Australia's compulsory voting system, one of only about 20 globally and enforced with fines or potential jail time, is often hailed as a cornerstone of its democracy, ensuring high turnout (around 90% in recent elections) and broad representation. Yet, it presents a profound philosophical paradox: by mandating participation in the democratic process, it curtails the fundamental democratic right to abstain, effectively undermining the very freedom it claims to uphold. This blog piece explores the main philosophical objections to compulsory voting, arguing that it breeds apathy, distorts democratic legitimacy, and entrenches a broken political system, all while contradicting the principles of individual liberty and authentic democratic choice.
At its core, democracy is rooted in the principle of individual autonomy, the right to choose one's leaders or policies freely. Compulsory voting, however, turns this freedom into an obligation, compelling citizens to act under threat of penalty. In Australia, failing to vote can result in a $20-$50 fine, with repeated refusals potentially leading to imprisonment. This creates a paradox: a system designed to maximise democratic participation restricts the right to reject participation altogether. As philosopher John Stuart Mill argued in On Liberty (1859), true freedom includes the right to opt out, to "pursue our own good in our own way," provided no harm is done to others. Abstaining from voting harms no one directly; it is a personal expression of agency, whether driven by dissent, indifference, or lack of trust in the options.
Forcing citizens to the polls, as Australia does alongside nations like the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Nauru, undermines this autonomy. It assumes that participation itself is inherently valuable, regardless of intent or conviction. A 2023 YouGov poll found that 43% of Australians support compulsory voting, but 31% oppose it, with younger voters (18-34) most likely to resent the mandate. This suggests a significant portion of the population feels coerced, not empowered. Compulsory voting thus transforms democracy from a voluntary act of self-governance into a state-imposed duty, eroding the moral foundation of free choice.
Proponents argue that compulsory voting fosters civic engagement, ensuring all voices shape the political landscape. Yet, the opposite may be true: mandating participation can breed apathy by incentivising uninformed or indifferent voting. A federal politician's estimate, cited in the provided text, suggests that voluntary voting would see turnout drop to 25-30%, implying that 70-75% of Australian voters participate out of obligation, not conviction. This "hostage electorate" often lacks deep engagement with issues, relying on media soundbites or party loyalty. The 2022 Australian Election Study found that only 53% of voters felt "very interested" in politics, down from 60% in 2016, despite near-universal turnout.
Philosopher Jason Brennan, in The Ethics of Voting (2011), argues that uninformed or apathetic voting dilutes the quality of democratic outcomes. Forcing disengaged citizens to vote encourages "low-information" choices, where voters pick familiar names (Labor or Liberal) or succumb to populist bribes. The text by Christensen highlights this, noting that major parties "throw taxpayer money around like confetti" to win over disinterested voters. This dynamic stifles substantive debate, as parties prioritise perception over policy. A Liberal MP's admission that fear of challenging "sacred cows" like Net Zero stems from catering to this disengaged bloc underscores how compulsory voting dumbs down discourse, locking politics into a Labor-Liberal duopoly that avoids bold reform.
Compulsory voting distorts the legitimacy of democratic outcomes by conflating coerced participation with genuine consent. Political philosopher Hannah Arendt argued that legitimate governance derives from the active, voluntary consent of the governed. When citizens are compelled to vote, the resulting mandate reflects compliance, not conviction. Informal or blank votes, around 5-10% in Australian elections, signal this discontent, as do low voter engagement metrics. A 2021 Lowy Institute poll found that only 60% of Australians trust the federal government, a figure that drops among younger voters. Forcing participation in a system many distrust undermines the claim that elections reflect the "will of the people."
Moreover, compulsory voting entrenches entrenched power structures. The Christensen text argues that it "cements the old Labor/Liberal duopoly" by ensuring voters choose familiar options, stifling third-party movements. Philosopher Isaiah Berlin's concept of "negative liberty," freedom from interference, suggests that compelling citizens to vote for parties they distrust violates their right to reject a flawed system. By penalising abstention, Australia silences a powerful form of protest, reinforcing a status quo where, as Christensen notes, voters are "locked into the same parties their parents voted for."
The right to abstain is a fundamental democratic expression, akin to voting itself. Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in The Social Contract (1762), argued that democracy requires citizens to freely engage in the social contract. Forcing participation violates this principle, treating abstention as a crime rather than a choice. In countries with voluntary voting, like the UK (66% turnout in 2019) or the U.S. (67% in 2020), low turnout signals dissatisfaction or disengagement, prompting parties to innovate or reconnect with voters. In Australia, high turnout masks this signal, allowing parties to coast on apathy while bribing voters with handouts, as the Christensen describes.
The right to abstain also protects against coerced endorsement of unappealing options. If no candidate or party aligns with a voter's values, compelling a choice forces a false expression of consent. This is particularly acute in Australia, where the text notes media and institutions "steer the public toward the same old choices," limiting exposure to alternatives. Philosopher A.C. Grayling argues that democracy thrives on "informed choice," not coerced participation. Forcing voters to pick between "Labor and Labor-lite" suppresses genuine pluralism, crushing the potential for a "third political force" to emerge.
Beyond philosophical concerns, compulsory voting has practical downsides. It burdens citizens with the time and cost of voting, especially in remote areas, where turnout without compulsion might reflect genuine interest. The Australian Electoral Commission reported 1.2 million informal votes in 2022, suggesting many comply but reject meaningful participation. Ethically, penalising abstention equates dissent with delinquency, chilling free expression. Christensen's proposal to remove penalties aligns with this critique: allowing choice respects autonomy without undermining democracy.
Comparatively, voluntary voting nations like Canada (62% turnout in 2021) show that lower participation doesn't collapse democracy but forces parties to earn votes. Australia's system, by contrast, rewards mediocrity. Christensen's call for Liberals to adopt voluntary voting could invigorate their base, pushing policies like scrapping Net Zero or curbing immigration, issues that resonate but are sidelined to appease the disengaged.
Compulsory voting in Australia is a philosophical contradiction, enforcing democracy while limiting the right to reject it. By mandating participation, it breeds apathy, distorts legitimacy, and entrenches a stagnant duopoly, as Christensen laments. The right to abstain is a democratic freedom, signalling distrust or demanding better options. Philosophers from Mill to Brennan argue that true democracy rests on voluntary, informed choice, not coerced compliance. Scrapping penalties, as suggested, would be a first step toward a system where votes reflect conviction, not obligation. Australia's democracy won't collapse without compulsion — it might just awaken from its present zombie state.
https://nationfirst.substack.com/p/is-compulsory-voting-killing-australia
Forcing Australians to vote is undemocratic and breeds political apathy.
It props up a broken system where major parties bribe disengaged voters.
Real debate is stifled, and genuine alternatives are crushed.
The media and institutions steer the public toward the same old choices.
Removing penalties for not voting could finally shake things up.
Australia sits alongside countries like the Congo and Nauru when it comes to compulsory voting. That's not a club to be proud of. About 85 percent of the world's countries don't force their citizens to vote. Of the few that do, most don't even enforce it. In Australia, you can be fined, and yes, even jailed, for refusing to participate in a process that, for many, offers no real choice.
There's something inherently undemocratic about being systemically frogmarched to a polling booth under threat of financial penalty or deprivation of liberty. What if you don't want to vote for any of the mugs on the ballot? That should be your right. Being forced to spend an hour out of your day just to turn in a blank or informal vote is lunacy.
And it's more than lunacy, it's hurting the country.
In fact, it may be a core reason for the political malaise we find ourselves in today.
Most Australians simply don't care about politics. One federal politician told me just this week that, in his view, if voting were voluntary, the turnout would drop to 25 to 30 percent. He's probably right. That means our democracy is in the hands of the 70 to 75 percent of voters who would otherwise sit it out, people who don't follow the issues, who vote out of obligation, not conviction.
In other words, our democracy is hostage to the disengaged.
And when that's your electorate, what do politicians do?
They promise "free stuff." Labor throws your taxpayer money around like confetti in a wedding hall, hoping to win the hearts of the disengaged with handouts and gimmicks. The Coalition, instead of rejecting this vote-buying circus, tries to match it. It's not about inspiring the public. It's about bribing the bored.
This stinks to high heaven.
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
A number of Liberal politicians I spoke to this week confessed their reluctance to challenge sacred cows like Net Zero. Not because they believe in the policy, many of them don't, but because of how it's perceived by this disengaged bloc of voters who parrot whatever the media tells them.
One of them admitted it directly: "It's the perception… and perception is reality."
But that's not true. Reality is reality.
And believing that Australia can cool the planet from Canberra is as absurd as Greta Thunberg claiming she can see carbon dioxide particles in the air.
This is the real damage of compulsory voting. It keeps our political debate shackled to the lowest common denominator.
The electorate has been softened, dumbed down, and sedated by institutions that push them leftward. Schools. Universities. The mainstream media.
It's why the only real choice we're ever given is between Labor and Labor-lite. Some Liberals I spoke to this week didn't put it quite so bluntly, but they may as well have.
What one MP did say is that compulsory voting cements the old Labor/Liberal duopoly. He's right. That's not because the major parties are delivering results though. It's because they're the only names voters recognise as valid when they're forced to show up and tick a box.
The majority of people are locked into the same parties their parents voted for. For others, the media drums it into them that there are only two "credible" options. So they stick with what they know. No matter how much it fails them.
And because of this, the possibility of a third political force, something that could genuinely shake up the system, is snuffed out before it even begins.
So what's the answer?
I won't pretend this is an easy fix. Scrapping compulsory voting is seen as political heresy in Australia. Like Net Zero, it's another sacred cow. Question it, and you'll be shouted down by elites who act like it's some divine pillar of democracy.
But maybe we start with this: remove the penalties. Who wouldn't be in favour of not fining or jailing someone who either conscientiously or unwittingly fails to vote?
If we do that then we can let the people choose. If you care enough to vote, you will. And if you don't, why should your apathy be given equal weight to the informed decisions of others?
I would suggest serious Liberals start thinking about adopting this as policy going forward. Some might ask, "Why would a Liberal support that if it risks giving rise to a third conservative force?" But the answer's obvious. Because it might also strengthen the Liberals, by forcing them to reconnect with their conservative base, by pushing them to offer something worth voting for.
Things like axing Net Zero and pulling out of the Paris Agreement. Slashing immigration and restoring a strong Australian identity. And ending the woke indoctrination in our schools and universities once and for all.
Voluntary voting wouldn't kill democracy. It might just save it."