Even if voting is not the only form of democratic participation, it is important
and there is, we think, a strong argument for compulsory voting in the UK. The
argument that the citizen has a right not to vote ignores the fact that rights are
indissolubly linked to responsibilities, and the act of non-voting harms the interests
of society at large. It is true that some may feel that voting is a farce, but the
defensible part of this objection – that the voter does not feel that existing parties
offer real choice – can easily be met by allowing voters to put their cross on a box
which states ‘none of the above’. This would signal to politicians the extent to which
people were voting negatively through protest.
It is true that the case for compulsory voting would not, taken simply on its own,
create a more effective participation. It has to be accompanied by policies that
address the inequalities underlying the problem of apathy. A lack of jobs, housing,
adequate health care, physical and material security remain critical causes of despair
and low self-esteem. There is plenty of evidence that mandatory voting raises
participation levels and, as Faulks point out, when the Netherlands dropped
compulsory voting in 1970, voting turnout fell by 10 per cent (2001: 24). Italy,
Belgium and Australia still compel their citizens to vote. Compulsory voting would
encourage people to take an interest in political affairs – become more literate and
confident – and it could reduce the time and resources parties use to try and capture
the public interest in trivial and sensational ways.
While fines could be imposed upon defaulters, the real sanctions for non-
compliance would be moral. Compulsory voting could play an invaluable role in
altering our political culture in a socially responsible direction. Faulks quotes
Lijphart who comments that compulsory voting is an extension of universal suffrage
(2001: 25). A simple and comprehensive system of voter registration in Britain would
also assist people in taking responsibility for governing their own lives, and one
can think of numerous devices to facilitate voting. The greater use of postal votes,
the extension of time for voting and a more proportional system would do much
to overcome the cynicism that is often expressed at election times. Additionally, we
would point to the use of referenda on important issues, and the employment of
citizens’ juries. In this latter case, a number of citizens, statistically representative
of the wider population, discuss particular issues in an intense and deliberative way,
and make recommendations based upon questions to relevant experts.
A number of writers have argued that the use of information technology could
radically enhance the possibility for direct democracy since as a result of email, the
Internet, video conferencing, the digitisation of data, two-way computer and
television links through cable technology, citizens could remain at home and shape
policies rather than rely upon representatives to do so. Clearly such a technology
has tremendous potential to empower citizens, and Faulks gives the example of how
a citizens’ action group used the communications network to raise $150,000 in
Santa Monica in the USA for the local homeless (Faulks, 1999: 157). Television
shows in Britain like X Factor, Big Brotherand Strictly Come Dancingalready have
vast numbers of viewers voting for their chosen ‘star’: does this indicate the potential
for using TV as a medium for giving people greater choice on policies and
personalities? Already TV programmes invite viewers to express their views on
current controversies of the day.
Chapter 5 Democracy 107