Is Compulsory Voting More Democratic?

"They maintain that high turnout boosts the legitimacy of electoral outcomes, strengthens representatives' accountability, and signals that every voice matters equally. For some, it should be considered a tutelary institution. They often cite Australia, where voting is compulsory and turnout exceeds 90 percent. There, voting is a civic duty comparable to jury service or paying taxes. One fascinating defense originates from the intuitive idea that broad participation embodies citizens' collective and equal authorship of law."

"Yet this line of reasoning encounters a fundamental challenge. While it is true that high turnout can symbolically represent inclusiveness and equality, it only does so under specific conditions which confer turnout its democratic value. When turnout is compelled, especially without corresponding efforts to ensure meaningful engagement, the appearance of democracy may be maintained while its substance is nonetheless eroded."

Declining electoral participation undermines citizens' sense of co-authorship of laws and produces underrepresentation, especially among the young, poor, and less educated, which perpetuates disengagement. Compulsory voting proponents argue mandatory participation disrupts that cycle by boosting turnout, legitimacy, and representatives' accountability, with Australia often cited as a successful model. High turnout only embodies inclusiveness and equal authorship under specific conditions that confer democratic value. When turnout is compelled without efforts to ensure meaningful engagement, the outward appearance of democratic participation can persist even as the substantive quality of democracy is weakened. Voting operates through constitutive social rules that create the practice itself.

Read at Apaonline