual citizens’ actions.
But actually, the corporate media report either little or false information
about elections, and as a result, people’s interests are focused on daily
matters (‘Voting is not on their radar': lowest turnout predicted in poorest
areas – The Guardian). In this circumstance, compulsory voting may have an
inverse effect to civic engagement. People who try to learn who is their best
choice, or least horrible, are exceptions. Most either vote for who is said to
win or resort to a blank voting, which is not very different from abstention and
so it’s bad for democracy because it contributes to the reelection of corrupt
incumbent just by reducing the votes for the challenger.
【Conclusion】Therefore,
compulsory voting does not seem to be a good cure for indifference to politics,
or bad civic engagement. (351
words)
☆Sample Answer
Structure
Thesis
Supporting Details
Why the advantage of the Other
Choice is not important
Conclusion
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿
注: コメントを投稿できるのは、このブログのメンバーだけです。