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.