Democratic Legitimacy and the Consequences of Compulsion

Jason Brennan; Lisa Hill

doi:10.1017/CBO9781139649742.003

2 - Democratic Legitimacy and the Consequences of Compulsion

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2014

Jason Brennan and

Lisa Hill

Show author details

Jason Brennan: Affiliation:
Georgetown University, Washington DC
Lisa Hill: Affiliation:
University of Adelaide

Book contents

Get access

Summary

In this chapter, I examine and undermine two sets of arguments for compulsory voting. The first set of arguments concerns ideas about democratic legitimacy. The second set of arguments claims compulsory voting would produce good consequences.

The connection between these two sets of arguments is psychological. While none of the arguments I examine here are sound, the arguments in the first set are particularly flawed. However, many lay-people, journalists, politicians, and even some political theorists find this first set of arguments appealing. But they find these arguments appealing because they are confused. Arguments in the first set are really just confused, badly articulated versions of the arguments in the second set. For instance, some people say compulsory voting is necessary to ensure democratic legitimacy. However, probably no one who says that actually means that democracies without compulsory voting are illegitimate. Instead, she probably just intends to say that compulsory voting would make democracy more responsive to the needs of the poor.

Compulsory Voting and Government by Consent

Alfred Apps, former president of Canada’s Liberal Party, and I once debated compulsory voting. Apps probably supports compulsory voting because he believes it would benefit the Liberal Party. (However, during the debate, Apps admitted he had not read any empirical research on compulsory voting. In fact, the best available evidence indicates it does not help small parties.) But Apps is a cunning politician. He cannot say, “I advocate compulsory voting because I believe it would help me.”

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Compulsory Voting
For and Against
, pp. 25 - 61

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139649742.003 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Spooner, Lysander, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority (New York: Free Patriot Press, 2012)

Wellman, Christopher Heath, A Theory of Secession (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005): 9

Estlund, David, Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008): 2

Noel, Hans, “Ten Things Political Scientists Know that You Don’t,” The Forum 8 (2010): 1–19Google Scholar

Grossback, L. J., Peterson, D. A. M., and Stimson, J. A., Mandate Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006)

Grossback, L. J., Peterson, D. A. M., and Stimson, J. A., “Electoral Mandates in American Politics,” British Journal of Political Science 37 (2007): 711–30Google Scholar

Brennan, Geoffrey and Lomasky, Loren, Democracy and Decision (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003): 56–7, 119

Landsburg, Steven, “Don’t Vote. It Makes More Sense to Play the Lottery Instead,” Slate (September 29, 2004)Google Scholar

Gelman, Andrew, Silver, Nate, and Edlin, Aaron, “What Is the Probability that Your Vote Will Make a Difference,” Economic Inquiry 50 (2012): 321–6Google Scholar

Dahl, R. A., “The Myth of the Presidential Mandate,” Political Science Quarterly 105 (1990): 355–72Google Scholar

Noel, Hans, “Ten Things Political Scientists Know,” The Forum, 3, article 12

Leighley, Jan E. and Nagler, Jonathan, “Individual and Systematic Influences on Voter Turnout: 1984,” Journal of Politics 54 (1992): 718–40Google Scholar

Evans, Jocelyn, Voters and Voting: An Introduction (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004): 152–6

Guerra, Claudio Lopez, “The Enfranchisement Lottery,” Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 26 (2010): 211–33Google Scholar

Kropf, Martha and Kimball, David C., Helping America Vote: The Limits of Election Reform (London: Routledge, 2011): 37–44

Ansolabehere, Stephen and Stewart, Charles III, “Residual Votes Attributable to Technology,” Journal of Politics 67 (2005): 365–89Google Scholar

Goggin, Stephen N., Byrne, Michael D., and Gilbert, Juan E., “Post-Election Auditing: Effects of Procedure and Ballot Type on Manual Counting Accuracy, Efficiency, and Auditor Satisfaction and Confidence,” Election Law Journal 11 (2012): 36–51Google Scholar

Saunders, Ben, “Democracy, Political Equality, and Majority Rule,” Ethics 121 (2010): 148–77Google Scholar

Saunders, Ben, “The Equality of Lotteries,” Philosophy 83 (2008): 359–72Google Scholar

Brighouse, Harry and Fleurbaey, Marc, “Democracy and Proportionality,” Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (2010): 137–55Google Scholar

Funk, Carolyn, “The Dual Influence of Self-Interest and Societal Interest in Public Opinion,” Political Research Quarterly 53 (2000): 37–62Google Scholar

Funk, Carolyn and Garcia-Monet, Patricia, “The Relationship between Personal and National Concerns in Public Perceptions of the Economy,” Political Research Quarterly 50 (1997): 317–42Google Scholar

Miller, Dale, “The Norm of Self-Interest,” American Psychologist 54 (1999): 1053–60Google Scholar

Mutz, Diana and Mondak, Jeffrey, “Dimensions of Sociotropic Behavior: Group-Based Judgments of Fairness and Well-Being,” American Journal of Political Science 41 (1997): 284–308Google Scholar

Feddersen, Timothy, Gailmard, Sean, and Sandroni, Alvaro, “A Bias toward Unselfishness in Large Elections: Theory and Experimental Evidence.” American Political Science Review 103 (2009): 175–92Google Scholar

Green, Donald and Shapiro, Ian, Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994)

Markus, Gregory, “The Impact of Personal and National Economic Conditions on the Presidential Vote: A Pooled Cross-Sectional Analysis,” American Journal of Political Science 32 (1988): 137–54Google Scholar

Conover, Pamela, Feldman, Stanley, and Knight, Kathleen, “The Personal and Political Underpinnings of Economic Forecasts,” American Journal of Political Science 31 (1987): 559–83Google Scholar

Kinder, Donald and Kiewiet, Roderick, “Economic Discontent and Political Behavior: The Role of Personal Grievances and Collective Economic Judgments in Congressional Voting,” American Journal of Political Science 23 (1979): 495–527Google Scholar

Huddy, Leonie, Jones, Jeffrey, and Chard, Richard, “Compassion vs. Self-Interest: Support for Old-Age Programs among the Non-Elderly,” Political Psychology 22 (2001): 443–72Google Scholar

Rhodebeck, Laurie, “The Politics of Greed? Political Preferences among the Elderly,” Journal of Politics 55 (1993): 342–64Google Scholar

Ponza, Michael, Duncan, Greg, Corcoran, Mary, and Groskind, Fred, “The Guns of Autumn? Age Differences in Support for Income Transfers to the Young and Old,” Public Opinion Quarterly 52 (1988): 441–66Google Scholar

Sears, David O. and Funk, Carolyn L., “Self-Interest in Americans’ Political Opinions,” in Mansbridge, Jane (ed.), Beyond Self-Interest (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990): 147–70

Caplan, Bryan, The Myth of the Rational Voter (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997)

Holbrook, Thomas and Garand, James, “Homo Economicus? Economic Information and Economic Voting,” Political Research Quarterly 49 (1996): 351–75Google Scholar

Mutz, Diana, “Mass Media and the Depoliticization of Personal Experience,” American Journal of Political Science 36 (1992): 483–508Google Scholar

Mutz, Diana, “Direct and Indirect Routes to Politicizing Personal Experience: Does Knowledge Make a Difference?” Public Opinion Quarterly 57 (1993): 483–502Google Scholar

Mansbridge, Jane, Beyond Self-Interest (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990)

Citrin, Jack and Green, Donald, “The Self-Interest Motive in American Public Opinion,” Research in Micropolitics 3 (1990): 1–28Google Scholar

Sears, David, Lau, Richard, Tyler, Tom, and Allen, Harris, “Self-Interest vs. Symbolic Politics in Policy Attitudes and Presidential Voting,” American Political Science Review 74 (1980): 670–84Google Scholar

Sears, David and Lau, Richard, “Inducing Apparently Self-Interested Political Preferences,” American Journal of Political Science 27 (1983): 223–52Google Scholar

Sears, David, Hensler, Carl, and Speer, Leslie, “Whites’ Opposition to ‘Busing’: Self-Interest or Symbolic Politics?” American Political Science Review 73 (1979): 369–84Google Scholar

Carpini, Michael X. Delli and Keeter, Scott, What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996): 3

Kelly, Jamie Terrence, Framing Democracy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012)

Caplan, Bryan, Campton, Eric, Grove, Wayne, and Somin, Ilya, “Systematically Biased Beliefs about Political Influence: Evidence from the Perception of Political Influence on Policy Outcomes Survey” (George Mason University, 2012)

Mackerras, M. and McAllister, I., “Compulsory Voting, Party Stability, and Electoral Advantage in Australia,” Electoral Studies 18 (2) (1999): 217–34Google Scholar

McAllister, Ian, “Compulsory Voting, Turnout, and Party Advantage in Australia,” Politics 21 (1986): 89–93Google Scholar

Lijphart, Arend, “Unequal Participation: Democracy’s Unresolved Dilemma,” American Political Science Review 91 (1997): 1–14, 10Google Scholar

Lever, Annabelle, “Compulsory Voting: A Critical Perspective,” British Journal of Political Science 40 (4) (2010): 897–915Google Scholar

Lever, Annabelle, “‘A Liberal Defense of Compulsory Voting’: Some Reasons for Skepticism,” Politics 28 (2008): 61–4Google Scholar

Loewen, Peter John, Milner, Henry, and Hicks, Bruce M., “Does Compulsory Voting Lead to More Informed and Engaged Citizens? An Experimental Test,” Canadian Journal of Political Science 41 (2008): 655–67Google Scholar

Milner, Henry, Loewen, Peter John, and Hicks, Bruce M., “The Paradox of Compulsory Voting: Participation Does Not Equal Political Knowledge,” IRPP Policy Matters 8 (2007): 1–48Google Scholar

Gilens, Martin, Affluence and Influence (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012): 80

Enns, Peter K. and Wlezien, Christopher (eds.), Who Gets Represented? (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2011)

Rosenblum, Nancy, On the Side of Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010)

Putnam, Robert, Bowling Alone (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001)

Lijphart, Arend, Patterns of Democracy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999): 284–6

Cox, Michaelene, “When Trust Matters: Explaining Differences in Voter Turnout,” Journal of Common Market Studies 41 (2003): 757–70Google Scholar

Levi, Margaret and Stocker, Laura, “Political Trust and Trustworthiness,” Annual Review of Political Science 3 (2000): 475–507Google Scholar

Besley, T., Principled Agents? The Political Economy of Good Government [New York: Oxford University Press, 2006]: 17–20)

Franklin, M., Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies since 1945 [New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004]: 91–118)

Mercier, Hugo and Sperber, Dan, “Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory,” Behavioral and Brian Sciences 34 (2011): 57–111Google Scholar

Westen, Drew, Blagov, Pavel S., Harenski, Keith, Kilts, Clint, and Hamann, Stephan, “The Neural Basis of Motivated Reasoning: An fMRI Study of Emotional Constraints on Political Judgment during the U.S. Presidential Election of 2004,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18 (2007): 1947–58Google Scholar

Tajfel, Henry, Human Groups and Social Categories (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981)

Tajfel, Henry, “Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations,” Annual Review of Psychology 33 (1982): 1–39Google Scholar

Tajfel, Henry and Turner, J. C., “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict,” in Austin, W. G. and Worchel, S. (eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole, 1979)

Mendelberg, Tali, “The Deliberative Citizen: Theory and Evidence,” in Carpini, Michael X. Delli, Huddy, Leonie, and Shapiro, Robert Y. (eds.), Research in Micropolitics, Vol. 6: Political Decision Making, Deliberation, and Participation (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2002): 151–93

Birch, Sarah, “The Case for Compulsory Voting,” Public Policy Research 16 (2009): 21–7Google Scholar

Highton, Benjamin and Wolfinger, Raymond, “The Political Implications of Higher Turnout,” British Journal of Political Science 31 (1) (2001): 179–223Google Scholar

Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971)

Murphy, Liam and Nagel, Thomas, The Myth of Ownership: Taxes and Justice (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2002): 32–3, 36