Why mandatory voting is a bad idea: A debate with Andrew Coyne

Don Lenihan's Public Voice(s)

The text below was used as speaking points by Don Lenihan in a November 10 debate with Andrew Coyne hosted by the University of Ottawa.

Greetings!

I’m delighted to see you all here today. Thank you so much for coming out.

I’d also like to thank Roland Paris and the Centre for International Policy Studies for hosting this event and Kate Heartfield for generously agreeing to moderate.

Now, although I’m arguing against mandatory voting, it is NOT because I think this infringes on personal freedom, as many people argue. Andrew has already done a fine job of answering them.

Like him, I regard the question as more practical: do the benefits outweigh the costs? In my view, they do not.

To make the case, I want to start by looking at two key arguments in favour of mandatory voting; then go on to say why I think the reasons for opposing it are much stronger.

Let me start with what I’ll call the “apathy view.”

People in the political establishment often say young people don’t vote because they are apathetic or ignorant—or both.

In this view, youth need some help to set them on the right path. Mandatory voting provides a “nudge” that should help them develop the right voting habits and mature into responsible citizens.

Now, while I agree there is apathy out there, I think this is far too simplistic. For one thing, there are lots of other—and possibly better—ways to nudge youth to vote, such as education, get-out-the-vote campaigns or e-voting. Why not ramp these up instead?

My deeper objection, however, is that study after study concludes that young people actually aren’t that apathetic. Many are public spirited, want to contribute to society, and care about their fellow citizens.

The real issue is that they don’t see traditional politics as relevant or as an effective way to pursue the issues they care about.

This poses a question: if youth don’t’ find politics relevant, whose is at fault? Are they failing the political establishment or is it failing them?

I want you to think about this for a bit. I’ll come back to it before I close.

My second argument for mandatory voting is what I’ll call the “fairness view.”

Youth are not the only voting group with low turnout. Aboriginal people and people living in poverty also tend to stay home.

As a result, party platforms pay less attention to these groups. Why bother to court their vote if they don’t show up at the polls?

By contrast, political parties do court groups that have a higher turnout rate, such as seniors.

The result, say some observers, is unfairness in policymaking. Seniors get more than their share, while nonvoting groups like youth get less.

Mandatory voting is supposed to fix this by putting these “unused” votes into play. If candidates know that youth or aboriginal people have to vote, they’ll be far more likely to propose policies that court them. Over time, this will change the mix and result in greater fairness.

I must admit that I find this line of argument intriguing and I think there is something to it. Andrew seems to suggest the same in his comments on “representativeness.”

But in the end, I think the fairness view promises much more than it can deliver.

Consider the appalling rates of unemployment, incarceration, income, illness, mortality and suicide among aboriginal people. Most of us would agree that somewhere the policymaking has gone terribly wrong.

But does anyone really believe that forcing these people to vote will lead to a significant realignment of the policies behind this tragedy?

I don’t. The issues of unfairness here have very deep roots in the political system and it will take a lot more than mandatory voting to resolve them.

So how much difference would mandatory voting make?

To be fair, the jury is still out on that but, frankly, I’m not very optimistic. And I think most aboriginal people would feel the same.

I think something similar can be said about the fairness argument and youth.

When we ask young people why they don’t vote, they say things like: “I don’t believe it will make any difference?” or “Politicians are only in it for themselves.”

The usual response from the political establishment is that this is naïve and uninformed, but is it?

When young people turn on the TV or go online, what do they actually see or hear about how politics is done?

They are confronted with hyper-partisan debates; constant campaigning; negative ads; an endless barrage of talking points and spin; policy decisions that get made in a black hole or reflect short-term political gain, rather than the public interest; the latest scandal over Rob Ford, Senator Mike Duffy or the sexual impropriety of MPs.

Looked at through this lens, it is not hard to see why youth doubt that politics has much to offer them.

I don’t mind telling you that I keep flirting with this view myself.

Nor do I see any obvious reason to think that mandatory voting will do much to change these practices.

Like the issues around aboriginal unfairness, they have deep roots in the political system.

In fact, the growing dysfunction in our politics is part of a long-term trend that appears to be reaching a crisis point.

Let me show you a slide that was recently produced by Frank Graves from Ekos Research:

The blue and green lines show a stunning drop in the number of Canadians and Americans who trust their national governments to do what is right.

According to these figures, over the last 50 years trust has plummeted from a high point of about 78% down into the low twenties here in Canada, and the teens in the US.

I think this is the real story behind falling voter turnout.

Citizens’ willingness to vote is directly linked to their trust in government to do what is right. Voter turnout is declining because people are losing faith in the political system.

This should be of grave concern.

If people are not voting, they are not giving their consent. And if they are not giving their consent, they are not legitimizing the electoral process.

This has real consequences. A weak mandate makes it harder for a government to implement controversial decisions, such as to send our troops to war, legalize same-sex marriage or cancel the long-form census.

It also explains why mandatory voting has become an issue today.

Voter turnout is the key indicator of a government’s legitimacy and it threatens to go into freefall. Mandatory voting looks like a quick and easy way to reverse this trend.

It is not. Mandatory voting is a classic case of treating the symptom rather than the cause.

It focuses our attention on low voter turnout and then uses compulsory participation to artificially raise the numbers.

This will solve nothing. The real problem is not the low numbers, but the loss of trust behind the numbers—and mandatory voting does nothing to fix that.

On the contrary, artificially high voter turnout is likely to make things worse, for at least two reasons.

First, it gives the political establishment an excuse to go on with business as usual.

Second, it perpetuates the myth that falling voter turnout is the fault of the voters, rather than the political establishment.

This gets things exactly backwards. The reality is that voter turnout is falling because the political system is broken.

Without full clarity on this point, politicians will never find the courage or the will to fix it—which brings me back to the question I posed at the outset.

I said youth don’t see politics as relevant and I asked you to think about who has failed who.

I think we know the answer. The central message in falling voter turnout is not about the apathy or ignorance of youth or the insularity of First Nation communities.

It is about the public’s growing contempt for politics as they see it.

Recognizing this puts the ball back in the politicians’ court. It calls on political parties to stop blaming the public and start asking how to rebuild the relationship, especially with youth.

There are no shortcuts here, no silver bullets. The changes needed are far-reaching and will take deep resolve.

We have a long way to go to achieve them, but if we want our democracy to endure, I really don’t see that we have a choice.

Thank you.

Dr. Don Lenihan is an internationally recognized expert on democracy, public engagement, accountability and service delivery. Since 2009, he has been Senior Associate at Canada’s Public Policy Forum in Ottawa. From October 2013 to April 2014, Don served as Chair of the Ontario Open Government Engagement Team. The views expressed here are those of the columnist alone. Don can be reached at: Don.Lenihan@ppforum.ca or follow him on Twitter at: @DonLenihan