Compulsory Voting? Not so Fast
A critical review of political scholarship regarding compulsory voting

Word Count: 1644
Compulsory voting has been a hotly debated topic in the political realm over the past few decades, with supporters on both sides bringing up a wide variety of arguments and beliefs for support. The proposed idea of compulsory voting is the idea that would make voting in a democratic parliamentary election mandatory for all citizens who meet the age requirement; failure to do so will result in a form of minor punishment such as a small fine. The theory behind compulsory voting is that it will increase participation in parliamentary election, thus creating a more legitimate representative democratic system. Current major democratic countries that currently employ an enforced compulsory voting system include Australia, Argentina, and Brazil. This paper will argue that voting should not be made compulsory in Canada, on the principles that there is no proof that increasing voter turnout will legitimize our representational democracy, and that we have the right to abstention. I will prove this argument by examining the political scholarship produced by Sara Birch, Justine Lacroix, and Annabelle Lever.

The first academic journal I will be examining will be that of Sara Birch in her 2009 paper The Case for Compulsory Voting. In this paper, Birch is advocating that all democratic countries should implement a compulsory voting system. Birch’s primary point of reasoning behind this notion is that the electoral process has become illegitimate as a result of an unbalanced voter turnout in relation to age and class (Birch, 2009). Furthermore, she believes that by making voting a mandatory practice, it will increase “social, political, and procedural fairness.” (Birch, p.21). These three constituents form the basis for her argument. Political