Author: Paul Strangio, Emeritus Professor of Politics, Monash University

For nearly 200 years, the notion of American political exceptionalism has had currency in the United States: it is an idea rooted in the nation’s status as the first modern republic. As we watch from afar, disturbed yet mesmerised by the latest chapter of violent political division in America, the country seems less a paragon than a symbol of democratic pathology.

America’s certainty in its political uniqueness is symptomatic of a brash national chauvinism. By way of contrast, Australia is prone, if anything, to undue bashfulness about its democratic credentials. How else can we explain that this month marks the centenary of the most extraordinary feature of the country’s democratic architecture, and yet the anniversary is slipping by with neither comment nor reflection. I refer to compulsory voting, which was legislated in the federal parliament in July 1924.

Compulsory voting is not unique to Australia. Calculating how many countries abide by the practice is notoriously difficult, since in around half the nations where compulsory voting exists in name it is not enforced. Most estimates, however, put the figure in the vicinity of 20 to 30.

If not unique, Australia’s experience of compulsory voting is highly distinctive for a number of reasons.

First, its emergence in the early 20th century was consistent with the nation’s larger tradition of innovation and experimentation when it came to electoral institutions and practices. This record is typically traced back to the pioneering in the 1850s of the secret ballot (sometimes called the “Australian ballot”) in a number of the Australian colonies and the embrace of other advanced democratic measures in the second half of the 19th century.

These included manhood suffrage, payment of MPs and the extension of the franchise to women, beginning in South Australia in 1894. The innovations continued in the 20th century with such things as preferential voting and non-partisan bureaucratic electoral administration.

Second, Australia is alone in embracing compulsory voting among the Anglophone democracies to which it typically compares itself. The electoral systems of Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the United States are all based on voluntary voting.

Third, unlike many other compulsory voting countries, Australia does not pay lip service to its operation. Electoral authorities enforce compulsory voting, albeit leniently. It has been strongly upheld by the courts and is backed by a regime of sanctions for non-compliance.

Fourth, compulsory voting has been consistently and unambiguously successful in achieving high voter turnout. Though there has been a slight downward trend in turnout at the past five national elections (it hit a low of 90.5% in 2022), it has not fallen below 90% since the adoption of compulsory voting a century ago.

This is around 30% higher than the recent average turnout in countries with voluntary voting. It is also well above the recent average in countries with compulsory voting systems.

Fifth, the public has strongly and consistently backed the practice. Evidence from more than half a century of opinion polls and election study surveys shows support hovering around the 70% mark.

An impregnable practice

Perhaps the most singular aspect of the nation’s experience of compulsory voting, however, is how seemingly impregnable is the practice if measured by its durability, the dearth of controversy over it, the consistency of its enforcement by authorities and the way citizens have dutifully complied with and supported it. Together these things make Australia an exemplar of compulsory voting internationally.

This is not to say compulsory voting has been a sacred cow in Australia. In the final decades of the 20th century and first decade of this century, there was a concerted push to end the practice emanating principally from within the Liberal Party.

The torchbearer of the agitation for voluntary voting was the avowed libertarian South Australian senator, Nick Minchin. For Minchin, compulsory voting was anathema:

[…] in relation to the most important single manifestation of democratic will, the act of voting, I profoundly detest Australia’s denial of individual choice. It seems to me that an essential part of a liberal democracy should be the citizen’s legal right to decide whether or not to vote. The denial of that right is an affront to democracy.

Minchin had a number of like-minded supporters of voluntary voting in the Liberal Party. Among them, importantly, was John Howard, whose prime ministership coincided with the mobilisation to abolish compulsory voting.

Howard had been on record as an opponent of the practice since his entry to the federal parliament in 1974. The Liberal Party campaign against compulsory voting manifested in, among other things:

  • the party’s federal council resolving in favour of voluntary voting
  • shadow cabinet endorsing a recommendation for a change of policy to voluntary voting being placed before the joint Liberal-National party parliamentary room
  • the introduction in the South Australian parliament of two bills to repeal compulsory voting by successive Liberal state governments
  • Coalition members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters repeatedly recommending the abolition of the practice.

In the end, these agitations achieved nought. The most fundamental reason was that the opponents of compulsory voting failed to generate community resentment towards the system. Howard, while restating his preference for voluntary voting, admitted as much in 2005 when shutting down debate on the issue in his government:

As I move around the country, I don’t get people stopping me in the street and saying, “You’ve got to get rid of compulsory voting.”

Indeed, election survey data suggests the Liberal campaign coincided with a firming of public support for compulsory voting. In the two decades since, opposition has been dormant. For the foreseeable future, Australia’s compulsory voting regime is secure.

An Australian democratic exceptionalism?

As noted above, compulsory voting has kept voter turnout at elections above 90% for the past century. Kindred democracies marvel at, and envy, this level of participation. It affords legitimacy to election outcomes in this country. Significantly, it also produces a socially even turnout.

Compare this to the situation in this month’s United Kingdom election. Turnout is estimated to have slumped to a record low 52%. There was a clear pattern of the “haves” exercising much greater say at the ballot box than the “have nots”. Those who stayed away from the polls were predominantly less well-off, non-homeowners, the young, the lower-educated and of minority ethnic background.

Australia cannot be complacent in this regard. Low and declining turnout in remote electorates with high Indigenous populations is the most worrying chink in the performance of compulsory voting. In 2022, turnout in the Northern Territory seat of Lingiari fell to 66.8%. Even so, the practice largely succeeds in achieving inclusive voter participation across the country.

Crucially, compulsory voting is also recognised as one reason the political centre holds better in Australia than in many comparable nations. It exercises a moderating influence because it ensures it is not only impassioned partisans at either end of the political spectrum who participate in elections. This in turn means they are not the chief focus of governments and political parties.

Under a compulsory voting system, middle-of-the-road citizens and their concerns and sensibilities count. This inhibits the trend towards polarisation and grievance politics evident in other parts of the globe. It helps explain why Australia has been less receptive to the aggressive conservative populism that has taken root in the United States and Europe.

Compulsory voting also goes hand in hand with other institutional bulwarks of the nation’s democracy. While there is plenty of evidence in Australia of increasing disaffection with politics, one thing that helps bolster faith in the democratic system is the politically independent national electoral authority, the Australian Electoral Commission.

The AEC’s trusted impartial administration of the electoral system lends integrity to the democratic process. So do the many procedures it manages to facilitate voting. To name a few: Saturday election days, assistance for the ill, aged and those from non-English-speaking backgrounds, mobile polling stations, postal, absentee and early voting, and active and regular updating of registration.

Indeed, Australia has been described as “the most voter-friendly country in the world”. Compulsory voting encourages this accessibility: if citizens are obliged to vote, then it becomes incumbent to smooth the path to them participating. The ease of voting in Australia contrasts with what goes on elsewhere, for example, the rampant state-based voter-suppression practices in the United States.

Dare we suggest, then, that compulsory voting is a mainstay of an Australian democratic exceptionalism? That we little note, let alone extol, the practice is perhaps not only a product of an inherent national modesty but because it is second nature after 100 years. Habituated to being compelled to participate in elections, we are inured to its specialness.

Let’s hope this casual familiarity does not induce apathy rather than vigilance when next the system is challenged.

  • Norah - She/They@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    5 months ago

    It seems to me that an essential part of a liberal democracy should be the citizen’s legal right to decide whether or not to vote. The denial of that right is an affront to democracy.

    Okay, except, you absolutely do still have the right, and choice, not to vote in Australia. In practice, the only actions that are actually compulsory are showing up to a polling centre, having your name marked off the roll, and placing your ballots in the ballot boxes. There is nothing stopping you from walking straight over and chucking them in without marking them at all. Parties pay attention to the informal vote totals as well.

    • elfpie@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’s the same in Brazil. The electronic transition even accounted for the possibility of choosing a blank or void ballot.

      • Norah - She/They@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s really cool that it accounted for that, but I am very glad that voting machines aren’t used here in Australia. I think it introduces too many opportunities for bad actors personally.

  • chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    Another perk of compulsory voting is the absolutely massive cock it gives you. It’s fucking huge. Your cock gets so big that it’s impossible for you to go more than a paragraph without sucking it. Truly a marvel of democracy.

  • Hanrahan@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    For decades I thought cumpolsory voting was a good idea, the nit pick bad faith argument about only having to have your name ticked off is a distraction.

    I heard a single counter argument that they don’t want people who are angry with cumpolsory voting system to vote.

    And that changed my mind, I don’t want angry people who do not want to be there voting, I want people who want to be there

    I am pro euthenasia as I am against cumpolsory voting for much the the same reason, that should be something beyond the states control.

    Aside from the freedom to choose your own death if you wish, the freedom to vote should be inalienable right granted every citizen in a democracy.

    I heard from many folk that they’d rather have the Jacinta Arden led Labour government then ScoMo and yet NZ voting isn’t cumpolsory.

    There’s something else afoot, self absorbed, greedy people electing appalling politcans is de rigeur, a cumpolsory voting system doesn’t stop it, nor does ranked choice (preferential) voting. We have incredibly toxic politcans amongst us, I could name a dozen or more.

    I don’t think one is better then the other. I dont think what we have is the best way, it’s incredibly corrupt and the older I get the more disillusioned I become with voters (not with politcans, they’re like flies to shit, so I blame the shit, not the flies) We are constantly offered different paths and refuse to take them, what we have is nothing to celebrate IMO.

    Comparing it to the US is ridiculous, we’re a palimentery democracy. Does anyone think its “Democratic” for Tasmania to have the same number of senators as NSW ? (As a Tasmanian myself, with a state population less then the Gold Coast)

    As for gerrymandering, Joh Bjekle-Petersen was notorious for it.

    • Stephen Darby :ma_flag_aus:@mastodon.au
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      @hanrahan @Ilandar
      Contrast this with the old world where historically in britain, there were centuries when only landowners were allowed to vote. The industrial revolution saw new laws that allowed those with a certain acreage OR enough cash could vote. The system was horrifically skewed towards the wealthy. I can completely understand early Australian insistence that all adults vote and then extending it to include Aboriginal people in 1967. Nobody is excluded from contributing to legislation. At least we must all chose a party every four years. On the other hand- in the age of the internet - Why we aren’t voting online over party membership, platform and policy decisions beggars belief. There are attempts to make a difference. Both by direct action (XR as example) and indirect pressure https://ccl.org.au/

      • eureka@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        This historical context is important, and something we might take for granted.

        On the other hand- in the age of the internet - Why we aren’t voting online over party membership, platform and policy decisions beggars belief.

        Direct democracy is a neat area of exploration, and there’s been great theory on how to securely and anonymously implement verifiable voting systems. There are some major implementation problems with online voting whatsoever from a security perspective, but nonetheless I think direct democracy a good system to aim for, especially seeing the gap in (e.g.) the Labor Party policy internally between the members and the leadership.

        Nobody is excluded from contributing to legislation. At least we must all chose a party every four years.

        In a way, yes, although I also believe that contribution is extremely limited and astronomically overshadowed by capital (see things like lobbying and mass media bias) making direct action and indirect pressure necessary to represent the worker class.

    • Gorgritch_Umie_Killa@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      I thought i’d put this response separately to the other to break the topics up.

      the freedom to vote should be inalienable right granted every citizen in a democracy.

      Its more like a duty with a nudge (being a letter and a small fine).

      Seeing everything through the lense of an individual’s inalienable rights is problematic. This individualist, or libertarian creed promulgated by the success of US culture has made the atomisation of the cultural and public sphere seem ‘the only way of things’.

      But a Country where individuals have rights gives rise to a duty upon the rest. Its essential for the assertion of rights that the rest have agreed to uphold that standard in solidarity with the individual. So the individual still relies on the collectives consent, implied or explicit.

      When considered its obvious of course, even in the US this of course occurs. But its easily forgotten when reversed, and the needs of the many come to the doorstep of the individual in the course of their lives.

      We all have a tendency to self regard, just like the ‘angry at compulsory voting voter’ but at times, inconvenient or not, we have a duty to take account of others needs. In that case the rest need the individual’s vote to ensure democracy remains legitimate, and holds from sliding into autocracy or worse.

      The example of euthanasia is interesting, related is Voluntary Assisted Dying. This is actually a case where the collective is quietly recognising a duty to help a person in permanent pain and suffering end their own life on their own terms. So, this is a right for the individual, but their recently recognised right is giving rise to our duty.

      People in a well functioning democracy have a well balanced mix of rights and duties, explicit or implied. For democracy to work we need the people to be engaged in these. The higher the rate of engagement the better. This doesn’t mean everybody voting on every minute decision; there are many ways to participate in democracy.

    • eureka@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      There’s also a idealistic argument that making voting compulsory forces people to care. Ask anyone who counts votes whether everyone cares or not. Drawings of penises, scrawled messages, blank ballots and donkey votes aren’t rare. In local elections, my friend processed a blank ballot with “STOP OVERDEVELOPMENT!” written on it, instead of voting for either of the independents whose entire platform was “Let’s stop over development!”.

      One of the upsides of compulsory voting is that it forces people to be able to vote. Look at horror stories in the US to see what I mean, where some people can’t leave work to vote, are omitted from the voting roll for garbage reasons, that kind of broken system. But obviously compulsory voting isn’t necessary to make voting availability a priority! So it’s hardly an argument for preserving it.

      My attitude (and this stems from having managed and been involved in democratic organizations myself) is that the ideal democratic decision-making process is to get as many informed voters as possible. Consider Condorcet’s jury theorem - having 100 decently-informed voters is better than 5 experts voting, but 100 or even 1000 un-informed voters is worse than both! Participation alone is not valuable. Forcing people to vote is useless from a decision-making perspective, nor is it enough to encourage people to become informed and involved. I’d rather only 1 million people vote with actual reasons than 25 million just pick the team they’ve always voted for, or based on media misconceptions, or just tick a box and not mean it. I think it’s not hard to become decently informed either, but nonetheless, there should be serious effort to create an informed population if we’re going to use a democratic system of governance.

      Does anyone think its “Democratic” for Tasmania to have the same number of senators as NSW ?

      Are you therefore suggesting a [federal] democracy should have all votes be equal? Or, to phrase that another way, “Would you think it’s “Democratic” for the entire Northern Territory to be have the same number of ministers as the ACT, or as two-and-a-half inner-Sydney electorates?” The issue there being, major issues affecting a huge part of the country would get dismal representation, and urban issues would get all the expertise. Neither popular representation or regional representation alone is considered adequate representation, so we have a Senate focused on regional representation and the HoR for popular representation. It’s a compromise, because both extremes have serious flaws ruining representative democracy’s aim.

    • Gorgritch_Umie_Killa@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Does anyone think its “Democratic” for Tasmania to have the same number of senators as NSW ?

      It is democratic, as it is still “representative” rule by the people. But as you suggest it is unequal per-person representation. There are reasons for and against this. You’ve highlighted the against argument well.

      The ‘for’ argument, which has prevailed so far is, without the levelling power of the Senate, the Commonwealth of Australia will be dominated by the larger populations of Victoria and NSW. In a place as sparse, and with as diverse needs as Australia the ignorance of a central power base to the needs and aspirations of periphery populations will lead to animosity and disunity, thereby inhibiting and hurting the centre and periphery more than any disfunction caused by equalised numbers of Senators.

      Basically its a mechanism forcing us to listen and value, in substantive terms, each other in our geographic locations.

      Also, this ‘for’ view of the value of the Senate’s equal representives, to my mind, makes the idea of equalising the number of Senators from NT and ACT with the States an uncontroversial and desirable proposal.

    • Pregnenolone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      The people who are “angry” is minuscule on the actual day. It’s very much statistical minority and we shouldn’t be pandering to them