Compulsory Voting: For and Against

by Jason Brennan, Lisa Hill

In many democracies, voter turnout is low and getting lower. If the people choose not to govern themselves, should they be forced to do so? For Jason Brennan, compulsory voting is unjust and a petty violation of citizens' liberty. The median non-voter is less informed and rational, as well as more biased than the median voter. According to Lisa Hill, compulsory voting is a reasonable imposition on personal liberty. Hill points to the discernible benefits of compulsory voting and argues that high turnout elections are more democratically legitimate. The authors – both well-known for their work on voting and civic engagement – debate questions such •Do citizens have a duty to vote, and is it an enforceable duty? •Does compulsory voting violate citizens' liberty? If so, is this sufficient grounds to oppose it? Or is it a justifiable violation? Might it instead promote liberty on the whole? •Is low turnout a problem, or a blessing? •Does compulsory voting produce better government? Or, might it instead produce worse government? Might it, in fact, have little effect overall on the quality of government?

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction

240 pages, Hardcover

First published April 27, 2014

About the author

Jason Brennan is the Robert J. and Elizabeth Flanagan Family Professor of Strategy, Economics, Ethics, and Public Policy at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business. His books include Against Democracy and The Ethics of Voting.

Reviews

[Marc Sabatier · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enjoyed this a lot. Hadn't read anything by Brennan before, and this was a lot of fun. I less Hill's argument less carefully, and I think that it was a bit a shame that the second part didn't engage with the first part more directly. Brennan had briefly summarized the arguments in his criticism of compulsory voting, so one was familiar was familiar with them when starting to read Hill's defense. And there was no engagement with Brennan's argument that one could instate a lottery, where a random voter gets a lot money to increase turnout. Brennan's point was that this achieves the goals of compulsory voting without coercion, so an advocate has to say why this isn't good - was curious to see the reply to this, but couldn't clearly see one. Guess there's always a trade-off with these dialogue books, and this was pretty much two small books put together. But they do. work together, even though a little concluding chapter with some dialogue had been nice.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

A cute concept on TV turned dull in print. Actually, this is not a TV invention. It's the old debate. Still, the debate is brought to a mockery when two academic paper pushers just itemize their arguments independent from one another. So a discussion becomes simply two books in one. But if one lifts up the book and examine the actual volume one discovers there are two overblown articles and the whole book would have been more suites as a series of blog posts.