What are the arguments for and against compulsory voting? Are there
any projections of how this would effect the political landscape in
both the US and the UK? Thanks.

---

Clarification of Question by rai130-ga on 02 Dec 2004 07:52 PST

Have I priced this too low or something, or is it unaswerable?

My personel view is we already have too much government in our face,
without adding compusive voting. Some people choose not to vote for
religous reasons. I see no logic in infringing on this religous
freedom. Others choose not to vote because they have not made
sufficient preperation to vote wisely. These may make even less
preparation if required to vote.
 The rich and powerful who get their way by lies, half truths, false
inferences, and sound bites will have an easier time if more
uninformed voters cast their ballot.   Neil

Australia (where I live) has compulsory voting. Many are against it -
I happen to believe strongly in it but I attempt present both sides.
Arguments behind compulsory voting are many. To have compulsory voting
means that there can be no doubt that those in power have the mandate
of the people. It is more democratic because every single person's
vote is counted and people are forced to register and forced to turn
up. There are no sizeable demographics of people who do not vote or do
not register, so politicians must cater for every voter.
As the ballot is usually secret, the voter has the option at the poll
to simply put in a blank ballot, which is an option for those who do
not wish to cast a vote or do not believe they are politically aware
enough to make a decision.
Compulsory voting reduces the effect of 'opinion polls' on the voting
populace. Every poll has its own strange processes, which can explain
how different many of their results are. Compulsory voting stops
voters who would have bet on the apparent "leading candidate" from
believing their vote isnt needed.

The arguments against compulsory voting centre around a persons
freedom from input into politics. Those who are against compulsory
voting believe that it should be a right to vote but not a duty. The
argument is a government should not intervene to force a citizen to
vote when the citizen does not want to.
Furthermore, non-compulsory voting is cheaper to run as less votes are
counted and there is less registration and enforcement work.
Some against compulsory voting argue that to force people who do not
comprehend the issues is harmful to the society.  This argument is
countered by arguing that compulsory voting drives the populace to
educate itself, by the argument that the voter may still hand in a
blank ballot at the poll, and the argument that there can be no test
as to 'comprehension' of the issues, for a democracy is every citizen
regardless of intelligence or opinion.

I hope I have helped