One of the issues that the Committee studied as part of its mandate
was mandatory (also called compulsory) voting. As noted by former Chief Electoral
Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the term “mandatory voting” is a bit of a
misnomer, as in jurisdictions with “mandatory voting” there is no requirement
to actually cast a ballot for any candidate, but rather to present one’s self
to vote.[360] Indeed, in numerous jurisdictions one of the options on the ballot is to mark
“none of the candidates” (a variant could be “I do not wish to vote”). In other
words, “mandatory voting” can be more accurately described as “compulsory
attendance at the polls.”[361]
Mandatory voting legislation exists in a number of countries,
including Australia, Belgium, Cyprus, Luxembourg and Brazil.[362] The 23 countries that currently have legislation providing for mandatory voting
at the national level take a range of approaches in terms of enforcement, with
the possibility of modest fines being the most common form of sanction being
applied (for example in Australia the fine for not presenting one’s self to
vote without a valid excuse, such as absence or illness, is $20AUS).
Generally the arguments both in favour and against mandatory voting
speak to two of the principles set out in the Committee’s mandate. First, whether
the proposed measure would increase (or hinder) engagement (principle
#2), by encouraging voting and participation in the democratic process,
including offering opportunities for the inclusion of underrepresented groups
in the political process And second whether it would increase (or hinder) accessibility
and inclusiveness (principle #3), by supporting access by all eligible
voters regardless of physical or social condition.
In exploring mandatory voting, Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand
suggested the Committee do the following:
I
would encourage the committee to pay attention to several considerations during
its study, including the provision of a compliance mechanism through sanctions
or positive incentives, whether or not there should be exceptions for certain
groups of voters, and of course acceptance by Canadians.[363]
Indeed, the considerations raised by Mr. Mayrand came up time and
again throughout the Committee’s deliberations.
Proponents of mandatory voting generally consider voting to be a
civic duty (such as jury duty or the requirement to complete the census),[364] and emphasize that voters are not required to vote for a candidate but rather
to turn out to vote. The main arguments put forward by supporters of mandatory
voting are that:
-
it would increase voter turnout (evidence was presented showing
that turnout could increase by up to 20%)[365];
-
it would ensure that the views of the electorate as a whole are
better represented in Parliament;
-
requiring voters to participate in elections can in turn increase
their involvement in the political process; and
-
it could enable election campaigns to focus more on issues rather
than getting citizens out to vote on election day.
Critics of mandatory voting generally consider voting to be a “right,
not an obligation”,[366] to
be exercised at will, or that it is even “disrespectful of citizens.”[367] As elaborated below, some note that while mandatory voting would increase
turnout, it would not address the underlying issues of why certain
citizens are currently not voting. Others add that mandatory voting does not in
and of itself address the issue of educating the electorate to enable citizens
to make more informed choices on political issues.
Finally, a number of witnesses who appeared before the Committee
emphasized the relationship between mandatory voting and ensuring that voting
is as accessible as possible. Indeed, various witnesses expressed concern that
introducing mandatory voting, without at the same time ensuring accessibility
and providing for a variety of exceptions, could have the perverse effect of
penalizing groups already underrepresented in the political process, in
particular Canadians with disabilities, Indigenous Canadians, and
low-income Canadians.
This range of opinion was well expressed by the 22,247 respondents
to the Committee’s e-consultation. A majority of respondents strongly agreed
(36.2%) or agreed (14.1%) with the statement “Canadians should be required to
cast a ballot in a federal election (this could include spoiling a ballot)”:[368]
Canadians should be required to
cast a ballot in a federal election
Scale: 1 (Strongly Disagree) – 5 (Strongly Agree);
NA
However,
a majority also strongly disagreed (43%) or disagreed (11.8%) with the
statement that “Canadians should be fined or receive some other penalty for
failing to cast a ballot in a federal election without acceptable justification
(e.g. illness, absence)”:[369]
Canadians should be penalized for failing to
cast a ballot in a federal election
Scale: 1 (Strongly Disagree) – 5 (Strongly Agree);
NA
Instead,
a majority of respondents strongly agreed (41.9%) or agreed (15.5%) with the
statement that “incentives should be put in place to encourage Canadians to
cast a ballot in a federal election”:[370]
Incentives should be put in place to encourage
Canadians to cast a ballot
Scale: 1 (Strongly Disagree) – 5 (Strongly Agree);
NA
During its study the Committee heard
from Tom Rogers, the Electoral Commissioner of the federal Australian Electoral
Commission. He explained that both enrolment (registration) and voting is
compulsory in Australia:
In Australia it is
compulsory to enrol and to vote in federal elections. Compulsory enrolment at
the federal level for Australian citizens was introduced in 1918, followed by
compulsory voting in 1924.
At the last election we estimate that about 95% of all eligible
electors were enrolled. That's 15.6 million people. That is the largest number
of electors we've ever had enrolled and probably the most complete electoral
roll we've ever had in Australia's history. It's the responsibility of every
individual to update their own enrolment details; however, we also have a
system of federal direct enrolment and update, and that assists the process. We
use trusted third party data, such as driver's licence information, to enrol or
update an elector's details.
Under current legislation
there is no avenue, really, for successful prosecution of eligible electors who
are not enrolled. The reason I say this is that enrolment is an absolute
defence for any charge of not enrolling, so if we go down the process of taking
someone to court, quite often they'll essentially enrol on the courthouse steps,
which is then an absolute defence for non-enrolment.[371]
Mr. Rogers noted that mandatory voting and
registration are perceived as being a normal part of the culture:
Compulsory voting and enrolment is seen as a
normal part of Australian political culture. There is lots of evidence to
suggest continued support for compulsory voting: in 2013, the last time we did
surveys, about 70% or thereabouts of the population indicated support for
compulsory voting. At the most recent federal election, which we've just had,
turnout was around 90%, but we'll have to confirm that over the coming weeks as
we finish the processes with that election.[372]
Finally, he explained the penalties for not going to vote, and how
they are quite limited in scope and application:
Under our system of compulsory voting, those
enrolled electors who did not vote are sent a non-voter letter. It requires the
electors to either respond and provide a valid excuse for not voting or pay a
very small $20 fine. A small number of those voters who don't pay the fine are
then prosecuted, and I think we went through a full prosecution of about 3,000
people at the last election.[373]
The Committee also heard from electoral
reform advocate Anna Keenan, originally from Australia and involved in the
electoral reform process in P.E.I.. With regard to mandatory voting, she
expressed her sense of surprise upon her arrival in Canada that voting in
Canada was “optional” and explained her support for mandatory voting as being
rooted in how it changes campaigning:
I loved mandatory voting. I found it shocking that
it was optional to vote when I moved to other countries. If it's the norm in
the country you're from, it's quite surprising that the majority of countries
in the world have it be optional.
The reason that I am a huge fan of mandatory
voting is because of the way that it changes campaigning. I had never heard of
a “get out the vote” campaign before I left Australia. Rather than a campaign
being about why you should come out and vote and risking the appeal to very populist
or extreme positions that can attract real fanatics on certain issues to come
out and vote, everybody is already going to come out and vote. The campaigning
becomes a lot more about the issues and the policies.[374]
She added that a challenge with “optional” voting is that one never
knows why someone did not vote. She suggested that introducing mandatory voting
could actually help citizens express their disengagement or disappointment with
the political system:
On the topic of
optional and mandatory voting, one of the things that I see as a problem with
optional voting is that for the people who don't vote, you don't know why they
haven't voted. You don't know if it's because they are disengaged or because
they are expressing a protest vote and saying, “None of the above; you're not
good enough.” I would propose that if you are to introduce mandatory voting in
Canada you could potentially also consider the inclusion of a “none of the
above” option on ballots for people to express an active protest vote.
There have also been instances in some Australian
elections where there was an active campaign for people to drop empty ballots
in the box. If you turned up at the ballot box and you got checked off the
list, you voted, but people dropped in empty ballots as a form of protest. If
you are to introduce mandatory voting, it does need to be done in such a way
that you make it clear to people that they are not being forced to choose, but
you're making it mandatory for people to engage and learn and educate
themselves, to show up. It's making it a citizen duty.[375]
Multiple witnesses who testified before the Committee emphasized
that in considering whether to make voting mandatory, attention must first be
paid to making voting as accessible as possible. As well, special care must be
given to ensure that any move towards mandatory voting should contain
appropriate exceptions so as not to negatively impact Canadians who are already
underrepresented in the electoral system – including Canadians with
disabilities, older and younger Canadians, Indigenous Canadians, and low-income
Canadians.
One important element of accessibility is making voting as “easy”
and “attractive” as possible. As Ruth Dassonneville noted in her presentation
to the Committee, which focused exclusively on mandatory voting:
For sure whenever voting is compulsory, is
mandatory in a country, voting should be made easy as well. I think the
Canadian context is a great case of a country where voting is relatively easy.
Already though, more measures could be taken to make it even easier.[376]
Maryantonett Flumian, who suggested that mandatory voting should
only be considered “as a last resort to address low voter participation,”
indicated that “a number of other measures could be implemented” to “improve
voter turnout over time,” namely making voting more user-friendly:
Simply put, if voting is more user-friendly and
highly accessible, more people may be likely to vote. Everything possible
should be done to facilitate voting, from registration to the actual act of voting. With modern information
technologies, many impediments to voting or things that make voting more
difficult could be lifted or greatly reduced.[377]
Another prerequisite to mandatory voting would be ensuring that the
voting process is as accessible as possible to Canadians with disabilities. For
example, as Diane Bergeron, on behalf of the Canadian National Institute for
the Blind, noted, currently Canadians who are blind do not have access to a
secret ballot (as assistance is required to check the ballot):
Although CNIB does not take a position on mandatory
voting, I think it's important to remember that if you are not going to make
the system 100% accessible to every Canadian, exceptions need to be put in
place. I don't think it's right to tell me that I have to go vote, and then
tell me, “Oh, but by the way you're not allowed to do it in secret because we
don't have this accessible.”[378]
She added:
I truly believe that if we're going to make voting
mandatory, then we also need to make sure every person has the same rights in
the voting system going forward. If we are going to do mandatory voting, then I
don't think I should have to have somebody with me in the polling station who I
do not know and who could mark my ballot for me. I think I should be able to do
that independently. I should be able to check it myself to make sure that I
haven't unintentionally spoiled my vote, and also to make sure that it's in
secret. If I don't have those rights upheld, then I don't think I should be
forced to go through the same process as everyone else. If the voting process is made completely 100% accessible to everybody, then that would be different.[379]
She concluded by emphasizing that any mandatory voting regime
should include exceptions to ensure that Canadians who have difficulties
accessing the vote are not unduly penalized:
I truly don't believe that mandatory voting should
be put in place without the exceptions to allow people to have the right to
back out if they are not being considered equally or treated equally within
that process.[380]
The notion that Canadians with disabilities should not be made
worse off by reform was further emphasized by April D’Aubin, on behalf of the
Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD):
During the social security review process
conducted by then minister Lloyd Axworthy, CCD adopted the principle that
people with disabilities should not be made worse off by reform. Some
individuals with disabilities may be prevented from voting due to barriers that
they have no control over. For example, there may be a lack of accessible
transportation to the polls. A person who relies on the services of a personal
care attendant may find themselves unable to get out of bed on voting day
because their attendant did not show up. A polling station may be inaccessible.
It would add insult to injury for them to then have to pay a tax for not
voting.[381]
Louis Sebert,[382] speaking in Yellowknife, NWT, expressed concern with any proposed penalties for
not voting, noting that such penalties could disproportionately impact those
already in need:
Financial penalties for not voting would fall most
harshly on those residents already struggling with the day-to-day reality of
being unemployed or underemployed with no economic prospects, a far higher cost
of living, and heavy reliance on government programs.[383]
As well, Paul Okalik, Member of the Legislative Assembly in
Nunavut, noted that elections could take place during the hunting season, which
would make observing mandatory voting requirements difficult:
That's the concern I have with mandatory
requirements is that it can fall in the middle of our hunting season, in the
middle of something rather important for our family, so making it mandatory
would be difficult for us in that way.[384]
As well, it was observed that some members of First Nations
communities do not, as a matter of principle, vote federally, and as such
should not be penalized should mandatory voting be introduced.
The primary argument in support of mandatory voting (other than it
being perceived as a duty) is that the higher turnout brought about by
mandatory voting makes government more legitimate, and reduces the inequalities
between who turns out to vote and who does not. As Ruth Dassonneville
explained:
First of all, it [higher turnout] is an important
goal because it increases democratic legitimacy. A government that's been
elected based on high levels of turnout could more legitimately claim that it's
representing the citizens.
Second, and this is really
the crucial point, high turnout levels should reduce inequalities in who turns
out to vote and who does not. The political science literature is quite clear
that the less well-off are less likely to turn out to vote. So lower-educated
people, lower-income people, lower social class citizens are less likely to
turn out to vote. Compelling them, mandating them, to turn out to vote will
effectively reduce those inequalities. I think reducing those inequalities is
important because it changes the dynamics. It would make sure that parties would
actually care about those less well-off citizens. If parties know that the less
well off, the low-income groups, low social class citizens are not turning out
to vote or are hard to mobilize, then they have no reason whatsoever to care
about the interests of those citizens. Compulsory voting would change that
dynamic.[385]
However, those opposed to mandatory voting emphasized that
increasing voter turnout could mask the decline in civic engagement that is
currently reflected in varying turnout. As Don Desserud noted:
My concern is that
we're missing the point. Yes, voting is a civic duty and is itself a form of
civic engagement, but it's also a measure, a reflection of the engagement of
the community. In other words, people are not voting for other reasons than
simply because they haven't been nudged, and if we have mandatory voting we
risk overlooking those or masking those.[386]
Other witnesses noted that “mandatory voting probably addresses the
symptom rather than the cause,”[387] that it is “not a panacea for what ails democracy.”[388]
Finally, some have suggested that in addition to making voting more
accessible, mandatory voting should be encouraged through the use of “carrots”
rather than “sticks,” as Matt Risser noted, “I would argue that you should
exhaust all carrots before you move to sticks.”[389] Fellow witness Christopher Majka agreed with Mr. Risser, indicating that
“Like him, I think carrots are much more interesting to wield than sticks. I
think there are many things within our power to incentivize democratic
participation.”[390]
Indeed, the idea of offering a
“carrot” rather than a “stick” to encourage voting was first put forward by
Nelson Wiseman, Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto:
Can I just say something about mandatory voting? I
see voting more as a right than as a duty, but I'm not opposed to its being
mandatory. I just don't think it's in the interests of most MPs to do it.
Instead of a penalty, as
in Australia—where, incidentally, voter turnout isn't much above 80%, I
think.... In New Zealand, where they don't have it, they've had elections in
which turnout has been as high as 98%. Rather than a penalty, which I believe
you can get out of if you have an excuse, offer them a carrot. Parliament has introduced
so many boutique tax credits. Give them $20 or $30. Right now, it costs about
$30 for every vote that's cast.[391]
As noted above, the idea of using an incentive to encourage voting
was supported by a majority of respondents to the Committee’s online consultation.[392]
Over the course of its study, some Committee members became
increasingly impressed by some of the arguments put forward to make voting
attendance mandatory. In particular, some members appreciated how mandatory
voting would change campaigning, altering the focus of a campaign from
encouraging people to vote to campaigning more on issues and policies. Some Committee
members also valued the observation made that introducing compulsory voting
would make voting more equal by ensuring input from those who traditionally do
not vote, and giving political parties the incentive to reach out to them (for
example by designing policies).
However, some members of the Committee also appreciated the
argument that the right to vote includes the right not to vote, or even to
present one’s self at the polls, and that the decision to do so should be made
freely. As well, the Committee recognizes that introducing mandatory voting
would not in itself resolve the root causes of low voter turnout or engagement,
and might mask them. Finally, the Committee acknowledges the general discomfort
expressed with penalizing people for not participating in the electoral process,
particularly those with a disability.
Given the forgoing, the Committee does not recommend mandatory
voting at this time. Rather, the Committee agrees that a variety of measures,
discussed in Chapter 8, could be considered to improve voter turnout over time.
In particular, the Committee supports initiatives to make voting more
user-friendly and accessible, including improving education and outreach around
why it is important to vote, to facilitate voting and inclusion in the National
Register of Electors.
Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends that
mandatory voting not be implemented at this time.