Moderator’s remarks
Compulsory voting is controversial issue in the textbooks of political science. There are 22 countries in the world where compulsory voting is part of electoral law, such as Argentina, Singapore, Brazil or Belgium. Of course, degree of enforcement varies much but this is not very important for our debate. The topic of this debate is introducing compulsory voting of European citizens in the election to the European parliament. The issue is relevant these days, because year 2013 was proclaimed as European Year of Citizens by European Commission and election into European Parliament in 2014 is important for the EU as a whole.
First idea which pops up immediately is question of legitimacy of such step. Both speakers in the debate discuss this question. Interesting fact is that each of them came to different conclusion. It is up to reader to decide which speaker is more persuasive in their argumentation.
Second problem which is discussed in opinion papers is a consequence of compulsion. Voting is essential part of democratic society, but what are the consequences if state enforce obligatory electoral participation? Again, I am happy that both speakers spend their time on this matter, because it is necessary to explain what benefits/costs such proposal will have.
In general, affirmative speaker, Wieke, offers very scholarly and learned text with lot of quotation and extended list of bibliography (you can receive it if you ask for it through our email address). Plus she delivers very interesting rebuttal of voluntary voting in the beginning of her text, but, I have to admit, at the expenses of the length of submitted text. It is visible that Wieke has got very good knowledge in academic writing. On the other hand, opposite speaker, Matúš, concentrate himself on two relevant points in the debate which is also very laudable. It is hard to prove which strategy is better, because each has got pluses and minuses as well. However, we can judge the strength of the arguments presented by the speakers. So, enjoy the debate and do not forget to comment.
Affirmative speaker: Wieke van der Kroef (AEGEE-Amsterdam and AEGEE-Leuven)
Opposition speaker: Matúš Pavelko (AEGEE-Brno)
Ivan Bielik, Moderator of the debate
Defend the motion
Wieke van der Kroef, AEGEE-Amsterdam and AEGEE-Leuven, studies Political Science and Philosophy in Antwerpen, Belgium and is currently Speaker of Network Commission in AEGEE.
When discussing a new measure like making voting for European elections compulsory we should first take a good look at the question why would this be necessary? Then we will take a look at the consequences of compulsory voting and whether it can effectively remedy the problem.
So what is the problem with the European elections?
Well, only about half of the voters actually vote and this number is decreasing with about 3% every election. The reason why a turnout matters that low turnout is biased against citizens with a lower education, income and social class (Lijphart, 1997). Electoral participation is supposed to empower citizens and democratize the representative institutions. Not turning up distorts the principle of majority representation, because the majority of the voters does no longer correspond to the real figures in society.
Studies have shown that a higher electoral turnout results in right-wing parties getting a smaller amount of votes and left-wing parties a larger amount (Mackerras&McAllister, 1999). This shows that the results of an election with a turnout of only 50% do not represent the actual opinion of the people. The reason for this is that, in a system of voluntary voting, the same groups systematically drop out first, namely those with fewer means of existence, as they have fewer opportunities to get time off from work to go voting. This means they are also systematically under-represented in the voting results.
So far for the case against voluntary voting, now let’s look at the reasons in favour of introducing compulsory voting. First, voting is a civic duty in a democracy. Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “rights and freedoms” are subject to “duties to the community”. Therefore, enjoying the good parts of democracy means also taking up its obligations, such as voting. The best way to ensure a full and representative participation is by using compulsory vote.
Second, according to the European Court of Human Rights, compulsory voting does not violate the fundamental right of freedom. Since only showing up, and not the voting itself, is made compulsory – meaning voters can still cast a blank or invalid ballot paper – this does not violate the fundamental right of freedom (ECHR in X v Austria, 1971; cited in Baston and Ritchie, 2004)
Third, compulsory voting is the quickest and cheapest way to increase turnout, as it requires less spending on campaigns to get voters to the booth (€18 million was spent for the 2009 EP elections alone).
Civic education is another solution, but this only works in the long term whereas compulsory voting increases turnout immediately with up to 16% (Powell, 1981; Jackman, 1987; Jackman&Miller, 1995; and Franklin, 1999). These are therefore best combined to deliver the best result in both the short and long term.
Finally, countries with compulsory voting also show a significantly higher political sophistication (Gordon &Segura, 1997). This means compulsory voting motivates people to learn more about the parties and elections, leadingto more informed votes rather than uninformed votes, as is often claimed by opponents of the compulsory vote (Shineman, 2010).
So compulsory voting is the best solution to increase voter turnout, both quantitatively and qualitatively. This in turn leads to a more legitimate and more democratic European Parliament. It will protect people with fewer resources from forced abstention. Introducing compulsory voting in European elections is the best and fastest way to make people feel more involved in European politics.
Against the motion
Matúš Pavelko, AEGEE-Brno, studies European studies at Masaryk university in Brno, Czech republic.
Obligatory participation in elections to the European parliament does not cause bigger political activity of citizens. But by contrast, political activity of citizens decreases and evokes some kind of antagonism against the European parliament. Political activity of citizens means personal interest in politics. The interest in elections to the European parliament means a will to do something. But if people are forced to vote, they will try to avoid all kind of information about the European parliament for example in media or news. And through this way their political activity decreases in field of the European parliament and the European Union. Forcing people to do something creates gradually lower interest to do something. So quality of their electoral decision decreases. Gradually, they will consider European elections as common activity, not as activity, which they do with joy and interest. Consequently, decrease of joy and interest in politics in the European Union would project to some kind of antagonism against the European parliament. It would lead to the results, which will bring up a decrease of activities and mainly powers of the European parliament, because in the European parliament there would be politicians who oppose European integration and citizens will vote for them as a kind of protest voting against compulsory voting.
Free elections to the European parliament increase its legitimacy from citizens of the European Union. By contrast, obligatory election brings decrease of legitimacy. Institution gains legitimacy from people’s trust, which they can show and give through elections. But the trust of citizens is shown in personal and free choice, so free choice means some interest in the European parliament. The higher trust, the bigger legitimacy of institution. That means that the situation in the European parliament is observed by people, who check politicians, not only in time of elections, how they do their job and through this way the legitimacy of mandates increases. Moreover, obligatory elections do not posses real quality of legitimacy of mandates gained by politicians. Obligatory elections mean big amount of voters, but that does not mean personal interest of voters about the European parliament or the European Union. Obligatory voting brings only ballot paper without any given legitimacy from citizens to candidates and to the European parliament. Big amount of tickets mean that among them are many from people, which were not given because of personal interest of citizens of the European parliament. Personal disinterest of citizens means decrease of legitimism of gained mandates, because among them are many which are there only because citizens had to choose some candidates. Decrease of legitimacy of elected mandates means decrease of legitimacy of whole institution of the European parliament. Therefore, compulsory voting in the European election is not desirable.
Loading ...
It is funny how the question of participation is considered a question of compulsion rather than a lack of information – which would be closer to reality in my opinion. Hence I am against compulsory voting.
You can only vote upon things you know about. I consider myself as eager when it
comes to elections but concerning the EU elections I do not have any clue about
what I should vote for and for which reason. But this is the most crucial part!
When it comes to elections in my country I know what I am voting for and which
consequences my ballot can have, concerning the EU I have no such feeling.
Hence, there must be more information spread about what to vote upon and for which sake (yes, I read newspapers – by the way one cannot expect the European citizens to study EU policy in order to take responsibly part in EU elections…).
The whole situation is aggravated by the fact that the ways of policy in the EU is not obvious at all. Many people already bother with national institutions and elections. Europe and its policy seems to be considered to be “dispensable enough to be neglected”.
Especially the behaviour of different institutions during the crisis strengthenes
this image: As players are considered bigger banks and other investors, the national gouvernments and the European Central Bank.
Policy made by the EU has to become more visible and comprehensible.
Concerning Wieke:
Forcing people to vote will not strengthen the respect and reliability in the EU,
I rather expect the opposite to happen. And a defiant citizen is not a good one imho.
Concerning Pavelko:
Though we accord in the opinion (see reply to Wieke) I would not go so far with
such assumptions like “they will try to avoid all kind of information about the
European parliament for example in media or news”. Electors are adult people, still.
Yes, Armin, the knowledge about the EU decision-making is poor. And European institutions haven’t bothered with citizens opinions so far, as you pointed out in the case of ECB or even European Commision (I remembered disgust when there was an option of referendum in Greece or Ireland).
Another problem for me is the fact that the EU is “polity without politics”. That means there is no political competition at least. You have bureaucrats which always claim that we need stronger Europe and then on the other hand you have reluctant nation states. There are no ideas in politics, only technical terminology of market and regulation. Ordinary people do not comprehend them and therefore do not understand the EU at all.
Lastly, do not forget that the EP is so-called negative legislator in the EU. It does not possess legislative initiation (only Commission holds legislative monopoly). As a consequence, your vote in European elections does not contribute to the establishing executive which will advocate your opinions as a citizen. That means it is an expression of your interest but not the expression of relevance for the EU. I am not surprised that many citizens reject voting in the European election.
Congratulations for your argumentation Wieke, even though I don´t share your position. Compulsory voting might be beneficial according to some studies, but definitely not in the case of the EU, which is already seen as an external actor imposing unpopular policies to Member States so compulsory voting will reinforce this image, specially in countries where the obligation to vote does not exist in national, regional and local elections.
Another point I would like to raise is the one of the blank vote in the case of compulsory voting. Under my understanding, in this case the number of blank votes should be equivalent to empty seats. I argue this mainly for two reasons, the first one is a matter of giving a real meaning and real consequences to this vote, as by establishing compulsory voting we are eliminating ways of expressing discontent with the totality of candidates or to the EU as a polity. The second one is that this change will foster debate and negotiations in the Parliament, making majorities more difficult and the need of compromises higher. I believe that both giving the possibility of challenging the EU as such with voting and forcing greater negotiations and compromises would give greater legitimacy to the European Union in the long term.
In what regards to the main topic of this discussion, I think that the increase of the turnout in the European Elections should come from giving greater power to the European Parliament and allowing citizens to elect Commissioners directly (or at least establish the obligation for political groups to state their candidates for each position of the commission and eliminating the rule of having one Commissioner per Member State). I also agree with you with the fact that we need more debate of ideas on the European level and I think this would come with the possibility of electing the Commissioners. Until now, because of having a technical Commission we have prioritized the idea of a neoliberal Europe rather than a social one and the choice for change has always been very limited.
Maybe forcing people to vote will increase the amount of voters, but I don’t think that this will improve the quality of the votes. The key is to educate voters of the fact that the European Parliament’s decisions have direct impact on our lives.
After reading both argumentations, I am still convinced that compulsory voting is not the way to go. There are valid points on both sides, and I agree that it will not violate the freedom of choice so it will be legal. But I fear the compulsory voting will not work well with the psychology of the European citizens, that is a complex matrix of national characters. Compulsory is seen differently in Mediterranean countries and has a negative point that can reverse the positive effects of raising the turn out at elections.
I believe that the way to achieve higher participation in EU elections is education+information and, as already mentioned in other comments, a stronger role of the elected bodies and an increase on the democracy of some EU institutions as the European Commission. I don’t think that the money spent on the campaign to move people to vote in European Parliament Elections in 2009 as too much. I don’t have ciphers for all Europe but I believe it is much smaller than the money spent in local or regional elections if we put all them together. The positive benefit of making voting compulsory is that the content of the campaign will have to be shifted from “motivate people to vote” to provide real information on programs and proposals of each political option, which for the moment is much needed as the campaign, at least in many countries, is focused on just participation, and most of times it is hijacked by national parties discussing local issues. The fact that the elections are couples (in some cases even by law) to regional and or local elections makes it even more difficult to separate European and Local politics.
As a conclusion, I’d rather invest in a real European campaign focused on programs and informing about the role of European Institutions in the daily life of citizens, than in making voting compulsory and its enforcement. In any case, a special effort should be made to make sure that no citizen is prevented from voting due to economical or labor reasons (what Wieke called “forced abstention”).
Congratulations to both of you for the arguments presented, and especially to Wieke for her well documented approach.
Upon reading the debate carefully and thinking about this matter personally for a very long time I still cannot bring myself to support the idea of compulsory voting.
First of all, I would like to contest Wieke’s premise that low-income, less-educated voters are the ones which are currently absent from elections. I would even argue the opposite, that the turnout is higher in the lower-educated part of the population (in regular elections, i don’t have numbers for EP, but believe the same principle applies). This may differ from country to country, but I can give you the example of Romania where the older, retired, rural-based population are always more present in elections than the young, university-level educated part of society. Why you will ask? Because for the low-income population voting is a right they take pleasure in participating, hoping perhaps for a change, believing in one or another promise of politicians, while the younger people have developed a rather disinterest in the political game, that sways one way or another depending on the current context, and which usually does not help them all that much. It comes from a lack of trust in the politicians.
As far as I know also, usually election days are either declared days off or happen in the already existing days off (weekends) especially so that people don’t have to take days off from work to attend.
What also supports a low turnout of young, student population in some place could be the fact that students study far way from their birthplace, and are usually not registered in their new university cities. At least in some countries this happens for sure. This could be easily fixed by creating special booths for this kind of people to vote for all elections from wherever they are.
Now back to the issue at hand. I support the arguments that a forced attendence will not increase the level of interest in political activities of the EU, and will create a negative atmosphere “another thing the EU is forcing us to do” kind of reaction. I don’t think it will make people avoid everything related to EU in media and etc. as someone mentioned above, but it will surely create a rather unpleasant feeling of another imposed regulation coming from the EU.
What I believe would increase turnout in EP elections, besides a more proper information campaign in all member state is changing the way EP elections work, separating them from national/regional law and regulation and allowing them to differentiate themselves from national politics. This, and making the EP even more relevant on European-level policy making, by giving it a greater role in European-law making would probably make the people at least partly more interested in them.
“You can only vote upon things you know about.” Really? So how many of the votes at our own Agora would you believe are truely valid votes? If we believe compulsory voting is wrong why push our delegates to do so? Because we want them to try and learn more next time because they realize they need it in order to cast a vote.. No one likes to vote about something they do not understand so they will try. If we combine this with compulsory voting we can use the 18 MILLION spent on campaiging to get people to vote to help them understand the system. It is not either educate or make people come to vote. The one will actually HELP the other..
Did you know there are companies that create extra shifts on election days just to keep people away from voting? If voting becomes compulsory governments will have to make sure this doesn’t happen.
Take a look at the exaples in Belgium or in Australia, in these countries the system is the MOST VOTER FRIENDLY IN THE WORLD… I guess that should be a sign..
“Europe and its policy seems to be considered to be “dispensable enough to be neglected”. And that right there is a HUGE mistake.
“I don’t think that this will improve the quality of the votes.” Love how your own personal ‘feelings’ are more important than actual research which says the exact opposite….
” I’d rather invest in a real European campaign” and I’d rather invest that money in creating jobs, improving education and helping the lower classes get more equal chances.. But hey, that’s just me..
Delegates are not actually obliged to vote at Agora. They just have to attend the agora
“Did you know there are companies that create extra shifts on election days just to keep people away from voting? If voting becomes compulsory governments will have to make sure this doesn’t happen.” – There are also companies that do it the other way around – they give people time off to go and vote the way they want and etc. It’s a different problem. The government should make sure neither of this happens anyway.
““I don’t think that this will improve the quality of the votes.” Love how your own personal ‘feelings’ are more important than actual research which says the exact opposite….” – And why should our personal opinions value less than ‘actual research’? It’s a matter of opinion here, not just of statistics, which have not been made after experimenting precisely with the issue discussed here, but rather extrapolating from an example. Social sciences like this are not an ‘exact’ science where you can just see numbers and conclude indubitably one way or another. It needs interpretations, and these often vary.
Dealing with my quote “You can only vote upon things you know about.” you seem to object. Maybe you misunderstood me – let me explain: What I mean is the fact that a vote upon things you do not understand is a sort of “lost vote”. I won’t be the only one who will choose to abstain, if I am not informed well – it’s considered to cause the least damage and is therefore reasonable. For those who vote nevertheless: Their vote is not made with “full consciousness” (sorry for my cheesy phrasing – I hope you get the idea), hence it distorts the real intention of the voting community. The worse the information to an election is provided/taken into account, the more the results are distorted (what often comes along with the weakening of the moderate parties).