Should Voting Be Compulsory?

Late into his term, Obama began to raise the question in the US, should voting be compulsory? And there's no doubt it's still highly relevant in modern politics. With the Trump's voting base, back in the 2016 election, only consisting of a quarter of the American eligible voters, the voter turnout for the 2016 election being a measly 58% and the Institute of Democratic and Electoral Assistance declaring 'declining [voter turnout] across the globe since the beginning of 1990s'. Democracies have become somewhat undemocratic. ![Trump.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmeUdanEXPFQXiN9r3wDeHsZGjbSasMVUWoxYq7NmZHdRc/Trump.jpg) **But why is this a problem?** It is from the people that liberal-democratic states draw their legitimacy. To be specific, John Locke, the father of modern liberalism, outlines in his highly-influential document, 'Two Treatises of Government', that by signing the 'social contract' (residing in society) we surrender many of our natural rights or innate rights to the government with the condition they will act in our, the people's, best interests, with the general benefits of governance. ![john_locke.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmTXTFhUrsCGvZkW3ni5TYQoS2Nji9tXNEndkxsnwNe41n/john_locke.jpg) The problem with low voter-turnouts resides here. How can a state act in our best interest when the wishes of the people aren't even expressed through the most basic, fundamental form of political involvement? Is the state still democratic when it fails to represent all of its people? Arguably, half the population is adequate to get an idea of the public's wishes. Though, when factors such as a demographic skew are taken into account the problem remains at large. For example, those under 25 are far less likely to vote than their older counter-parts. What happens when 75% of this demographic fail to vote? These people become 75% less important to state; their opinions become muffled by failure to vote and they lose the stake they're entitled to in public policy. These people find it harder to be heard and harder to take action. Government no longer represents the people it governs. **A Right Not to Vote** Now many libertarians will argue, we have a right to abstain, a 'right not to vote' and when it comes to rights it seems at first rather uncontroversial that with any right, we also possess the freedom to waive such a right. Though may we waive our right to life? May we choose to be a slave? No and maybe we should be able to. But the same principle applies to voting, we have these rights not just to protect our own individual freedoms, but to protect and uphold society as a whole. It was John Stuart Mill who famously wrote: > ‘The principle of freedom cannot require that [a person] should be free not to be free. It is not freedom, to be allowed to alienate [one’s] freedom.’ ![John_Stuart_Mill_by_London_Stereoscopic_Company,_c1870.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmaJrKu17tHESFJqLnGsn8Ct5ENYAxyh8nyQm4x5Ce6WMD/John_Stuart_Mill_by_London_Stereoscopic_Company%2C_c1870.jpg) But not only is it counter-intuitive for one to seek the demise of their own freedoms in the name of freedom, but it undermines the basic duties we hold to our own fellow citizens. The right and duty to fair trials ensures accuracy of the verdict. It has already been established fundamental to legitimacy and operation of democracy is the representation of the people. Simply, put it is not a democracy if it does not represent the people. Are we not failing our fellow citizen as well as ourselves by not upholding the source of our rights and freedoms? That’s for you to decide. But if these same principles applied to trials and to all our unwaivable rights is it such a stretch to include voting, the most essential, foundational political mechanism of democracy that upon which all our rights and freedoms are derived from? I would say yes. Maybe it’s a trade off in some of freedoms but ultimately isn’t it worth it? Again though this is for you to decide. Feel free to criticize, argue or agree. I look forward to it.