Democracy

Bill Galston Wants to Force People to Vote

At the Princeton University Press Blog, I explain why most of his arguments don’t work.

Galston’s strategy seems to be “the more arguments the merrier” or “let’s throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks”. But, one problem with his arguments (aside from the fact that they rest upon mistaken empirical or normative premises) is that they aren’t compatible with each other:

Note, however, that Galston cannot consistently advance both the Public Goods and the Demographic Argument for Compulsory Voting. The Public Goods Argument treats voters as cooperators. One person’s vote tends to benefit others, while abstention comes at their expense. The Public Goods argument says that non-voters take advantage of voters. But the Demographic Argument treats voters as competitors. One person’s vote tends to harm other voters (by reducing the power of their vote), while abstention helps them (by strengthening the power of their vote).  The Demographic Argument assumes that non-voters advantage voters, while voters take advantage of non-voters.

At most, one of these arguments is sound. If the Public Goods Argument is sound, then when I (a privileged, upper-middle class, married, white, heterosexual, cisgendered male) abstain, most voters should be mad at me. But if the Demographic Argument is sound, then when I abstain, I do women, blacks, Latinos, the poor, the unemployed, and so on, a favor, by making it more likely the government will represent their interests rather than mine. Galston can’t have it both ways.

 

Take a look. 

Published on:
Author: Jason Brennan
Share: