Voting is the process whereby an individual makes an expression of thoughts or choices depending on what suits them most. The expression is always either negative or positive and most often they are expressed through voting on a ballot paper or manual or through an automated method. In most instances, the process is usually automated. The total votes cast are then counted and the winner determined based on the modalities put in place, for example, the winner may be fixed by that individual who gunners the highest number of votes. The winner is always considered to be elected through people’s opinion as asserted by Lever (2010).
Individuals can give their views on several matters within their countries, for instance, people can vote on ideas which can later affect their lives for example on the referendum or an organization where certain amendments or changes are to be made. Citizens can also express themselves democratically by choosing new leaders. This usually depends on the stipulated timeline through which this activity should be undertaken. It is important to note that this activity is a democratic right of every citizen of an individual state. Those eligible to vote are usually of a particular age group and in most countries, those who are 18 years and above are eligible to vote. There are processes which have been put in place to precede voter registration during civic education is done to the members of the public.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to an article in the New York Times dated 17th –January-2017 written by Waleed Aly which states that voting or the process of electing new leaders should be made compulsory to all the eligible voters. He says in the article that the most sensitive decision made in countries are often made by the less unfortunate in the society. This is because they are always the majority in a state. The writer gives an example that among the eligible citizens of Britain, only a small percentage of them voted to make a decision of pulling themselves out of the European Union. Approximately only a quarter of them turned up to vote while the vast majority of other eligible citizens never showed up. He further supports this argument by basing his point on the just concluded election of the United States of America where Donald J Trump unanimously won. It could be noted that only a small portion of the eligible American voters voted for him. Finally, he won in an election where those who turned up to show their patriotism by voting were only a handful.
He states that ‘it is time for democracies to adopt a compulsory voting,' He based his point f view from Australia where the individual can be prosecuted if they fail to turn up for an election in their polling stations to exercise their right. He adds that quite a good number of the citizens of that country have always supported that system without questions and that there is no concrete reason why they should revert from it. According to Mackerras and McAllister (1999), it brings about a lot of issues on which party or political affiliations will get the full support of the citizens depending on how they sell their ideas to them.
According to the writer, it does not necessarily mean that in a compulsory mode of an election there must be a large voter turnout. He further added that this has never determined the side or party which is likely to win an election as those who vote are always scrambled in between. The urge of the Australian people to revert this voting system to the compulsory mode was thus justified. This was after the observation they made in the just concluded American elections where all the aspirants were so much obsessed with the number of those who were to turn up for voting. It can be deduced that the apparent motive for coming up with this compulsory voting mode was to force a good number of people to turn out and vote. This had no consideration for which they should vote for, but the main aim of this is to convince people so that they come in large numbers to vote as asserted by Mackerras and McAllister (1999).
He states, and I quote ‘it is not revolutionary if people see voting not merely as a right but as a civic obligation.' This means that if the process is made mandatory for those who are fit to undertake the exercise, it would no longer be referred to as a right.
According to the article above, I would like to be of contrary opinion to the idea that compulsory voting has most useful than the bad things it carries up with it and should, therefore, be supported. The discussion to vote always is a right. The decision to vote is always a right of the electorate. They should not be at any given point in time be forced to do so. The argument that the writer gives that if the exercise is made compulsory, a large number of citizens will turn up to vote is not valid. The urge to go and vote solely relies on each and every individual and people should not be blackmailed to do so. Depending on the kind of leadership that people have been given under a previous regime, they can always be given a second chance should they convince the electorates depending on their past job. Thus the electorates would always wish to be led by those who have got clear goals and manifestos to change their lives tremendously.
Depending on the way that an electorate performs its duty, for instance, voter sensitization and offering civic education to members of the public, there is no need to compel these people to a compulsory voting system. Provided they are convinced by the ideas of the individuals and their campaign strategies they would both turn up to vote without being pushed. There is no evidence to prove that if an activity is mandatory, all the citizens will turn up to undertake it, in this case, election. Compulsory cannot in any way promote regional distribution in any way, besides it does not make people from some areas to turn up in large numbers to vote for an individual political affiliation.
An election should be free and fair, one which is carried out in a transparent manner. There is no point of making it mandatory for them to turn up for the voting. It would not be fair, and the candidates would not feel motivated to learn and participate in the voting process as intended by the regulation. On the other hand, they view this obligation as a manner of dictatorship to vote for individual whom they would not have voted for under normal circumstances. In most cases does not represent the interests of those who put them in those offices. Things done forcefully always do not end up well and the outcome does not always satisfy the needs of the people. According to my opinion would make a good number of individuals to vote wrongfully, for example, marking two candidates for the same seat twice. This leads a large number of spoilt votes. This to some extent can be considered to be intentional. Thus instead of having electorates who views the whole process as doing certain favors to some other people, they can just be allowed to make their decision on their own. It is important to note that exposing people to a compulsory voting system would not make everybody vote rightfully. There are those who had been discouraged by the past regime with false promises which at long run they do not accomplish. These are the good percentage of people who are always depressed and who usually promise themselves that they would never vote again in their entire lifetime. It is important to note that it is always these people whose votes counts.
It is important noting that at any given point the electorates have the candidate of their choice at heart. At the same time, other people may miss the right candidate at a precise moment in an election period. Making an election compulsory would mean that whether you have a candidate of choice or not you must turn to vote. Depending on the number of these open people who show up to vote, those who have poor leadership qualities may find themselves in public offices. The result would be poor service delivery to the people. The cries of the public are always never considered by such individuals and however much they suffer nobody usually cares to admit them. It has been noted that those who find themselves in offices through such means always use public funds inappropriately having in mind that they may not find themselves in those positions in subsequent elections as stated by McAllister (1986)
The public is not likely to get the original manifestos and ideas of the politicians. This always happens that the political affiliation that markets their thoughts well gets more people turning up to vote. If put into law, the politicians may not bother to put across their grievances which best touch on the lives of the citizens. A good number of voters will turn up to vote them in regardless of whether they are convinced with their ideas or not. They may also decide to put across little points which nobody can question at the end of their period of service. As witnessed in countries where this system has been applied for instance Australia, differentiating those development projects set up by new leaders becomes a problem. It would minimize the right of certain individuals to practice their beliefs well. Some religion does not encourage their members to take part in political activities. By participating in an election already they would have taken part in forming a government already. Coming up with a system which has a breach in the social life of individuals is not fair at all and should not be encouraged. A good system is that which allows people to use their right at will without obligations or any further victimization should they go against it (Bennett, 2005).
The system would impose unnecessary punishment to those who would go against it. Those people who fail to abide by the law are eligible to be prosecuted in a court of law and can be the charge. Election to my point of view is a right, and a person should decide to vote at will without fear of facing charges. A system which exposes people to unnecessary penalties should be abolished. The citizens would thus vote not because they are convinced but because they have fears. This leads to the election of leaders who are not worth holding public offices. In return there would be the lack of trust between the leaders and the electorates and this would lead to the state of unrest. The leaders would be forced to drive those they lead with arrogance.
The system of voting would make the government incur unnecessary charges. Being a compulsory law, it would mean that the government would take those who do not comply into account. This makes them use relatively large sums of money in determining those who did not participate in the exercise. The total amount used in prosecuting individuals who would not comply by the end of the training may be far much less than the total fines that the individuals may be the force to pay. One of the primary purposes of an election is that both of the sides receives fair treatment by forcing people to participate in an election would mean that the one hand is not well considered. Such laws law cannot be considered to be practical at all and should be abolished. It is not just about making laws; they should not be laws which favor one side than the other ( Lever, 2010).
In conclusion, the system is not likely to support applications of rules depending on a large number of people involved. Therefore, it exposes different countries to encourage free votes in the subsequent elections. The voting rules cannot be well implemented due to a large number of people involved and the various levels of education of those involved. From the discussion above the disadvantages of the compulsory voting system are more than the advantages. From the violation of the of the public interests with a system which does not suit them well is a problem to exposing them to incur charges if they forgo the activity are some of the setbacks of this mechanism.
References
Bennett, S. (2005). Compulsory voting in Australian national elections (1st ed.). [Canberra]: Dept. of Parliamentary Services.
Lever, A. (2010). Compulsory voting: a critical perspective. British Journal of Political Science , 40 (04), 897-915.
Mackerras, M., & McAllister, I. (1999). Compulsory voting, party stability and electoral advantage in Australia. Electoral Studies , 18 (2), 217-233.
McAllister, I. (1986). Compulsory voting, turnout and party advantage in Australia∗. Politics , 21 (1), 89-93.
