Should Everyone Vote?

Democracy and freedom don't always go together well. Many believe that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people must make demands of its citizenry if it is to be truly fair and representative. Thus, there are those who support mandatory conscription so that the burden of defending the country falls on everyone, there are those who advocate forced community service so that everyone shares the work of improving their local communities, and there are those who believe voting should be compulsory so that every citizen plays an active role in selecting the government. On the other side of the aisle, there's the "fun and games" crowd who don't see democracy as a bringer of burdens but instead as a bringer of opportunities. I'm an irresponsible member of this latter group, I must confess. I'm not so extreme that I would call for the end of all taxation, but in general I prefer the government to refrain from ordering its citizens around if it is at all possible. The cost of freedom is that there will be both "good" citizens who take their privileged position in a free society very seriously and "bad" citizens who do not spin, weave, fight, volunteer, or vote. Could this freedom that allows some to opt out of some of the "duties" of citizenship be harmful for democratic countries?

Of the three possible duties of citizenship that I mentioned earlier, compulsory voting is the least demanding. While forced service typically requires a serious time commitment that will necessarily disrupt lives, forced voting merely requires the citizen to take some time on the day of an election to cast a vote. At most, this action will disrupt the citizen's day, not his or her entire life. Although a burden, it is not a particularly noxious one and I do not consider it as morally questionable as many other intrusive government mandates. Still, that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do -- there should be a very good reason for forcing people to do anything.

The obvious benefit of compulsory voting is that it strongly encourages people to participate in politics. Democracy can give people a voice in determining how their country's affairs are run, but if they never use that voice to express their opinions they can't help shape their nation. Indeed, these silent citizens may ultimately find themselves entirely at the mercy of an unfriendly yet duly elected government -- that's not necessarily a better thing than living under a tyrant! In countries where voting is not compulsory, like the United States, people may opt out of voting for reasons some would deem frivolous: "I don't want to face the crowd at the voting booth." "I'm tired and just don't feel like it." "My DVR is broken and I'll miss my favorite TV show if I go vote." Still others may not vote because they are unsure of how the system works or feel too intimidated to vote due to racism or other discrimination. In compulsory voting countries, not going to the polls likely means paying a fine at a future date or facing some stiffer penalty -- perhaps even imprisonment -- so it is not a decision to be taken lightly. In Australia, well over 90% of the electorate votes. In the United States, the percentage is more like 60%...still a majority, though!

Even if we do grant that the reasons why some people do not vote might indeed be frivolous, we should consider the possibility that there are some perfectly valid reasons not to vote. For instance, what if you simply don't have a preference for a particular candidate? In Australia, voters without a candidate they can in good conscience support must make mandatory appearances at the polls but may submit blank ballots. That's a waste of both time and paper, but it is certainly preferable to being forced to actually cast a binding vote. Mandatory voting may also lead to people completely uninterested and uninformed about politics to cast blind votes for candidates they know little about. When it comes to voting, I think ignorance definitely is an excuse not to vote -- I know when I wasn't really following politics I didn't have a clue as to the policies of various politicians. I couldn't have made an informed decision in the booth, and at the time I wasn't really interested in devoting the time necessary to get informed. Once again, the proper action of the uninformed and uninterested would be to simply submit a blank ballot in a compulsory voting nation, but it seems like that doesn't always occur -- "donkey votes" in Australia seem to be an example of what can happen when disgruntled and uninterested voters participate in elections. (Of course, disgruntled voters are allowed to participate in noncompulsory voting countries as well, and often do!) There's another group of people who I also personally think should consider not voting even though they are some of the most informed people around: journalists who try to report the news in an unbiased fashion. Of course, journalists are first and foremost citizens who have just as much right to vote as anyone else, but I would definitely respect the journalist who chooses freely to refrain from directly participating in politics so as to better report the news "purely." I've noticed with alarm that increasingly even reporters show political bias and seem to be willing to try to twist the news in order to support a certain political outlook -- journalism is a profession that needs to stive for purity on the reporting side of things if it is to keep the nation informed. Ideally, one should be able to balance one's journalistic ethics and one's personal political beliefs, but if someone senses a conflict between the two and decides to opt out of voting in order to be a better journalist, I think that person has made a noble decision.

I've basically used Australia as my example of a compulsory voting nation throughout this post. It is a country where compulsory voting has been in place for a long time and the practice seems to have both governmental and widespread popular support there. Many in the United States, the UK, and other countries look at the Aussies' voter participation rates with envy, but it isn't necessarily easy to pinpoint how this increased participation has actually changed Australian politics relative to other democracies. For instance, I long thought that one bonus of forcing everyone to vote would be the rising of many smaller parties to cater to the desires of the enlarged electorate. Australia, however, pretty much has a two-party system though the Greens are more successful there than any third party in the United States and they also have some regional parties who are active in local politics. Compulsory voting also doesn't seem to have led to political disaster -- while I'm no admirer of Prime Minister Rudd's Internet filtering scheme, Australia remains a relatively free and first world country. Even if compulsory voting does happen to encourage more uninformed people to vote blindly, it is quite possible for the uninformed to vote for different candidates...they won't necessarily all veer towards the demagogue, for instance. So, when it comes to Australia, I'd like to see voting made noncompulsory there more for the sake of individual freedom -- the state shouldn't be ordering people to exercise their rights as citizens and inconveniencing the lives of those who don't want to vote -- than because it has been politically harmful.

It's worthwhile to note that compulsory voting doesn't necessarily always take the form it does in Australia. In 2002, for instance, Saddam Hussein claimed to get 100% of the Iraqi vote with 100% voter participation. If you can neither choose whether or not to vote nor choose a candidate to vote for, then that is the result -- a meaningless election that people participate in essentially for ceremonial purposes. Granted, voting in Saddam Hussein's Iraq was more of a sham than a compulsory affair, but compulsory voting means absolutely nothing if there isn't also free choice. Up to this point, Australia has done a good job of protecting the freedom of the vote even as it has denied the freedom of the voter; its elections are still free. In other countries, however, compulsory voting is used to disguise the fact that elections are anything but free and fair. The Iraqi experience is not reason enough to absolutely condemn the Australian system, but one of the reasons I feel the way I do about the government making actions compulsory is because I know that the most brutal governments routinely treat their citizens like pawns.

To Spend or to Cut

As governments around the world struggle to deal with a global recession, a pressing decision must be made. It's not the decision to intervene or not that I'm speaking about -- if governments completely ignore serious crises, I don't know why they even need to exist. Even the most laissez-faire of elected governments are reluctant to play their fiddles while Rome burns, and authoritarian governments must fear popular uprisings when economic times grow difficult. From the Netherlands to the United States to China, governments are trying their best to rescue their economies from the hell of recession. Their most troubling decision is how to go about "fixing" economies normally (even in China) powered by a more or less free market. One way to go about this is to embark on ambitious stimulus spending programs designed to create short-term jobs, boost struggling economic sectors, and spur economic growth; another way is to cut taxes to put more money in people's pockets so that they may spend, save, start businesses, and invest on their own. While it is certainly possible to both spend and cut, there is a great deal of disagreement as to which policy is better for the economy.

Spending has the most positive immediate impact but also the most negative long-term impact. It is a double-edged sword that should be used carefully; I personally tend to think the stimulus bill being debated in the U.S. Congress has a little too much spending in its present form. While a well-run stimulus program can immediately put people back to work especially in areas like construction, the bigger it is the bigger the deficit that future governments will have to heal with either inflation or higher taxes. The money that flows freely today from government coffers comes with a price tag. On the other hand, it is irresponsible and cruel to ignore the sufferings of the people. To not spend in the name of fiscal conservatism as unemployment rises higher and higher would deservedly destroy confidence in government. Confidence is actually a key factor when we talk about stimulus spending. It's not like the government is going to permanently employ all the people it plans to put back to work in the short-term via stimulus spending; to do that, it would need to start nationalizing businesses and move away from a free market economy. Rather, what capitalist governments hope to do through stimulus packages is to give their economies a nudge so that private industry can ultimately take over again. Government just needs to get the ball rolling so that banks will feel more confident about lending, capitalists will feel more comfortable starting businesses, existing businesses will feel reassured enough to start rehiring and expanding, the labor force will not grow hopeless, and savers and investors will not utterly forsake the financial system. The danger here is that government will try to push rather than nudge. It's practically impossible to draw the line on "too much stimulus spending"; there's always someone else who needs a job, someone else whose living conditions could be improved, some other business that needs to be propped up, someone else who needs a loan or needs help making payments on one. Still, that line must be drawn somewhere, and it should be drawn at a point where the costs of the stimulus can be borne without unreasonable hardships being placed on future generations and administrations...I suspect even the current generation and administration will have to deal with inflation. On the flip side, the government could spend so little that there is no increase in confidence and no cascading effect, but I think it's wiser to err on the side of caution and start out small. If one conservative stimulus plan fails to have the desired effect, then pass another one that incorporates what worked from the first plan and expands it. Although the situation is dire, rushing to push a plan "too huge to fail" doesn't seem wise to me.

Republicans in both houses of Congress have opted to rally around the banner of cutting taxes to encourage growth. Though Democrats overwhelmingly support stimulus spending as well, there is also some bipartisan agreement that tax cuts and credits could be desireable as well. Much like spending, cutting taxes can be done in rather targeted ways. For instance, senators Boxer and Ensign want to cut corporate taxes on American businesses who are willing to reinvest their earnings "back home", an idea that President Obama also voiced support for during his presidential campaign. Mikulski and Brownback (yes, the former presidential candidate) want to give American buyers of new cars in 2009 a one-time tax deduction on their purchases -- a blatant attempt to prop up a struggling industry that is vital to the American economy. I kind of like both these ideas, but Boxer and Ensign's plan provides a good example of one advantage of the tax cutting strategy. Ultimately, private businesses are going to lead us out of recession -- encouraging companies to start reinvesting in their businesses now can create permanent jobs as opposed to the temporary jobs created by infrastructure stimulus spending. Another nice thing I like about tax cuts is that they can always be reversed back to their previous level; for instance, Mikulski and Brownback's plan specifies up front that the new car deduction is a one-time only deal. With stimulus spending, the government takes on a mountain of debt instantly and must carry it around indefinitely, dealing with it only at some unspecified moment in the future. That said, not all tax cut proposals are nearly so targeted as the two I just mentioned. Reducing taxes on individuals is also a popular idea at the moment, but it puts the onus on the public to stimulate the economy on their own. They have to spend more to encourage businesses to hire more, they have to save more to encourage banks to lend more, and they have to buy homes and stocks to reverse the deflation that has been evaporating wealth so rapidly of late. It's a more indirect way of doing things, and, although I approve of the government empowering individuals to make their own decisions with their own money, I think it's a slower approach that won't provide the same confidence boost that stimulus spending will.

It's easy to be seduced into thinking the differences between spending and tax cutting are more profound than they really are. Both can easily lead to huge deficits because tax cuts can reduce future government revenues. It's probably more important to use both tools wisely than to favor one tool over the other. I personally think some stimulus spending is definitely needed but that targeted tax cuts should probably be emphasized more. Obviously, the global economy is scary right now and I think the governments of the world have an obligation to at least try to do something. I have a feeling I'm going to think the stimulus plan that will ultimately be enacted in the U.S. isn't cautious enough, but I'll be as happy as anyone if it really truly does help the situation. The mountain of debt we are likely to have to deal with in the future will be a lot easier to handle if the future economy is prosperous.