The Boston Herald
It’s far too easy to take the
U.S.-Australia partnership for granted, given decades of harmonious,
productive relations between Canberra and Washington, D.C. When it comes
to staunch, reliable U.S. allies, they hardly come any better than
Australia.
Still there are substantial differences between our two nations — especially when it comes to voting. Americans tend to see voting in federal and state elections largely as a right whereas Australians believe going to the polls is a responsibility — officially. Australia is one of more than 20 nations (others include Argentina, Brazil and Singapore) in which voting is compulsory. It has been against the law not to vote in Australia for over 80 years. In fact, it’s illegal to not register to vote.
Critics abound on both sides of the compulsory-voting debate. On the one hand, Australia can point to a 90 percent participation rate in federal elections that puts to shame our persistent 50 percent to 60 percent turnout for presidential elections. On the other hand, some observers question the utility and even veracity of these reported participation rates. First not everyone registers to vote, despite the fact that they are required to do so. Plus, many people simply “mark” their ballots without actually voting for any specific candidate, complying technically with the law while registering their own kind of protest vote.
While supporters of compulsory voting speak about greater and better-informed engagement within the electorate, critics contend that forced voting by its very nature is undemocratic. In the United States, especially, detractors believe that compulsory voting denies citizens’ First Amendment rights. After all, they argue, the right to speech would seem to support the right not to speak, too.
Critics also point out that many of the nations with compulsory voting requirements do not actually enforce these laws, and those that do so offer only minimal penalties for failing to comply. Nonvoting Australians typically receive a letter with a token fine, which some people pay and others protest. Nonetheless, compulsory-voting advocates maintain that greater levels of engagement by larger numbers of voters can help prevent demagogues and other assorted madmen from snaring elections based on the turnout of a small but rabid few.
On balance, compulsory voting would not seem to make sense for the United States. It’s simply not part of our national character, and serious questions exist about its efficacy and even its constitutionality. That said, U.S. politics are broken. We would be well-served to engage in a vigorous national dialogue about rebalancing our rights and responsibilities as voters and citizens. In that light, Australia can teach us a few things.
Jessica C. McWade is former president of The World Affairs Council of Boston and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations
Still there are substantial differences between our two nations — especially when it comes to voting. Americans tend to see voting in federal and state elections largely as a right whereas Australians believe going to the polls is a responsibility — officially. Australia is one of more than 20 nations (others include Argentina, Brazil and Singapore) in which voting is compulsory. It has been against the law not to vote in Australia for over 80 years. In fact, it’s illegal to not register to vote.
Critics abound on both sides of the compulsory-voting debate. On the one hand, Australia can point to a 90 percent participation rate in federal elections that puts to shame our persistent 50 percent to 60 percent turnout for presidential elections. On the other hand, some observers question the utility and even veracity of these reported participation rates. First not everyone registers to vote, despite the fact that they are required to do so. Plus, many people simply “mark” their ballots without actually voting for any specific candidate, complying technically with the law while registering their own kind of protest vote.
While supporters of compulsory voting speak about greater and better-informed engagement within the electorate, critics contend that forced voting by its very nature is undemocratic. In the United States, especially, detractors believe that compulsory voting denies citizens’ First Amendment rights. After all, they argue, the right to speech would seem to support the right not to speak, too.
Critics also point out that many of the nations with compulsory voting requirements do not actually enforce these laws, and those that do so offer only minimal penalties for failing to comply. Nonvoting Australians typically receive a letter with a token fine, which some people pay and others protest. Nonetheless, compulsory-voting advocates maintain that greater levels of engagement by larger numbers of voters can help prevent demagogues and other assorted madmen from snaring elections based on the turnout of a small but rabid few.
On balance, compulsory voting would not seem to make sense for the United States. It’s simply not part of our national character, and serious questions exist about its efficacy and even its constitutionality. That said, U.S. politics are broken. We would be well-served to engage in a vigorous national dialogue about rebalancing our rights and responsibilities as voters and citizens. In that light, Australia can teach us a few things.
Jessica C. McWade is former president of The World Affairs Council of Boston and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations