Lets analyze the following article
By David Radestock
The arguments for compulsory voting are both comprehensive and justifiable. Providing a strong mandate for government strengthens the democratic system and means elected representatives are accountable to more people, rather than just the few that vote for them. It also guards against the complacency of the privileged, reminding those who can vote that it is not a right afforded to all, as it should be, but to those whose forefathers had the tenacity to fight for it and the intelligence to implement it.
However these arguments are imagined in a world where the electorate is educated, engaged and opinionated. In this world, compulsory voting serves to guarantee turnout. However, if voters were like this, compulsory voting would barely be required. In reality, in post-political Britain at least, the electorate is largely apathetic and either uninterested, uneducated, or both. Compulsory voting in these circumstances would only heighten the trend of choices being made on inconsequential factors such the impression of a party leader.
What is needed is an educated, engaged electorate, making decisions based on rational and knowledgeable arguments. This can only be achieved by inspiring voters, by giving representation to their beliefs, rather than their fears, and by educating them so that they can cast their vote based on ideas rather than on a negative representation of a system collapsing under the weight of partisanship.
Education is paramount to this argument. A candidate can inspire but voters must understand the meaning of their rhetoric, and be able to interpret it in a way that is relevant to them, their family and their life experiences. Too many of the electorate merely view politicians as power hungry, corrupt and uncaring. Canvassing during the election campaign, I often heard the line ‘I don’t care who wins; it won’t make any difference to me’. Would forcing the people with this level of misunderstanding and apathy really allow democracy to flourish? Or would educating them, convincing them that politicians not only understand their problems but have a deep desire and passion to do something about them, improve their democratic experience to a much greater degree? The answer seems obvious.
Voting needn’t be compulsory. An inspiring candidate who seeks to do what it best not for their party but for the people will breed interest which will lead to education and a desire to vote. And desire is what is needed. Desire built on a notion that voting can truly change something for the better. Obligation will not break the grip of apathy upon politics. Inspiration will.
http://politicalpromise.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/should-voting-in-the-general-election-be-compulsory/
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Creating the Political Conditions for Reform
I like this Policy Brief from Brookings
The rise of political polarization in recent decades has made effective action much more difficult for the U.S. government. Polarization has impeded efforts to enact even the progrowth reforms sketched in this paper. A multiyear collaboration between the Brookings and Hoover Institutions—resulting in a two-volume report, Red and Blue Nation?, with Volume One published in 2006 and Volume Two in 2008— has mapped the scope of the phenomenon. This effort has shown that, while political elites are more sharply divided than citizens in general, citizens are more likely now to place themselves at the ends of the ideological spectrum than they were as recently as the 1980s. With a smaller political center to work with, even leaders committed to bipartisan compromise have been stymied. The fate of President Bush’s 2005 Social Security proposal illustrates the difficulty of addressing tough issues in these circumstances.
It might seem that the only cure for polarization is a shift of public sentiment back toward moderation. The Brookings-Hoover project found, however, that changes in institutional design could reduce polarization and might, over time, lower the partisan temperature. Here are two ideas, culled from a much longer list.
Congressional redistricting
While population flows account for much of the growth in safe seats dominated by strong partisans, recent studies indicate that gerrymanders account for 10 to 36 percent of the reduction in competitive congressional districts since 1982. This is not a trivial effect.
Few Western democracies draw up their parliamentary districts in so patently politicized a fashion as do U.S. state legislatures. Parliamentary electoral commissions, operating independently and charged with making reasonably objective determinations, are the preferred model abroad.
Given the Supreme Court’s reluctance to enter the thicket of redistricting controversies, any changes will be up to state governments. In recent years, voter initiatives and referenda in four states—Washington, Idaho, Alaska and Arizona—have established nonpartisan or bipartisan redistricting commissions. These commissions struggle with a complicated riddle: how to enhance competitiveness while respecting other parameters, such as geographic compactness, jurisdictional boundaries, and the desire to consolidate “communities of interest.” Iowa’s approach, where a nonpartisan legislative staff has the last word, is often cited as a model but may be hard to export to states with more demographic diversity and complex political cultures. Arizona has managed to fashion some workable, empirically based standards that are yielding more heterogeneous districts and more competitive elections.
Incentives to participate
Another depolarizing reform would promote the participation of less ideologically committed voters in the electoral process. Some observers do not view the asymmetric power of passionate partisans in U.S. elections as a cause for concern: Why shouldn’t political decisions be made by the citizens who care most about them? Aren’t those who care also better informed? And isn’t their intensive involvement an indication that the outcome of the election affects their interests more than it affects the interests of the non-voters? While this argument has surface plausibility, it is not compelling. Although passionate partisanship infuses the system with energy, it erects road-blocks to problem-solving. Many committed partisans prefer gridlock to compromise, and gridlock is no formula for effective governance.
To broaden the political participation of less partisan citizens, who tend to be more weakly connected to the political system, several major democracies have made voting mandatory. Australia, for one, has compulsory voting; it sets small fines for non-voting that escalate for recidivism, with remarkable results. The turnout rate in Australia tops 95 percent, and citizens regard voting as a civic obligation. Near-universal voting raises the possibility that a bulge of casual voters, with little understanding of the issues and candidates, can muddy the waters by voting on non-substantive criteria, such as the order in which candidates’ names appear on the ballot. The inevitable presence of some such “donkey voters,” as they are called in Australia, does not appear to have badly marred the democratic process in that country.
Indeed, the civic benefits of higher turnouts appear to outweigh the “donkey” effect. Candidates for the Australian Parliament have gained an added incentive to appeal broadly beyond their partisan bases. One wonders whether members of Congress here in the United States, if subjected to wider suffrage, might also spend less time transfixed by symbolic issues that are primarily objects of partisan fascination, and more time coming to terms with the nation’s larger needs. At least campaigns continually tossing red meat to the party faithful might become a little less pervasive.
The United States is not Australia, of course. Although both are federal systems, the U.S. Constitution confers on state governments much more extensive control over voting procedures. While it might not be flatly unconstitutional to mandate voting nationwide, it would surely chafe with American custom and provoke opposition in many states. Federalism American-style also has some unique advantages, including its tradition of using states as “laboratories of democracy” that test reform proposals before they are elevated to consideration at the national level. If a few states experiment with compulsory voting and demonstrate its democracy- enriching potential, they might, in this way, smooth the path to national consideration.
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2010/0601_innovation_galston.aspx
The rise of political polarization in recent decades has made effective action much more difficult for the U.S. government. Polarization has impeded efforts to enact even the progrowth reforms sketched in this paper. A multiyear collaboration between the Brookings and Hoover Institutions—resulting in a two-volume report, Red and Blue Nation?, with Volume One published in 2006 and Volume Two in 2008— has mapped the scope of the phenomenon. This effort has shown that, while political elites are more sharply divided than citizens in general, citizens are more likely now to place themselves at the ends of the ideological spectrum than they were as recently as the 1980s. With a smaller political center to work with, even leaders committed to bipartisan compromise have been stymied. The fate of President Bush’s 2005 Social Security proposal illustrates the difficulty of addressing tough issues in these circumstances.
It might seem that the only cure for polarization is a shift of public sentiment back toward moderation. The Brookings-Hoover project found, however, that changes in institutional design could reduce polarization and might, over time, lower the partisan temperature. Here are two ideas, culled from a much longer list.
Congressional redistricting
While population flows account for much of the growth in safe seats dominated by strong partisans, recent studies indicate that gerrymanders account for 10 to 36 percent of the reduction in competitive congressional districts since 1982. This is not a trivial effect.
Few Western democracies draw up their parliamentary districts in so patently politicized a fashion as do U.S. state legislatures. Parliamentary electoral commissions, operating independently and charged with making reasonably objective determinations, are the preferred model abroad.
Given the Supreme Court’s reluctance to enter the thicket of redistricting controversies, any changes will be up to state governments. In recent years, voter initiatives and referenda in four states—Washington, Idaho, Alaska and Arizona—have established nonpartisan or bipartisan redistricting commissions. These commissions struggle with a complicated riddle: how to enhance competitiveness while respecting other parameters, such as geographic compactness, jurisdictional boundaries, and the desire to consolidate “communities of interest.” Iowa’s approach, where a nonpartisan legislative staff has the last word, is often cited as a model but may be hard to export to states with more demographic diversity and complex political cultures. Arizona has managed to fashion some workable, empirically based standards that are yielding more heterogeneous districts and more competitive elections.
Incentives to participate
Another depolarizing reform would promote the participation of less ideologically committed voters in the electoral process. Some observers do not view the asymmetric power of passionate partisans in U.S. elections as a cause for concern: Why shouldn’t political decisions be made by the citizens who care most about them? Aren’t those who care also better informed? And isn’t their intensive involvement an indication that the outcome of the election affects their interests more than it affects the interests of the non-voters? While this argument has surface plausibility, it is not compelling. Although passionate partisanship infuses the system with energy, it erects road-blocks to problem-solving. Many committed partisans prefer gridlock to compromise, and gridlock is no formula for effective governance.
To broaden the political participation of less partisan citizens, who tend to be more weakly connected to the political system, several major democracies have made voting mandatory. Australia, for one, has compulsory voting; it sets small fines for non-voting that escalate for recidivism, with remarkable results. The turnout rate in Australia tops 95 percent, and citizens regard voting as a civic obligation. Near-universal voting raises the possibility that a bulge of casual voters, with little understanding of the issues and candidates, can muddy the waters by voting on non-substantive criteria, such as the order in which candidates’ names appear on the ballot. The inevitable presence of some such “donkey voters,” as they are called in Australia, does not appear to have badly marred the democratic process in that country.
Indeed, the civic benefits of higher turnouts appear to outweigh the “donkey” effect. Candidates for the Australian Parliament have gained an added incentive to appeal broadly beyond their partisan bases. One wonders whether members of Congress here in the United States, if subjected to wider suffrage, might also spend less time transfixed by symbolic issues that are primarily objects of partisan fascination, and more time coming to terms with the nation’s larger needs. At least campaigns continually tossing red meat to the party faithful might become a little less pervasive.
The United States is not Australia, of course. Although both are federal systems, the U.S. Constitution confers on state governments much more extensive control over voting procedures. While it might not be flatly unconstitutional to mandate voting nationwide, it would surely chafe with American custom and provoke opposition in many states. Federalism American-style also has some unique advantages, including its tradition of using states as “laboratories of democracy” that test reform proposals before they are elevated to consideration at the national level. If a few states experiment with compulsory voting and demonstrate its democracy- enriching potential, they might, in this way, smooth the path to national consideration.
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2010/0601_innovation_galston.aspx
Monday, March 29, 2010
How to choose your MP: View From Sri Lanka
Citizens’ Movement for Good Governance (CIMOGG) provides guidelines
Three principal issues arise when voters ponder upon what action they should take regarding the forthcoming Parliamentary Elections. The first issue is whether to vote or not. The second is to decide on the party to support. The third is to identify the three preferred candidates.
In early January, the Citizens’ Movement for Good Governance (CIMOGG) appealed to the public not to waste their valuable franchise even if they felt strongly that casting their votes would do nothing to reduce corruption or reverse the escalating contempt for the Rule of Law and good governance. This call was made despite our being aware that so many of the better known candidates spend millions of ill-gotten rupees and employ mafia-style methods to outmanoeuvre and defeat their opponents and party rivals, reckoning that the resources so deployed could eventually be recovered ten-fold, or even a hundred-fold. It is only by casting your vote in such a manner as to send a clearly understandable message to the parties and their candidates that the deterioration in the quality of our Parliamentary representation can begin to be reversed. Our plea to the public, therefore, is: “do not fail to vote and, when you do, please give a clear signal that rogues and incompetents have no place in Parliament”. Moreover, voters should also persuade everyone they know to put their vote to good use so as to avoid what happened at the Presidential polls, where over 3.8 million registered voters abstained or were unable to exercise their franchise.
Preference to better personalities
As to the second issue, viz. which party is to be endorsed, one would ordinarily need to compare what is promised by the different parties in their manifestos. However, when we recall how even the most solemn election undertakings made in the past were unashamedly breached by the parties who came into power then, it is our view that it would be better to give priority to the quality of the candidates being put forward rather than to the glittering policies and promises being marketed. After you evaluate the various parties’ candidates on the lines suggested below, you may find, to your surprise, that you need to change your mind about whether to vote for the party you had initially decided to back or some other party or group.
Over the past couple of decades, increasing numbers of citizens have complained about the poor quality of the persons voted in as MPs. This year, the letters and articles published in the press on this subject have been more numerous and more critical than before any previous election. Most of them have listed the qualities they think that a candidate should or should not have. If one collated all the criteria proposed, the list would be rather long and many voters could get lost in applying it to the task of assessing the relative suitability of the candidates. So, with simplicity in mind, CIMOGG has worked out an appropriate procedure to help voters choose better MPs.
Identifying unsuitable candidates
A straightforward evaluation of the 300 or so candidates in each district can be made by voters with the aid of the lists sent by the Commissioner of Elections together with the polling cards. The voter should begin by identifying those candidates who should not be in Parliament. He should first draw a line across the names of those candidates who, to his knowledge, have proved to be incompetent, have a reputation for deriving income from drug-dealing, taking bribes to give government jobs and contracts, using foul language and violence, indulging in unfounded character assassination, being involved in an occupation or position that would plainly be in conflict with being an MP, and so on. A candidate facing criminal charges that the voter believes are genuine should have his name struck off. In carrying out this exercise, it is not incumbent upon the voter to look for irrefutable proof but to make a reasonable judgment on the information available to him.
The voter should also rule out the names of MPs who, as far as he can judge, have been sycophantic time-servers, interested only in making money for themselves, their relatives and their friends.
Abhor poster campaign
All responsible citizens abhor the pasting of posters, for four reasons. First, this practice is a violation of election laws. Second, there is no good reason why candidates should not limit themselves to newspaper, radio and TV advertisements, which could be designed to give some relevant bio-data and policy insights for the information of the voter. Third, poster advertising has a huge adverse environmental impact, including highly annoying visual pollution. Fourth, a massive proliferation of posters means that a vast amount of money would have been mobilised to print and paste them. Where would this money have come from? As one writer has pointed out, the cost of posters, cutouts and media advertising alone, in the case of certain candidates, would amount to more than the total income they could expect to earn as MPs over a 5-year period. Hence, those who plaster their likenesses and preference numbers indiscriminately on every vertical surface need to be viewed warily and blacklisted.
Where MPs have crossed over from one party to another, they may profess to have done so because their consciences drove them to it but their claims would have been more believable if they had resigned their seats instead, so as not to let down the voters who elected them. If you believe that they made their move for personal gain such as to get the perks and privileges of being appointed a minister or deputy minister and/or in order to avoid the consequences of their culpability in any corrupt deals exposed by the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and/or to evade having to face criminal investigations and prosecution for some other misdemeanour, you should remove them from your list.
Shortlist acceptable candidates
By now, your list will still have a large number of names of candidates about whom you know nothing at all and smaller number about whom you may have some useful information. Obviously, it would make no sense to vote for someone about whom you know nothing and, hence, one needs to cancel the names of all those who fall into that category. At the end of the exercise carried out so far, the voter will have managed to get shortlists of potentially acceptable candidates in a few of the party lists and, perhaps, one or two of the independent non-party lists. Now, comes the constructive part of choosing the best from these remaining names and identifying the party to which they belong. This process requires consideration of some related issues.
What is the value to be given to the declaration of assets and liabilities? Regarding the question of the declarations made to the Commissioner of Elections, we have to acknowledge that it is an ineffective measure at present because such submissions are not published openly and, more fundamentally, there is no statutory arrangement to have them checked for accuracy or to have the annual changes to the assets and liabilities reconciled with the (subsequently elected) candidates’ declared sources of tax-free, taxable and foreign income. If, however, a candidate makes his declaration voluntarily and allows it to be published on the Election Commissioner’s website, and undertakes, if elected, to update the information every year, he may be given a positive mark. Merely submitting a secret document of uncertain authenticity, which remains closed to public scrutiny, is a valueless exercise and need not be viewed in a particularly praiseworthy light.
Most ex-MPs who claim that they have not drawn their salaries or allowances over certain periods are probably indulging in this gimmick to divert attention away from their real moneymaking activities. It is only if the voter is satisfied, from whatever information that he has, that the claimed renunciation of salaries and allowances was not otherwise compensated by unlawful earnings, that he should consider giving the candidate any credit for his “sacrifice”.
Give preference to educated aspirants
If one were to ask any member of the public whether he believes that the typical MP has ever read the Constitution of Sri Lanka or whether the average MP has a sufficient knowledge of at least a few subjects such as finance, trade, public administration, environmental issues, information technology and so on, the chances are that the answer would be in the negative. Hence, in evaluating candidates who aspire to be re-elected or freshly elected as MPs, preference should be given to candidates with a degree or equivalent qualification in, say, accountancy, engineering, law or management, with at least a few years of business or professional experience.
Having gone through the procedure outlined above, you will find that the party or independent group lists will have differing numbers of names left. Logic demands that the party or group that has the largest number of good or tolerable candidates should be one the voter should back. This would be more rewarding than abstaining from voting or spoiling your vote or, worst of all, blindly voting for a party because of historic family loyalties or personal friendships. The selection of the final three preferred candidates from this party or group is a matter best left to the voter’s total discretion.
Dr A.C.Visvalingam
President, CIMOGG
www.cimogg-srilanka.org
Three principal issues arise when voters ponder upon what action they should take regarding the forthcoming Parliamentary Elections. The first issue is whether to vote or not. The second is to decide on the party to support. The third is to identify the three preferred candidates.
In early January, the Citizens’ Movement for Good Governance (CIMOGG) appealed to the public not to waste their valuable franchise even if they felt strongly that casting their votes would do nothing to reduce corruption or reverse the escalating contempt for the Rule of Law and good governance. This call was made despite our being aware that so many of the better known candidates spend millions of ill-gotten rupees and employ mafia-style methods to outmanoeuvre and defeat their opponents and party rivals, reckoning that the resources so deployed could eventually be recovered ten-fold, or even a hundred-fold. It is only by casting your vote in such a manner as to send a clearly understandable message to the parties and their candidates that the deterioration in the quality of our Parliamentary representation can begin to be reversed. Our plea to the public, therefore, is: “do not fail to vote and, when you do, please give a clear signal that rogues and incompetents have no place in Parliament”. Moreover, voters should also persuade everyone they know to put their vote to good use so as to avoid what happened at the Presidential polls, where over 3.8 million registered voters abstained or were unable to exercise their franchise.
Preference to better personalities
As to the second issue, viz. which party is to be endorsed, one would ordinarily need to compare what is promised by the different parties in their manifestos. However, when we recall how even the most solemn election undertakings made in the past were unashamedly breached by the parties who came into power then, it is our view that it would be better to give priority to the quality of the candidates being put forward rather than to the glittering policies and promises being marketed. After you evaluate the various parties’ candidates on the lines suggested below, you may find, to your surprise, that you need to change your mind about whether to vote for the party you had initially decided to back or some other party or group.
Over the past couple of decades, increasing numbers of citizens have complained about the poor quality of the persons voted in as MPs. This year, the letters and articles published in the press on this subject have been more numerous and more critical than before any previous election. Most of them have listed the qualities they think that a candidate should or should not have. If one collated all the criteria proposed, the list would be rather long and many voters could get lost in applying it to the task of assessing the relative suitability of the candidates. So, with simplicity in mind, CIMOGG has worked out an appropriate procedure to help voters choose better MPs.
Identifying unsuitable candidates
A straightforward evaluation of the 300 or so candidates in each district can be made by voters with the aid of the lists sent by the Commissioner of Elections together with the polling cards. The voter should begin by identifying those candidates who should not be in Parliament. He should first draw a line across the names of those candidates who, to his knowledge, have proved to be incompetent, have a reputation for deriving income from drug-dealing, taking bribes to give government jobs and contracts, using foul language and violence, indulging in unfounded character assassination, being involved in an occupation or position that would plainly be in conflict with being an MP, and so on. A candidate facing criminal charges that the voter believes are genuine should have his name struck off. In carrying out this exercise, it is not incumbent upon the voter to look for irrefutable proof but to make a reasonable judgment on the information available to him.
The voter should also rule out the names of MPs who, as far as he can judge, have been sycophantic time-servers, interested only in making money for themselves, their relatives and their friends.
Abhor poster campaign
All responsible citizens abhor the pasting of posters, for four reasons. First, this practice is a violation of election laws. Second, there is no good reason why candidates should not limit themselves to newspaper, radio and TV advertisements, which could be designed to give some relevant bio-data and policy insights for the information of the voter. Third, poster advertising has a huge adverse environmental impact, including highly annoying visual pollution. Fourth, a massive proliferation of posters means that a vast amount of money would have been mobilised to print and paste them. Where would this money have come from? As one writer has pointed out, the cost of posters, cutouts and media advertising alone, in the case of certain candidates, would amount to more than the total income they could expect to earn as MPs over a 5-year period. Hence, those who plaster their likenesses and preference numbers indiscriminately on every vertical surface need to be viewed warily and blacklisted.
Where MPs have crossed over from one party to another, they may profess to have done so because their consciences drove them to it but their claims would have been more believable if they had resigned their seats instead, so as not to let down the voters who elected them. If you believe that they made their move for personal gain such as to get the perks and privileges of being appointed a minister or deputy minister and/or in order to avoid the consequences of their culpability in any corrupt deals exposed by the Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE) and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and/or to evade having to face criminal investigations and prosecution for some other misdemeanour, you should remove them from your list.
Shortlist acceptable candidates
By now, your list will still have a large number of names of candidates about whom you know nothing at all and smaller number about whom you may have some useful information. Obviously, it would make no sense to vote for someone about whom you know nothing and, hence, one needs to cancel the names of all those who fall into that category. At the end of the exercise carried out so far, the voter will have managed to get shortlists of potentially acceptable candidates in a few of the party lists and, perhaps, one or two of the independent non-party lists. Now, comes the constructive part of choosing the best from these remaining names and identifying the party to which they belong. This process requires consideration of some related issues.
What is the value to be given to the declaration of assets and liabilities? Regarding the question of the declarations made to the Commissioner of Elections, we have to acknowledge that it is an ineffective measure at present because such submissions are not published openly and, more fundamentally, there is no statutory arrangement to have them checked for accuracy or to have the annual changes to the assets and liabilities reconciled with the (subsequently elected) candidates’ declared sources of tax-free, taxable and foreign income. If, however, a candidate makes his declaration voluntarily and allows it to be published on the Election Commissioner’s website, and undertakes, if elected, to update the information every year, he may be given a positive mark. Merely submitting a secret document of uncertain authenticity, which remains closed to public scrutiny, is a valueless exercise and need not be viewed in a particularly praiseworthy light.
Most ex-MPs who claim that they have not drawn their salaries or allowances over certain periods are probably indulging in this gimmick to divert attention away from their real moneymaking activities. It is only if the voter is satisfied, from whatever information that he has, that the claimed renunciation of salaries and allowances was not otherwise compensated by unlawful earnings, that he should consider giving the candidate any credit for his “sacrifice”.
Give preference to educated aspirants
If one were to ask any member of the public whether he believes that the typical MP has ever read the Constitution of Sri Lanka or whether the average MP has a sufficient knowledge of at least a few subjects such as finance, trade, public administration, environmental issues, information technology and so on, the chances are that the answer would be in the negative. Hence, in evaluating candidates who aspire to be re-elected or freshly elected as MPs, preference should be given to candidates with a degree or equivalent qualification in, say, accountancy, engineering, law or management, with at least a few years of business or professional experience.
Having gone through the procedure outlined above, you will find that the party or independent group lists will have differing numbers of names left. Logic demands that the party or group that has the largest number of good or tolerable candidates should be one the voter should back. This would be more rewarding than abstaining from voting or spoiling your vote or, worst of all, blindly voting for a party because of historic family loyalties or personal friendships. The selection of the final three preferred candidates from this party or group is a matter best left to the voter’s total discretion.
Dr A.C.Visvalingam
President, CIMOGG
www.cimogg-srilanka.org
Friday, January 8, 2010
Making Voting Compulsory in India
“The Gujarat Local Authorities Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2009” was passed by Gujarat Assembly on 19th December 2009. The bill proposes to make for the first time in the country, voting mandatory in local body polls. It also provides for freedom to voters to cast their vote in favour of "none of the candidates” contesting elections a sort of negative vote that was on the wish list of many civil societies. To take it to logical conclusion, the bill proposes penalities for the defaulters who fail to give a plausible reason for abstaining. Rules for penalties, however are yet to be framed.
Explaining the statement of objects and reasons of the bill, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi argued that the true spirit of the will of the people is not reflected in the electoral mandate due to of low turnout of voters. Hence this is an attempt to strengthen India's democracy by bringing the voter, rather than the political party on the centre stage.
Once in place, state of Gujarat will find itself amongst in as many as 32 nations where voting is mandatory. The bill however has drawn strong reactions both amongst the political circles as well as academia.
To understand the controversy let us understand the idea behind compulsory voting.
Wikipedia lists out some arguments.
(A) in support of compulsory voting
• By raising turnout, compulsory voting can make the governing party or coalition appear more legitimate, as its power is very likely to be based on the support of a greater proportion of the population.
• Forcing people to vote has an educative effect, along the lines of 'if you're going to do something, you might as well do it properly'. The idea is that once compelled, people will make more of an effort to cast an informed vote.
• It is everyone's duty to vote, to make sure that a government works effectively. Compulsion ensures that this responsibility isn't shirked.
• Making everyone vote reduces the effect of random factors on the result, like poor transport, poor weather.
• Compulsion leaves parties free to campaign on policies, rather than utilising resources on 'getting out the vote'. This also, to some extent, reduces the role of money in elections. It is also sometimes argued that this leads to a drop in negative campaigning, as there is little to be gained from tactics aimed purely at persuading opposition voters to stay at home.
• High levels of participation in voting may encourage higher levels of participation in other forms of political life.
• Compulsory voting can enhance a sense of community, as everyone is in it together. This can be especially helpful in bringing new people in to community life. It also counteracts the vicious cycle of social exclusion where those that don't vote end up without any policies geared towards them, further discouraging them from getting involved.
(B) Against compulsory voting
• It is a limit on freedom. The right to vote contains the right not to vote, to be apolitical. Even the safeguard of a chance to abstain infringes on one's right to sit around doing nothing.
• A higher voter turnout cannot be said to heighten the legitimacy of a government when the voters have been forced into giving their support. If the will of the voters is, ceteris paribus, to stay at home, it has a right to be reflected.
• Compulsory voting merely hides the problem, rather than solving it. By hiding the problem, it allows parliament to ignore more important measures that would do something to tackle the root causes of voter disengagement.
• Those that don't like being told what to do will be disproportionately inclined to vote against the people making them go out to vote, i.e. the government. This isn't such a problem, however, as incumbency has enough advantages of its own.
• Compulsory voting encourages 'donkey voting', i.e. simply voting for anyone to get it out of the way. This also biases the vote in favour of the top candidate on the ballot. It is estimated that 'donkey voting' accounts for about 1 per cent of all votes cast in a compulsory system.
• By removing incentives for political parties to mobilise their support, compulsory voting favours established parties over minor parties and independents, whose supporters tend to be more inherently motivated.
Arguments in the Indian context
The opponents argue that the provision of mandatory voting is in contravention of the constitutional provisions as it would amount to compulsion on the people to vote thereby curtailing freedom to participate or abstain. They say mandatory voting is likely to cause inconvenience to poor people especially to those who migrate to other regions for work who will need to come to their native place for this mandatory obligation.
Election Commission also feels democracy and compulsion do not go hand-in-hand. Extending the idea across the country is "impracticable as it requires enforcement over 815 million-odd voters in a country. More so when the electoral rolls itself are far from firmed up across the country
Considering that 40 per cent of the 714 million voters do not vote, the proponents argue that making voting compulsory is in the larger interest of the country, democracy and parliamentary norms. When voting is mandatory, the voter will become important and political parties will have to address concerns of all and not just region-specific voters. They further argue that the country's progress can be achieved only through improvement in the quality of public governance beginning “good Leaders”. Citizen’s vote is the only instrument that can bring about a positive change and this can be achieved by exercising voting rights effectively. The option of negative vote will compel political parties to put up good candidates and do good politics.
My Take
Compulsory voting would not in itself address the underlying causes of low turnout, and in particular the apparent lack of engagement between potential voters and politics. However, there is merit in opening up the question of compulsory voting for wider debate.
To prepare the citizens towards this responsibility, the first step could in the form of making this as a “Fundamental duty” under the Indian constitution. Certain benefits could also be linked to those participating in the political process. This could be as mundane as an eligibility to seek information under "Right to information Act" (RTI), because essentially under RTI one is seeking accountability and therefore need for self discipline to begin with cannot be overemphasized. Other could be an eligibility to say own a car or likes. Further to bridge the gap between citizenship and voters the spirit of broader engagement needs to be appreciated as not all laws are created to be strictly enforced. Some laws are created to broadly impress what a citizen's responsibility should be. And voting certainly is a "civic duty", like paying taxes, and is important for the harmonious functioning of a society that appreciates democratic values.
Last but not the least it is important to understand that as a reaction to the clientilist political environment (fuelled by decreasing participation), politicians have strong incentives to shift to special interest groups and core supporters to swing votes. The end result is that our quality of life is affected as the focus shifts from winning hearts through strong public policies to working round the clock on nurturing vote banks by all feasible means possible. An informed and enlightened citizenry thus can only help itself by setting right standards if it wants good governance as it should be.
.
Explaining the statement of objects and reasons of the bill, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi argued that the true spirit of the will of the people is not reflected in the electoral mandate due to of low turnout of voters. Hence this is an attempt to strengthen India's democracy by bringing the voter, rather than the political party on the centre stage.
Once in place, state of Gujarat will find itself amongst in as many as 32 nations where voting is mandatory. The bill however has drawn strong reactions both amongst the political circles as well as academia.
To understand the controversy let us understand the idea behind compulsory voting.
Wikipedia lists out some arguments.
(A) in support of compulsory voting
• By raising turnout, compulsory voting can make the governing party or coalition appear more legitimate, as its power is very likely to be based on the support of a greater proportion of the population.
• Forcing people to vote has an educative effect, along the lines of 'if you're going to do something, you might as well do it properly'. The idea is that once compelled, people will make more of an effort to cast an informed vote.
• It is everyone's duty to vote, to make sure that a government works effectively. Compulsion ensures that this responsibility isn't shirked.
• Making everyone vote reduces the effect of random factors on the result, like poor transport, poor weather.
• Compulsion leaves parties free to campaign on policies, rather than utilising resources on 'getting out the vote'. This also, to some extent, reduces the role of money in elections. It is also sometimes argued that this leads to a drop in negative campaigning, as there is little to be gained from tactics aimed purely at persuading opposition voters to stay at home.
• High levels of participation in voting may encourage higher levels of participation in other forms of political life.
• Compulsory voting can enhance a sense of community, as everyone is in it together. This can be especially helpful in bringing new people in to community life. It also counteracts the vicious cycle of social exclusion where those that don't vote end up without any policies geared towards them, further discouraging them from getting involved.
(B) Against compulsory voting
• It is a limit on freedom. The right to vote contains the right not to vote, to be apolitical. Even the safeguard of a chance to abstain infringes on one's right to sit around doing nothing.
• A higher voter turnout cannot be said to heighten the legitimacy of a government when the voters have been forced into giving their support. If the will of the voters is, ceteris paribus, to stay at home, it has a right to be reflected.
• Compulsory voting merely hides the problem, rather than solving it. By hiding the problem, it allows parliament to ignore more important measures that would do something to tackle the root causes of voter disengagement.
• Those that don't like being told what to do will be disproportionately inclined to vote against the people making them go out to vote, i.e. the government. This isn't such a problem, however, as incumbency has enough advantages of its own.
• Compulsory voting encourages 'donkey voting', i.e. simply voting for anyone to get it out of the way. This also biases the vote in favour of the top candidate on the ballot. It is estimated that 'donkey voting' accounts for about 1 per cent of all votes cast in a compulsory system.
• By removing incentives for political parties to mobilise their support, compulsory voting favours established parties over minor parties and independents, whose supporters tend to be more inherently motivated.
Arguments in the Indian context
The opponents argue that the provision of mandatory voting is in contravention of the constitutional provisions as it would amount to compulsion on the people to vote thereby curtailing freedom to participate or abstain. They say mandatory voting is likely to cause inconvenience to poor people especially to those who migrate to other regions for work who will need to come to their native place for this mandatory obligation.
Election Commission also feels democracy and compulsion do not go hand-in-hand. Extending the idea across the country is "impracticable as it requires enforcement over 815 million-odd voters in a country. More so when the electoral rolls itself are far from firmed up across the country
Considering that 40 per cent of the 714 million voters do not vote, the proponents argue that making voting compulsory is in the larger interest of the country, democracy and parliamentary norms. When voting is mandatory, the voter will become important and political parties will have to address concerns of all and not just region-specific voters. They further argue that the country's progress can be achieved only through improvement in the quality of public governance beginning “good Leaders”. Citizen’s vote is the only instrument that can bring about a positive change and this can be achieved by exercising voting rights effectively. The option of negative vote will compel political parties to put up good candidates and do good politics.
My Take
Compulsory voting would not in itself address the underlying causes of low turnout, and in particular the apparent lack of engagement between potential voters and politics. However, there is merit in opening up the question of compulsory voting for wider debate.
To prepare the citizens towards this responsibility, the first step could in the form of making this as a “Fundamental duty” under the Indian constitution. Certain benefits could also be linked to those participating in the political process. This could be as mundane as an eligibility to seek information under "Right to information Act" (RTI), because essentially under RTI one is seeking accountability and therefore need for self discipline to begin with cannot be overemphasized. Other could be an eligibility to say own a car or likes. Further to bridge the gap between citizenship and voters the spirit of broader engagement needs to be appreciated as not all laws are created to be strictly enforced. Some laws are created to broadly impress what a citizen's responsibility should be. And voting certainly is a "civic duty", like paying taxes, and is important for the harmonious functioning of a society that appreciates democratic values.
Last but not the least it is important to understand that as a reaction to the clientilist political environment (fuelled by decreasing participation), politicians have strong incentives to shift to special interest groups and core supporters to swing votes. The end result is that our quality of life is affected as the focus shifts from winning hearts through strong public policies to working round the clock on nurturing vote banks by all feasible means possible. An informed and enlightened citizenry thus can only help itself by setting right standards if it wants good governance as it should be.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Bow to Love
50 years of Indian Independence