
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While its advocates may be right that PR is an inherently fairer system, the political diagnosis behind it feels outdated.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


Belfast Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Belfast Telegraph
Emma Little-Pengelly slams criticism of NI economy: 'I am sick of some who constantly talk down NI'
Emma Little-Pengelly's comments follow Mary Lou McDonald's appearance on Good Morning Britain, where she made the case for reunification of the island of Ireland. 'We are now 27 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, as we all know a historic moment where we settled on the democratic and institutional arrangements to end what was a conflict that ran for centuries,' she said. 'We created the space to build peace and reconciliation, build friendships, build relationships across the island of Ireland, but also between Ireland and Britain. At the heart of that agreement is the commitment to a referendum to make the decision on partition. 'Just remember, more than a century ago Ireland was partitioned down the barrel of a British gun. There was no democracy involved. It was imposed on the island, and the consequences of it were literally devastating for our island, and deeply damaging to he relationship between Britain and Ireland. We need to fix all that. 'Politics has changed, we've all moved on, the peace has been established, I think we have made enormous strides, all of us, and I think Ireland and Britain and all the political leaders and the people deserve great credit for that. 'Now we're at a point where we say 'what's the next chapter?' For us, logically, in economic terms, in social terms, in democratic terms Irish unity makes sense.' Speaking at the QUB Global Economic Forum on Tuesday, Ms Pengelly criticised the comments and highlighted successes across several sectors. "I am sick of some who constantly talk down Northern Ireland,' Ms Little-Pengelly said. 'We are tasked with the responsibility and the honour of promoting this wonderful place with so much potential.' The DFM added that the region has attracted high levels of foreign direct investment and has over 1500 international firms operating locally. 'NI has one of the lowest levels of unemployment across the UK, and one of the highest educated and youngest workforces across these islands,' she continued. 'Northern Ireland deserves champions to promote all that is great about Northern Ireland. Those who believe in the future of our economy and will work to realise it." Ms Little-Pengelly also hit out at comments made by GMB host Richard Madeley who said Northern Ireland is 'close to being a basket case.' During the interview, Mr Madeley asked Ms McDonald: 'Why do you want Northern Ireland still so badly? Because, economically, I think it's fair to say it's close to being a basket case at the moment.' News Catch Up - Tuesday 15th July Ms Little-Pengelly rejected this claim and said the region is a 'base case for investment.' "Northern Ireland is far from an economic "basket case", indeed it is a base case for investment,' the DUP MLA said. 'And I welcome that was recognised by the many economists and experts in the Global Economic Forum today.' She called for Sinn Fein minister clarify if they are 'working to promote' the local economy. 'Our position has part of the UK, while having huge international access and appeal can truly elevate NI to new heights. "The economic plans of Sinn Fein as outlined by Michelle O'Neill and Mary-Lou McDonald in London this week are based on vagueness and fantasy. It is economic illiteracy. 'Michelle O'Neill and SF Economy Minister Archibald need to be open with the public - are they working to promote our economy or have they simply binned it as economically unviable."


The Independent
37 minutes ago
- The Independent
No commitment to scrap two-child benefit cap until funding is clear
The Government will not commit to lifting the two-child benefit cap until it is clear how it will be paid for, a minister has told the Commons. Further calls to scrap the controversial policy were made by Labour backbenchers on Tuesday, during a Conservative-led debate focused on retaining the cap. There were more than 1.6 million children living in households in England, Wales and Scotland affected by the two-child benefit limit in April, according to figures published by the Department for Work and Pensions last week. Work and pensions minister Alison McGovern said the Child Poverty Task Force will look at 'all the levers across incomes, costs, debt and local support that we can pull to prevent poverty, including social security reform'. Speaking during the opposition day debate, she added: 'Our universal credit review is considering ways that the system can improve in order to stabilise family finances and provide routes into good work. 'And on the two-child limit, specifically, the consequences, as I've said in my speech, of the Conservative choices made over the past decade and a half are clear for all to see. 'We have rightly said many times we will not commit to any policy without knowing how we are going to pay for it.' Labour MP for Rochdale, Paul Waugh, said: '59% of families (who) have more than two children, on universal credit, are in work, and that's far from the feckless parent caricature that we've heard today from the Conservatives. 'And more importantly, does she agree with me that actually it's the children (who) should come first, and because the children should come first, we should urgently scrap the two-child cap as quickly as possible?' Ms McGovern declined to respond directly to Mr Waugh's question, instead arguing that the Conservative Party 'only wants to divide people'. Labour MP for Alloa and Grangemouth Brian Leishman also said 'the Government should lift it immediately', adding: 'Having a child is a blessing, not a blessing everyone receives, and the two-child cap is an inherently cruel policy that punishes the least advantaged. 'The idea that a third or a fourth or a fifth child is worth less than the first two is beyond wicked.' Conservative shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately had described the welfare bill as a 'ticking time bomb' as she opened the debate. She added: 'We have brought forward this debate today on the two-child limit, because somebody has to make the case for fiscal responsibility, for living within our means, for fairness, for making sure work pays, and for keeping the two-child cap.' MPs rejected the Conservatives' motion that the benefit cap should remain, with 106 voting in favour, 440 against, majority 334.


Daily Mirror
39 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
ROS WYNNE JONES: 'Every Afghan hero deserves a UK passport. This country has failed them'
Today, the super-injunction protecting the story behind thousands of Afghans' secret evacuation has ended. And it is time to thank them for their service We owed them our loyalty and their safety. Thousands of brave Afghans who fought alongside British troops, translated for our officials, and worked for Britain before the Taliban swept back into power. Instead – having abandoned their country in a dishonourable, chaotic retreat – it can now be revealed that we betrayed our Afghan allies once again. This time when a British military official accidentally disclosed the personal details of more than 33,000 people, putting them at risk of murderous reprisals. This scandal was covered up by the Conservative government while 18,500 Afghans whose data was compromised were flown to Britain as part of a peacetime evacuation mission. It was the right thing to do to avoid catastrophic loss of life. But, in the wake of disinformation following the Southport murders, men, women and children were then retraumatised by riots sweeping across the country where they had come to seek sanctuary. These are people whose sacrifice has more than earned them a British passport. But instead of a thank you – the communities they were now living in faced petrol bombs, screaming crowds and their accommodation being set on fire in last summer's riots. During the worst outbreak of racial violence in the UK for decades, we now know areas with larger Afghan resettlement numbers were targeted. Even now, there are fears of copycat rioting greeting the news of the covert operation to bring these people to safety. The smallest of the lessons we need to learn from this sorry tale is about keeping data safe. We need a new way forward for communities in our country, a properly funded, grown up political strategy that addresses the tensions and division the Tories encouraged to fester. The alternative is rule by a racist mob. Thousands of Afghans have been living quietly in our country unable to tell their neighbours they had to come to the UK because our government put them in danger. Today, the super-injunction protecting the story behind the Afghans' secret evacuation has ended – and it is time for Britain to say sorry. Not just sorry for disclosing their identity. Not just sorry for abandoning their country and prioritising flights of dogs and cats while ministers were on a sun lounger. But thank you for their courage and sacrifice – and sorry for the welcome we gave them.