In the discussion thread of Latino voter suppression, the idea of compulsory voting was raised.
Though compulsory voting tends to run contrary to American political tradition, there is considerable political science research that supports its value. Perhaps the most common argument against compulsory voting is that it does little good for the polity to force people to vote on candidates who know nothing about the candidates or care very little about politics.
I once heard a presentation by Arend Lijphart at a political science conference on the issue. He compiled an extensive cross-national database among nations that compel the vote (today, there are 32 nations that do so) and found, in part, that when voters are required to cast ballots, even the disinterested often make the effort to be better informed. Apparently, if one has to do it, it is better to do it well than to waste one's time. Furthermore, candidates and parties work herder at getting information to the entire electorate rather than targeted voters.
Other notable conclusions he found:
1. Most compulsory systems levy a small fine, like a parking ticket, for not voting. But even in the face of such a minimal penalty, voting increases by about 7% to 16% over a non-compulsory system.
2. Compulsory voting solves the problem of institutional or ideological factors, such as the Latino vote suppression discussed in this thread, designed to suppress the vote.
3. Non-compulsory voting systems show a large socio-economic bias in turnout.
Craig Holman, Ph.D.
Government Affairs Lobbyist
Public Citizen
215 Pennsylvania Avenue NE
Washington, D.C. 20003
TEL: (202) 454-5182
CEL: (202) 905-7413
FAX: (202) 547-7392