
Compulsory voting can save British democracy
With the first-past-the-post electoral system increasingly failing either to keep the old party-system in place, or to force the electorate into new coherent blocs, the traditional calls for proportional representation (PR) have grown louder. Electoral reformers argue that we need a voting system in which the public's true preferences can be given free rein, and the party system allowed to naturally evolve.
While its advocates may be right that PR is an inherently fairer system, the political diagnosis behind it feels outdated. British politics is not so much defined by an institutionally-thwarted re-alignment, as by an ever more widespread phenomenon of de-alignment. Old party loyalties may be falling away, but they are not being replaced by anything new. In other words, what we are witnessing is not simply the senescence of a particular party system, but rather a more general breakdown of the relationship between citizens and the state – a breakdown that is perhaps most starkly reflected in the rising number of citizens who no longer bother voting.
This is the phenomenon that the Irish political scientist Peter Mair famously diagnosed as the 'hollowing out' of democracy, in which the collapse of traditional mediating institutions, and a 'mutual retreat' of politicians and voters from the public sphere, leaves citizens disconnected from political elites, who in turn find themselves presiding over a socio-political 'void'. In the context of the Mair-ian void, PR loses its radical edge, and risks doing little more than accelerating political fragmentation, re-arranging the distribution of seats between flimsy and hollow parties, all of which struggle to mobilise voters and fail to command lasting loyalties.
Those looking to remedy the crisis of UK democracy should therefore begin looking to an alternative (or perhaps complimentary), less-discussed approach to electoral reform: the introduction of compulsory voting. Currently used in 22 democracies across the world, compulsory voting works by making voting a duty, legally obligating eligible voters to cast a ballot, and issuing those who fail to do so with a small fine.
In the UK, compulsory voting saw a flurry of advocacy in the New Labour years, when then-unprecedentedly low levels of general election turnout saw politicians like Peter Hain, David Blunkett, and Tom Watson turn to it as a potential solution. More recently, it has been advocated by right-wing journalists like Tim Montgomerie, centrist podcasting behemoth 'The Rest is Politics', and prominent left-wing politicians like former Welsh First Minister Mark Drakeford. Last week, a new cross-party Campaign for Compulsory Voting was established, bringing together politicians, democracy activists, and academics from across the four nations of the United Kingdom.
Advocacy for compulsory voting is based on two fundamental premises. First, that the fashionable minimalist conception of democratic citizenship as consisting of nothing more than a bundle of individual rights is insufficient. The idea of compulsory voting draws instead on older notions of civic responsibility, active citizenship, and democracy as a system of mutual obligations. It is our duty as citizens to help ensure the healthy functioning of the democratic system from which we all benefit, and that means participating in elections.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Second, the case for compulsory voting is based on an understanding that within a democratic system, elections based on universal suffrage provide the central mechanism for linking individuals to the state, for aggregating public preferences, and for ensuring that governments are incentivised to serve the interests of their citizens. When voter turnout ceases to be near-universal, and instead falls to low levels, elections cease to be able to perform this function, and democracy slips into crisis.
Here in the UK, we are deep into that crisis territory. The last election saw barely more than half of eligible voters participate. Within that, data from Ipsos suggests that turnout was over 10 points higher amongst white voters than ethnic minorities, over 20 points higher amongst upper-class voters than working-class voters, and over 30 points higher amongst over-65s than under-65s, and amongst homeowners than renters.
The result is an unrepresentative electorate – richer, older, whiter, and more secure than the UK public at large. This in turn creates warped incentives for politicians, who are pushed by cold electoral logic to disproportionately prioritise the interests of an older, economically-insulated minority at the expense of the wider public. We have seen this play out in practice as pensioner benefits have been protected at the expense of working-age welfare, and as soaring asset-price inflation has gone unaccompanied by either GDP or real wage growth.
Crucially, such outcomes only exacerbate the initial problem: stagnation and inequality drive disillusionment with democratic politics, pushing more and more voters into the arms of either extremism or abstention, and leaving vast swathes of the public both alienated and disconnected from the democratic political process.
The central challenge British politics faces today is thus how to reconnect citizens with the state. The answer is unlikely to be purely constitutional – changes in how political parties, public services, and the media operate are all no doubt necessary. But political reform nonetheless has its part to play: above all, elections must once again become effective means of democratic linkage, and credible expressions of public will. For this to be the case, turnout must be both high and demographically even. With turnout as low as it is today, compulsory voting is the only reform whose impact would be on the scale necessary (in countries such as Australia where compulsory voting is used, turnout rates regularly reach over 90%).
Critics will surely object that compulsory voting is illiberal, or that it represents an unacceptable imposition on personal freedom. Such arguments should quickly be dismissed: coercion and civic obligation are an inevitable and necessary feature of democratic life. We happily accept them in the form of taxes, jury duty, or the obligation to fill out the census, so why not apply the same logic to voting, the most basic democratic act of all? Citizens would still have the option of actively abstaining by spoiling their ballot, and fines imposed on non-voters are unlikely to be onerous (in Australia they are slightly under £10).
Ultimately, such reservations should be seen as trifling in the face of the scale of the democratic crisis we face. What compulsory voting offers is a means of breaking the vicious cycle of low turnout, warped incentives, bad policy, and rising political disaffection. If compulsory voting feels like a muscular measure, so be it – it is simply what the moment demands.
Related

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


North Wales Chronicle
27 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Geldof's threat to quit Blair's Africa Commission
The Live Aid campaigner was instrumental in persuading Mr Blair to set up the commission to examine the problems of the continent ahead of a crucial summit of the G8 at Gleneagles in Scotland, which the UK was chairing. But official papers released to the National Archives in Kew, west London, show he was outraged when – after just one meeting – the commissioners were sent a document setting its 'emerging conclusions'. In an angry letter to the commission's director of policy, the economist Sir Nick Stern, dated August 9 2004, he said it was impossible to have come to any conclusions it such a short period of time. The former rock star warned that he was not prepared to serve on a body which was simply there to push 'pre-determined government policy'. 'To be clear, policy must be determined by the commission independently sitting and independently deliberating and concluding of its own volition. This distinction is vital. If I have got this wrong please inform me so I may tender my resignation,' he wrote. 'More broadly, the whole notion of emerging solutions is laughable. If the solution to the misery of Africa can be 'concluded' within a mere six week time span, it is a truly remarkable feat. 'How blind we must all have been these past years. The fact is that there are not and cannot as yet be any emerging conclusions. 'The commission will lose all credibility if it is not clearly seen to be an independent entity. If it seems to advance pre-determined government policy it will be correctly viewed as a laughable grotesque.' Geldof went on to complain that the involvement of some of the commissioners – including some of those from Africa – appeared to have been 'minimal'. 'Is it not the secretariat's function, on behalf of the chair, to ensure that this is not the case? Or is this all some farcical political game played out at the expense of the wretchedly poor? If so, I ain't playing.' Sir Nicholas wrote back hurriedly to assure him the that the document was not an attempt pre-empt the commission's findings, and that the input from British politicians had been 'comparatively minor'. 'Far from being an attempt to rush conclusions the paper is intended to to be a tool to help promote discussion and ensure a real interchange between commissioners at the second meeting in October,' he wrote. 'I would be very keen to sit down and discuss these questions with you; perhaps we could meet for a drink as soon as we are both around?' Geldof's reply is not recorded in the files, but he was sufficiently placated to carry on. After the Gleneagles summit the following year agreed to double aid to Africa and extend debt relief, he hailed it as 'mission accomplished'.

South Wales Argus
28 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
Geldof's threat to quit Blair's Africa Commission
The Live Aid campaigner was instrumental in persuading Mr Blair to set up the commission to examine the problems of the continent ahead of a crucial summit of the G8 at Gleneagles in Scotland, which the UK was chairing. But official papers released to the National Archives in Kew, west London, show he was outraged when – after just one meeting – the commissioners were sent a document setting its 'emerging conclusions'. In an angry letter to the commission's director of policy, the economist Sir Nick Stern, dated August 9 2004, he said it was impossible to have come to any conclusions it such a short period of time. The former rock star warned that he was not prepared to serve on a body which was simply there to push 'pre-determined government policy'. 'To be clear, policy must be determined by the commission independently sitting and independently deliberating and concluding of its own volition. This distinction is vital. If I have got this wrong please inform me so I may tender my resignation,' he wrote. 'More broadly, the whole notion of emerging solutions is laughable. If the solution to the misery of Africa can be 'concluded' within a mere six week time span, it is a truly remarkable feat. 'How blind we must all have been these past years. The fact is that there are not and cannot as yet be any emerging conclusions. 'The commission will lose all credibility if it is not clearly seen to be an independent entity. If it seems to advance pre-determined government policy it will be correctly viewed as a laughable grotesque.' Bob Geldof with Bono and Tony Blair in Downing Street (PA) Geldof went on to complain that the involvement of some of the commissioners – including some of those from Africa – appeared to have been 'minimal'. 'Is it not the secretariat's function, on behalf of the chair, to ensure that this is not the case? Or is this all some farcical political game played out at the expense of the wretchedly poor? If so, I ain't playing.' Sir Nicholas wrote back hurriedly to assure him the that the document was not an attempt pre-empt the commission's findings, and that the input from British politicians had been 'comparatively minor'. 'Far from being an attempt to rush conclusions the paper is intended to to be a tool to help promote discussion and ensure a real interchange between commissioners at the second meeting in October,' he wrote. 'I would be very keen to sit down and discuss these questions with you; perhaps we could meet for a drink as soon as we are both around?' Geldof's reply is not recorded in the files, but he was sufficiently placated to carry on. After the Gleneagles summit the following year agreed to double aid to Africa and extend debt relief, he hailed it as 'mission accomplished'.

Leader Live
28 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Blair's fury with Chirac over Mugabe summit invite
Papers released by the National Archives show Mr Blair erupted with anger when he learned Mr Chirac was insisting the Zimbabwean president should be allowed to attend an EU-Africa summit due to be held in 2003. 'But this is the opposite of what he said to me,' he scrawled in a handwritten note after No 10 officials told him Mr Chirac feared South African president Thabo Mbeki would stay away from the gathering unless Mr Mugabe was invited. 'Ultimately if France wants to take the heat on this they can and probably they are using it to damage the UK's standing in Africa in the belief (mistaken) that Mugabe retains credibility. 'But we should be seen to do all we can to protest.' The row came as Zimbabwe was caught up in a worsening spiral of violence and economic collapse after Mr Mugabe instigated a violent campaign to drive the country's remaining white farmers from their lands. Mr Blair's Labour government was at the forefront of international efforts to pressurise Mr Mugabe to end the chaos, implement democratic reforms and restore the rule of law. The UK's intervention was, however, deeply resented by Mr Mugabe who argued that – as the former colonial power – Britain should be paying reparations to his country. As the situation worsened Mr Blair noted that they needed to be 'pretty fierce on Mugabe' if they were to make any progress. He was, however, warned by South Africa's former president Nelson Mandela that – as a veteran of Africa's struggles for liberation from colonial rule – Mr Mugabe still needed to be treated with respect. 'Despite the recent turmoil in Zimbabwe we must not forget that President Mugabe is a statesman who has made a major contribution not only to Zimbabwe's independence but to the liberation of southern Africa,' he wrote in a letter to the prime minister. 'He deserves our good will, support and advice. As friends we should be able to discuss the issue of land redistribution, the rule of law and violence frankly and constructively with him.' Meanwhile, efforts to foster better Anglo-French co-operation on Africa were hampered by a deep personal antipathy between Mr Chirac and Britain's international development secretary Clare Short. Sir John Holmes, Britain's ambassador to Paris, said Mr Chirac had taken him aside to complain that she was 'viscerally anti-French and 'insupportable''. He contrasted her attitude with the good working relationship French foreign minister Hubert Vedrine had enjoyed with his British counterpart Jack Straw and before him Robin Cook. 'Vedrine and Cook had worked well together, and Vedrine and Straw were continuing in the same vein. But Ms Short was impossible,' Sir John reported the French president as saying. 'He had not liked to raise this with the prime minister because they always had lots of other things to talk about, but we needed to know the position. In typical Chirac fashion, he laboured the point for several minutes.' When Sir John assured him that Ms Short's views had been 'transformed' in the light of a recent trip to the region by Mr Vedrine, the French president replied 'God be praised'.