In a recent Bloomberg OpEd, former Obama OMB director Peter Orszag argues that the US should have compulsory voting.  Great idea!  Just like Australia!  Oh -- and Argentina, Lebanon, Egypt, and Congo, as Ilya Somin points out at the Volokh Conspiracy.  Somin more or less destroys the notion that compulsory voting somehow produces better governance, or a more virtuous citizenry.  But even if compulsory voting led to good outcomes, why on earth should anyone be compelled to vote?  Why should the apathetic and ignorant (ie, the people who currently don't vote) be dragged to the polls?

Comments:


Virshu
Joined
Feb '12
Virshu

So, Orszag says that US should have compulsory voting. And Holder says that "of all the freedoms we enjoy today none is more important, or more sacred, than the right to vote". But why? Ilya Somin, Eugene Volokh, and yours truly come from the land where 99% of people voted, and 99 of those voted for the candidate of "united bloc of communists and non-party members". From Karl Lueger to National Socialists in Germany to Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt - worshiping the sacred right to vote more often than not leads to disastrous results.

And it's not just in Barbaric places like Gaza and Austria (sarcasm intended). In post-WW2 Europe people voted themselves higher and higher benefits, with fewer and fewer votes cast by those who paid for this seemingly never-ending party.

~Paules
Joined
Jun '10
~Paules
Adam Freedman:  Why should the apathetic and ignorant (ie, the people who currently don't vote) be dragged to the polls?

1.  So that they can be indoctrinated on how to vote.

2.  So that they can be lined up against a wall and shot if they fail the indoctrination.

Pretty simple, really.  Yeah, I'm feeling punchy tonight.  Must be the Margaritas.  

Mel Foil
Joined
Jun '10
Mel Foil

Is historical and political ignorance more the exception, or more the norm? I think too much the norm. Compulsory voting--not a good idea.

Jaywalk All-Stars (11/9/11)
http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/video/jaywalk-all-stars-11911/1367563

Image110
Sisyphus
Joined
Jul '10
Sisyphus

Funny you should mention the name Bloomberg in this context. Overreaching bozos who elevate there narrow views of civic virtue to a moral imperative require a good solid application of derision and mockery. If I had directed Obama's OMB, I would leave it off my resumé and try to convince potential employers I had spent the time in federal prison for embezzlement to improve my employment chances.

Stephen Dawson
Joined
Mar '11
Stephen Dawson

Hey, how about Greece? Compulsory voting has produced excellent results there.

And to be fair Lebanon isn't entirely compulsory, only for men.

Stephen Dawson
Joined
Mar '11
Stephen Dawson

Mel, are Alisha, Zach and Paige 'celebrities'?

Mel Foil
Joined
Jun '10
Mel Foil
Stephen Dawson: Mel, are Alisha, Zach and Paige 'celebrities'?

They're "Jaywalking" celebrities. Jay Leno goes out on the streets of LA to ask passersby hard questions, like "what continent is Alaska on?" And they might say, "Russia..."  That's how they get to be "all-stars."

David Williamson
Joined
Mar '11
David Williamson
Adam Freedman:   Oh -- and Argentina, Lebanon, Egypt, 

They are gonna have another election in Egypt?

Well, anyway, if the Government can force you to buy health insurance they can surely force you to vote (and eat Broccoli and not drink giant sodas).

Why this week is kinda important for the US.

tabula rasa
Joined
Jun '10
tabula rasa

I'm all for the apathetic or lazy or uninformed staying away from the polls. They're doing us all a favor by not injecting their cluelessness into the electoral process.

kylez
Joined
Sep '10
kylez

So i guess pretty much all you have to say to someone on this is "oh, you mean like they do in the Congo."

KC Mulville
Joined
Jan '11
KC Mulville

"The so-called paradox of voting, [...] occurs because the probability that any individual voter can alter the outcome of an election is effectively zero. So if voting imposes any cost, in terms of time or hassle, a perfectly rational person would conclude it’s not worth doing. The problem is that if each person were to reach such a rational conclusion no one would vote, and the system would collapse."

No. 

  • If each person were to reach such a rational conclusion ... and had no way of knowing what others would do, acting in complete ignorance of everyone else ... then maybe no one would vote. 
  • But, obviously, the tide that flowed out also flows in. Once you believed that no one else would vote, your vote would suddenly become decisive and powerful.

Both assumptions depend on a lack of communication, which takes an artificial suspension of disbelief to make the point of the example. So when Orszag follows that graph with: 

Mandatory voting solves that collective action problem by requiring people to vote and punishing nonvoters with a fine.

... he's imposing an onerous, real-world solution for a problem that doesn't exist in the real world.

Tom Lindholtz
Joined
May '10
Tom Lindholtz

I'd suggest a counter-intuitive interpretation of poor voter turnout.  A low voter turnout may be an indication that the voters are generally satisfied with how things are going, so they have no pressing issues about which to register their vote. 

Evidence supporting the thesis includes both phenomena such as the Tea Party; people who vote because they are concerned about certain issues such as political policies.  Also, the high turnout among Blacks to vote; people seizing on an opportunity to elect someone with whom they particularly identify.  Contrasting evidence includes libertarians who are rather unhappy with both political parties and, at least threaten, that they will withhold their vote entirely; people who are insufficiently concerned about any issue to motivate them to vote for "the lesser of two evils."

Raw Prawn
Joined
Mar '11
Raw Prawn

I suspect a change to compulsory voting would not make much difference to the outcomes of elections.  Pundits would have a few different things to talk about,  such as the informal vote and the donkey vote, but the parties would quickly learn how to manipulate the system thus preventing any net change in results.

Over the years Australian and state governments have tinkered with the system to make it "easier" to vote.  Not surprisingly changes always have the effect of deterring anything but a straight party ticket vote.

Skarv
Joined
May '10
Skarv

Maybe the Democrats will agree to a compromise? How about: All votes are considered Demomocrat votes and you only have to vote if you want to change your vote.

Voila, less people inconvenienced, guaranteed power for D and a handy list of the "people's enemies".


Joined
Apr '11
Mrs K

And will there be an exemption for those who can't participate in the political process for religious reasons like the Jehovah's Witnesses? Or will they be compelled to show up at the polls to turn in a blank ballot?

KarlUB
Joined
Dec '10
KarlUB

Lew Rockwell (amongst others) makes the observationthat not voting is a particular affront to the political elite because people are withholding their consent.

When more than half of the polity perceives itself outside of the electoral system you begin to have social contract problems. This is very discomfiting to the machine politicians in power.

Thus schemes such as this create the illusion of a valid social contract.

#

Mrs K: And will there be an exemption for those who can't participate in the political process for religious reasons like the Jehovah's Witnesses? Or will they be compelled to show up at the polls to turn in a blank ballot? · 18 minutes ago

Your concerns over personal freedom are quaint in this day and age, Mrs. K ;-)

#

Maggie Somavilla
Joined
Sep '11
Maggie Somavilla
Adam Freedman:  ... why on earth should anyone be compelled to vote?  Why should the apathetic and ignorant (ie, the people who currently don't vote) be dragged to the polls? · · 9 hours ago

We intuit that the majority of the apathetic and ignorant would vote left, and there are all kinds of logical explanations. But there is some empirical evidence: Polls that survey "adults" consistently lean way left of polls that survey "likely voters". Which of course explains why the advocates of compulsory voting are always on the left.


Joined
Apr '11
Viator

"Why should the apathetic and ignorant (ie, the people who currently don't vote) be dragged to the polls?"

So that the dissolute Democrat Party can maintain it's hold on state power.

The same reason votes by dead people, illegal immigrants, felons, and imaginary people including  multiple and ID free votes are deviously defended and encouraged.

ConservativeWanderer
Joined
Jun '12
ConservativeWanderer

The left has had a very hard time controlling its totalitarian impulses since The One got elected. First it was the ObamaCare mandate, now this.

They need to be smacked down really hard in November.

Adam Freedman
KarlUB: Lew Rockwell (amongst others) makes the observationthat not voting is a particular affront to the political elite because people are withholding their consent.# · 1 hour ago

I hadn't heard it phrased that way, but I love it. 


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In