<<<Episode VII Episode IX>>>

Compulsory voting is a policy that requires eligible citizens to register and vote in elections. The practice has roots in the democracy of ancient Athens, where the social norm was that every citizen had a civic duty to participate in political decisions. Attendance at the assembly was mostly voluntary, though there were cases in which citizens were herded from the agora (public space) to the Pnyx (assembly meeting place) with a stained rope and fined if the stain was found on their clothing. This was done if there were too few people in the assembly for its decisions to be considered valid.[1]

The oldest compulsory voting law that is still in effect dates to 1893. In Belgium, all men are required to present themselves at their polling station on election Sunday.[2] The policy was extended to women in 1948 when they were granted suffrage.[3] Belgian law does not require one to cast a ballot, but those who fail to attend their polling station without justification or appointment of a proxy can face fines. Repeat violators can lose their vote for 10 years and face difficulties in getting a government job.[4] At the time of this writing, 21 countries have compulsory voting laws and 11 countries enforce them.[5]

Supporters argue that compulsory voting promotes political stability and legitimacy[6] while reducing the influence of extremist demagogues[7] and improving representation of marginalized people.[8] They tend to view voting as a civic duty more than a right that one may choose to exercise or not. Opponents contend that mandating participation in democratic elections violates other rights, such as religious freedom[9], freedom to refrain from speech[10], and freedom of conscience. But there is a third position to consider. Let us examine compulsory voting as a tool for undermining the political establishment, and therein find cause to agree with statists for the wrong reasons.

First, simply expanding the electorate to include all adults is no guarantee of quality. In fact, it is precisely the opposite because it eliminates the choice of undecided, uninformed, and/or apathetic voters to stay home on Election Day. When everyone has to vote, regardless of interest or intelligence, there will be a larger vote share cast at random. Compelling such people to the polls is also useful for disrupting the system through satirical candidates, who may gain significant support or even be elected as a protest by those who prefer not to vote. Actually seating a personified NOTA or other joke candidate in a legislature lessens the credibility and efficacy of government, and already has a long tradition in several countries.

Second, an expansion of the electorate means a greater role for money in politics. The more voters there are, the more it will cost to bribe enough of them to achieve electoral victory with money from the public treasury, services provided through government agencies, and various privileges and protections. This will accelerate deficit spending and cause the insolvency of the current system to occur sooner than it otherwise would. Additionally, the new voters would need to be educated on the issues of the day and the candidates seeking office. This may be another government expenditure, or it may be undertaken by quasi-private actors. The former would further add to the national debt, while the latter would formalize financial power relationships as long as campaign finance laws require disclosure of funding sources. A lack of such clarity would further alienate the masses from the governance structure, as it would increasingly appear to be an oligarchic cabal with shadowy financing.

Third, those who support compulsory voting frequently argue that higher voter turnout gives the victors in an election a stronger mandate to carry out their policies. To believe this is to fundamentally misunderstand power dynamics, which is a necessary prerequisite for being a liberal democrat. The reality is that power does what it wants unless a greater power stops it, and uses ideology and propaganda as ex post facto justifications. Democracy is a means of providing the masses with the illusion that they are in charge, which raises their tolerance for expansive government because (at least in folk theory) they could withdraw their consent by staying home on Election Day en masse to disempower the system. Thus, forcing people to vote formalizes the truth that legitimacy comes from power and not from consent of the governed.

Speaking of duress, any legislative law describes behavior, proceeds to either prescribe or proscribe said behavior, then provides consequences for breaking the law. Any compulsory voting law will follow this pattern. Should the law provide sufficiently severe consequences, it may breed contempt for the state, which may manifest in a variety of ways. Most innocuously, there may just be spoiled ballots or protest votes as previously discussed, but there is the potential for much more. Some people who are forced to the polls may register their disgruntlement by voting for whoever they perceive to be the worst major candidate, the greater of two evils, in order to hasten the demise of the current system. This mild form of accelerationism may take decades to pay off, and it is impossible to see what would have happened otherwise, but it could make a difference.

Finally, the best bootlegger’s reason to support compulsory voting is that it could mobilize a base for an anti-democracy movement. A downward fiscal spiral coupled with greater unrest from universalizing the cold civil war that is democracy would create ripe conditions for a governance reboot. The abolition of democracy through the democratic election of a leader who will usher in a new governance structure would be an excellent epitaph for the progressive liberal project. Whether that is a Moldbuggian “true election” that transitions a large state from democracy to empire[11] or a Kokesh-style campaign to dissolve the highest level of government in a peaceful and orderly fashion is of only secondary importance, as the former is likely to devolve into the latter for reasons of good management. This method carries some risks, but as Moldbug explains, these can be overcome by social engineering.

To conclude, introducing compulsory voting into new places is quite unlikely to produce the positive results that its proponents predict. It is far more likely that a liberal democracy that introduces compulsory voting will suffer setbacks in fiscal responsibility and social cohesion. There will be great opportunities for harnessing political discontent brought about by enforced participation as well. Therefore, it is prudent to agree with statists for the wrong reasons when they propose compulsory voting, as it will hasten the fall of liberal democracy.

References

<<<Episode VII Episode IX>>>

Support The Zeroth Position on Patreon!

Like this: Like Loading...