My debate with Lisa Hill, Compulsory Voting: For and Against, is now available in limited quantities on Amazon.

Blurb:

In Compulsory Voting: For and Against, two leading political theorists debate whether compulsory voting is the solution to the decline in overall voter turnout. Jason Brennan argues that compulsory voting will not only fail to make governments more responsive to the needs of the disadvantaged, but that it might actually harm them. Lisa Hill argues that compulsory voting makes the political system more democratic and helps the most vulnerable citizens ensure that government will better serve their interests.

 

Endorsements:

 

“The frustrating thing about arguments over citizenship in democracies is that everyone is right, meaning that everyone is also wrong. There are powerful arguments in favor of asking citizens to act on a moral obligation to become informed, so as to move toward an ideal world. In that view, argued ably here by Jason Brennan, anyone who fails to become informed should voluntarily abstain. Lisa Hill argues that Brennan has it backwards: ‘good’ elections are not the result of an informed citizenry. Rather, a broadly accepted electoral process, legitimated by universal participation, is what creates an informed citizenry. Who is right? An extraordinary and very fair-minded treatment of significant issues in democracy around the world.”
Michael Munger, Duke University

“Should the government force citizens to vote? Brennan and Hill’s Compulsory Voting crisply presents the strongest case in favor as well as the strongest case against mandatory participation in the electoral process. Although the two authors defend opposite conclusions, both show that philosophy is better with careful social science – and that social science is better with careful philosophy. A book full of ideas, clarity, and candor.”
Bryan D. Caplan, George Mason University

“Jason Brennan and Lisa Hill have performed a valuable service by brilliantly analyzing and critiquing the many arguments for and against compulsory voting, ranging from the most obvious to those that are counterintuitive and obscure. An original, readily accessible contribution to the scholarly literature.”
Ilya Somin, George Mason University

My main argument against compulsory voting is not that voters are dumb. (I don’t get to that until chapter 4.) Rather, my main argument is this:

The Burden of Proof Argument

1. Because compulsory voting is compulsory, it is presumed unjust in the absence of a compelling justification.
2. A large number of purported arguments for compulsory voting fail. (I spend chapters 2-3 defeating 20 or so arguments for compulsory voting.)
3. There are no remaining plausible arguments that we know of.
4. If 1-3, then, probably, compulsory voting is unjust.
5. Therefore, probably, compulsory voting is unjust.

Here’s an excerpt from chapter 2. I start by attacking three bad arguments for compulsory voting, but then show that these three bad arguments are really just poorly formulated versions of three better arguments for compulsory voting. Still, even these three better arguments don’t work.

Alfred Apps is the former president of Canada’s Liberal Party. He and I once debated compulsory voting. Apps probably supports compulsory voting because he believes it would benefit the Liberal Party.[i] (During the debate, Apps admitted he had not read any empirical research on compulsory voting. In fact, the best available evidence indicates it does not help small parties.[ii]) Apps is a cunning politician. He knows in a public debate, he cannot say, “I advocate compulsory voting because I believe it would help me.” So, instead, he offered the following argument, an argument I have heard many others make as well:

The Consent Argument

1. Democracy should be based on the consent of the people.
2. Citizens show consent by voting.
3. Therefore, a democracy without high electoral turnout rules without consent.
4. Therefore, we should compel people to vote.

This argument sounds plausible to many people. But is in fact absurd.

The argument is absurd because it rests on a contradiction. Democracy should be consensual, it says, and voting counts as consent. If people will not consent on their own, we must force people to perform the act that signifies consent. If people will not consent voluntarily, the government should force them to consent. But that is an absurdity.. This is like saying that marriages should be consensual, and so we should force people to consent to marriage. If you have to force people to vote to signify consent, then voting does not in fact signify consent.

Another excerpt:

Voters and abstainers are systematically different. The old are more likely to vote than the young. Men are more likely to vote than women. In many countries, ethnic minorities are less likely to vote than ethnic majorities.[i] More highly educated people are more likely to vote than less highly educated people. Married people are more likely to vote than non-married people.[ii] Political partisans are more likely to vote than true independents. In short, under voluntary voting, the voting public—the citizens who actually vote—are not fully representative of the voting eligible public.

All this leads to what I call the Representativeness Argument:

The Representativeness Argument

1. Voters tend to vote for their self-interest.
2. Politicians tend to give large voting blocs what they ask for.
3. When voting is voluntary, the poor, minorities, the uneducated, and young people vote less than the rich, whites, the educated, or older people.
4. If so, then under voluntary voting, government will tend to promote the interest of the rich, of whites, and of the old, over the interests of the poor, of minorities, or of the young.
5. Under compulsory voting, almost every demographic and socio-economic group votes at equally high rates.
6. Thus, under compulsory voting, government will promote everyone’s interests.
7. Therefore, compulsory voting produces more representative government.
8. If compulsory voting produces more representative government than voluntary voting, then compulsory voting is justified.
9. Therefore, compulsory voting is justified.

This is probably the most popular argument for compulsory voting. As William Galston summarizes the argument:

The second argument for mandatory voting is democratic.Ideally, a democracy will take into account the interests and views of all citizens. But if some regularly vote while others don’t, officials are likely to give greater weight to participants. This might not matter much if nonparticipants were evenly distributed through the population. But political scientists have long known that they aren’t. People with lower levels of income and education are less likely to vote, as are young adults and recent first-generation immigrants.[iii]

In short: the strong and advantaged vote more than the weak and disadvantaged. It seems reasonable to speculate that forcing the weak and disadvantaged to vote will protect them from selfish rich voters. It thus seems reasonable to speculate the compulsory voting will produce fairer and equitable government.

Nevertheless, this argument is deeply flawed.

I go on to argue that 1) voters don’t vote selfishly, but altruistically, 2) that it doesn’t help most voters to force them to vote, because they aren’t well-informed enough to vote for policies that would benefit them, 3) that politicians tend to ignore the dumbest voters anyways, and 4) even I were wrong about 1-3, a “voting lottery” is preferable to compulsory voting. In fact, I return to this point frequently: anything that looks like a good argument for compulsory voting is almost always a good argument for a voting lottery.