Our class has discussed why voter turnout in democracies is so low and ways to increase voter turnout. One solution was to place fines on voters to encourage them to go out and vote but it seems wrong to force participation in one of our most important freedoms. As it turns out, there are 11 democracies around the world that enforce compulsory voting, with Brazil being the largest. Fines in Brazil have boosted voter turnout to around 80%, but it has led to some unintended results (*language around 0:25) regarding candidates. Some "joke candidates" for this year's election include Jesus, Satan, Osama Bin Laden, and my personal favorite, a man who flies around space shooting lasers out of his eyes. Every country has zany write-in candidates which pose little threat but in Brazil these candidates can actually win: a rhino was elected to city council of Sao Paulo in 1959.
Compulsory voting changes the Johnson equation to where B + [extra utility] = C + Fines. This leaves rational abstainers with two options to protest the election, pay a fine or vote for someone they don't care about. Clearly this is a problem where voters may become uninterested in elections and vote for the most recognizable candidate or a joke candidate. I can see many indifferent voters in Brazil just voting for the first name on the ballot to get the process over with and avoid paying the fine. This leaves the democratic system with an unavoidable flaw in the voting process. Countries that have the option to vote like the United States have extremely low turnout compared to the compulsory system under Brazil where voters make a mockery of the system by nominating joke candidates. I prefer the option to vote system because at least the voters are invested in the candidates they vote for but it seems like no perfect voting system exists.
1 comment:
To extend this post, many other Latin America countries have compulsory voting laws like Brazil. The reason for the creation of these laws is normally publicized as promoting democratic values by increasing voter turnout. However, the investigation in this article dived into the political climate of when these laws were enacted and discovered that a major factor was a fear of losing by incumbents. Given this, the compulsory laws actually hinder the democratic process as incumbents are simply seeking an easier path to reelection. The reason these laws help incumbents, according to the article, is because it pressures the “silent majority” who voted for them to return back to the polls. These laws and their fines make the cost of abstention higher, as Sean pointed out. And in similar agreement, a democracy is only worthwhile when it promotes the freedom to have a choice – even if it’s between voting and abstaining.
Post a Comment