Should voting remain a precious privilege or become a mandatory duty?

View on the news

Christopher Curran
Posted 3/25/15

Like most men my age, my father and uncles were members of what news anchorman Tom Brokaw termed “The Greatest Generation.” They were men who risked everything to preserve our rights as …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Should voting remain a precious privilege or become a mandatory duty?

View on the news

Posted

Like most men my age, my father and uncles were members of what news anchorman Tom Brokaw termed “The Greatest Generation.” They were men who risked everything to preserve our rights as Americans. Prior to reaching the age of majority, they expressed to me the following words to live by: “Voting is a privilege which was provided for you by men who sacrificed their lives. Don’t forget it.” I never did.

However, there are many American citizens who have forgotten what the Greatest Generation did for us. Sadly, they have also forgotten what a precious privilege it is to be able to cast a vote in a free society.

Recently, the 44th president of the United States, Barack H. Obama, cultivated a great amount of discourse when he suggested a possible solution to the influence of big money in American politics. In Cleveland, Ohio, at the Cleveland City Club, he surprised everyone when he stated: “I don’t think I’ve ever said this publicly, but I’m going to go ahead and say this now.” He was speaking of making voting in America compulsory. He created an argument using the country of Australia’s voting system as a template for the United States. By presenting this possible change, the president stirred philosophical questions about what voting truly means to a democracy and whether a citizen should be forced to participate in the electoral system.

Whereas many countries do require their citizens to vote, the final condition of how actually democratic their voting outcomes are differ with the fairness of the election process and the sincerity of those casting their ballots. Certain countries have not benefited from mandatory voting. In United States history, many have struggled against disenfranchisement. Yet, once a group of citizens has prevailed in gaining their voting rights, sometimes they choose not to exercise their hard fought access. So, the question is, should voting remain a precious privilege or become a mandatory duty in our nation?

On the face of it, President Obama’s statements regarding mandatory voting seem logical. He said: “In Australia, other countries, there’s mandatory voting,” and “We shouldn’t be making it harder to vote, we should be making it easier to vote.” He also said, “It would be transformative if everybody voted – that would counteract money more than anything.” The president was referencing the extraordinary amount of money now spent on political campaigns, which has skyrocketed since the Supreme Court decision called “Citizens United.” With unfettered political action committees and higher limits for contributors, the common fear currently is that elections are for sale.

However, using Australia’s electoral system as a role model may not be apt.

The president failed to mention the widespread problem of “donkey voting” down under. Donkey voting is the practice of indiscriminate voting by filling in one’s ballot in any haphazard fashion in order to avoid the governmental fine for not casting a vote. According to the cable news network CNBC, “the risk of importing donkey voting from Australia is great.” In the last national election in 2013, as much as 9 percent of estimated votes cast were donkey votes. In all, 93.3 percent of Aussies voted for their representatives in the House of Representatives and 94 percent voted for their senators in the Australian Senate. When one figures in the donkeys, are the final outcomes truly reflective of the will of the people?

Also, there seems to be no clear correlation between mandatory voting and a resulting good government. Mandatory voting under oppressive regimes do not often yield a true reflection of the people’s will in a tense election environment. Of the 195 countries in the world recognized by the U.S. State Department, 42 have free access to the ballot box and 22 require mandatory voting. Egypt has had mandatory voting for decades and Egyptian citizens have endured the authoritative and single party centric regimes of Anwar Sadat, Hosni Mubarak and Mohamed Morsi. While Lebanon has seen an almost constant state of uproar and upheaval under mandatory voting, the continually corrupt country Congo has faired much worse. North Korea has mandatory voting and the election outcome is always a foregone conclusion insured by terror and fear. Also, Argentina has had suspect election results every cycle, which have elevated devious candidates to power under the mandatory rule as well.

On the contrary, Switzerland, which has only voluntary voting, has a record of low voter turnouts and arguably consistently good governance. Perhaps the Swiss are an example a society where those who may not have the presence of mind to truly understand the issues and the character of candidates leave election outcomes to those who do. Thus, the opting out of the voting process by the ill informed serves the cause of their nation.

According to the Pew Research Center, there is “a vast gulf in the financial well being between voters and non-voters in the United States.” They also stated that non-voters tend to be younger, racial minorities and of a lower economic class. However since the positive evolution of voting laws in our country, there are now no stumbling blocks to any citizen who wants to express their individual vote. So, why are disadvantaged citizens not voting?

Why should those citizens who have apparently no inclination in exercising the privilege of casting a ballot be forced to? According to a Princeton University Study, on average, two-thirds of America’s registered voters do not show up at the polls in off-year elections and just over half show up to cast their ballots in general elections. Should those who choose not to vote be penalized? This question was reflected upon by Florida Republican U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, who stated: “I wish more people would participate in politics too, but that is their choice. That is the choice of living in a free society.”

Yet what is puzzling is, considering how hard certain groups fought for suffrage, that some people have become so complacent. The United States has a long history of limiting voting rights, and the expansion of those rights took concerted efforts and great sacrifice. The United States Constitution did not sufficiently originally define who was eligible to vote. Early on, by supposition and custom, only propertied white males or men with a certain level of taxable income could cast ballots.

As society developed, state and local laws developed from those customs. However, there were exceptions to the rules. In the early 1800s, some Northern states where abolition activists were prevalent allowed non-whites to vote if they could meet the property requirement. Since the country was essentially an agrarian nation, voting for the most part was a local matter, and the voting restrictions created were reflective of that fact. As the country became industrialized, the United States became flooded with immigrants. Thus, voting restrictions were designed to suppress the access to the polls of the newcomers.

In our own state of Rhode Island, we endured the constitutional crisis during the Thomas Dorr affair in the 1840s, where the Ocean State for a time had two governments due to a dispute over voting rights. It was not until the Bourn Amendment to the Rhode Island Constitution in the 1880s that true suffrage was granted to all males. Immigrants had thirsted for a voice for almost a half century in our state, and finally realized the dream of voting and pursuing elected office.

Women suffered to gain the right to vote as well. Susan B. Anthony and Lucy Stone, among others in the National American Women’s Suffrage Association, toiled from the 1850s till the passing of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1920 to achieve equity in ballot access. Considering their struggle, it is disappointing that today only approximately 60 percent of registered women voters cast ballots in general election years.

Similarly, African-Americans emerged from enslavement to spend a century fighting for the full actualization of their voting rights. With the passing of the 14th and 15th amendments to the United States Constitution in 1868 and 1870, which insured that “All persons born or naturalized are citizens” and “Race, color, or previous condition of servitude” would not restrict equal rights, African-Americans were theoretically free to vote.

However, “Black Codes” and “Jim Crow” ordinances severely constrained access to political power. It was not until President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law in the 1960s that African-Americans realized true ballot equity. Yet despite this victory, a small percentage of African-Americans traditionally cast ballots.

In the Athenian Democracy of fifth century B.C., voting was offered to all citizens who were interested in voicing their opinion. Regardless of class or station, a citizen was considered worthy of respect when he casted a vote. Those who decided not to vote were considered to be in a state of “Opprobrium,” or reproach. President Obama is not incorrect that full participation in the electoral process would be good for our democracy. Where the president is wrong is that you cannot force people to value the act of voting. Just as you cannot force someone to value those gallant individuals who perished in order to provide us with the privilege of voting in our free society.

If our fellow citizens cannot appreciate the precious privilege that many have struggled to provide for us, then perhaps we should follow the example of the ancient Athenians and hold those who squander their rights in reproach.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here