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 an article of Harvard International Review, underlined
by yours truly Sasaki, and think about 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.
Low
voting rates will lead to tyranny because it is a sign that people are not
watching those in power. (Japan)
2.
Forced
voting is not a form of true democracy, which is “a government of the people by
the people for the people” (Abraham Lincoln).
3.
Civics
classes must be a required subject before making voting required to increase voluntary
voters.
Civic
engagement
1.
“Just
because you don’t take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take
an interest in you.” - Pericles
2.
People
who are poor, who will most benefit from political reforms, are the least to
vote. (‘Voting is not on their radar': lowest turnout predicted in poorest
areas – The Guardian) Mandatory voting will give them a chance that they will
appreciate in the end.
3.
Other
means for higher turnout such as a referendum on daily issues that accompanies the
election would be more effective. (Michigan)
Representation
1.
The
change of demography of the U.S.A makes more progressive candidates elected. The
current majority of America are either non-whites, women, or the young, in other
words, the anti-Trump demography. (The 202p U.S. Presidential Election, The
2022 United States Elections)
2.
Poorly
informed, uneducated citizens will vote for a wrong candidate or agenda.
(Tokyo)
3.
Good
candidates will mobilize voters. (Obama, Bernie, and Kamala)
☆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 their 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. If there is a
referendum on mandatory voting, probably it won’t pass. No one likes to be
controlled. Rather, accessing needs and interests of the constituents and
connecting them to politics by getting them to realize that everything in their
lives is related to politics will lead to active civic
engagement, which 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 movements; 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. In this circumstance, compulsory voting may have an inverse effect on
civic engagement. Active pursuers of their best choice, or least horrible
choice, are exceptions. Most people will 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, for example, a reelection of a corrupt
incumbent by reducing the votes for the challenger who can correct the
corruption.
【Conclusion】Therefore,
compulsory voting does not seem to be a good cure for indifference to politics,
or low civic engagement. (318
words)
☆Sample Answer
Structure
Thesis
Supporting Details
Why the advantages/disadvantages
don’t matter
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。