The debate: should voting be compulsory?
Andy Burnham is said to be considering voting reform. Two writers go head to head on whether Britain should introduce Australian-style compulsory voting
YES: Everyone’s vote should count, not just those who turn up
British politics has a turnout problem. Just three in five registered voters went to the polls in the 2024 general election. That’s a big problem for a democracy. It’s not only a matter of how many people vote, but about whose voices count most as a result. In 2024, there was a 25 percentage point turnout gap between the oldest and youngest age groups, and a 20 point gap between university graduates and those with the least educational qualifications.
That electoral incentive skews our politics towards those likeliest to vote: the wealthy, homeowners, older voters. For the rest – renters, ethnic minorities, younger and poorer voters – the risk is a vicious circle: their voices go unheard, so they become ever more disengaged.
Andy Burnham is right to support changes to how our democracy works, like a more proportional voting system and giving more power to regions and cities. But another important idea is gaining steam: Australia-style compulsory voting. Everyone would be expected to vote, or be fined around £10 for failing to do so. This isn’t about forcing anyone to vote for any party they don’t support: ballots should include a ‘none of the above’ option.
At IPPR we back compulsory voting, first, because voting is a duty: we expect citizens to pay their taxes or to do jury service when summoned, so why don’t we expect them to have a say on Britain’s shared future? And second, because it works. In the 100 years since voting became compulsory in Australia, turnout has only once dropped below 90 per cent. Much the same is true in Belgium, Chile and Singapore.
Democracy needs us all to take part. Backing compulsory voting would be a real statement of this new government’s commitment to a different, better politics.
Harry Quilter-Pinner is IPPR executive director
NO: The bar for compelling citizens in a liberal society to do things should be very high
In a liberal society, the moral case for making certain activities compulsory can only plausibly be made when the benefits to society are very large, or, it is necessary for maintaining freedom itself. Hence, conscription during war has some justification. Does compulsory voting meet this high bar though? No. Certainly, if we’re not going to force people to help others with heavy shopping bags for 15 minutes, analogously, we shouldn’t force people to take 15 minutes to vote for what will probably be an even smaller benefit to society in expectation, if any.
Indeed, we should expect that compulsory voting will make politics worse because people who know very little and don’t vote for that reason will be forced to do so. Young people in 2024 had a turnout of 37 per cent compared to 60 per cent for the general population and a principal reason they give for not voting is they don’t know enough. Only 64 per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds access the news on a daily basis compared to 87 per cent for those over 55, and the former mostly do so via social media.
My opponent will say we need politicians to respond to all demographics of society regardless, including underrepresented ethnic minorities and young people too, and compulsory voting helps that. But politicians shouldn’t be responding to the views of their constituents anyway. As Edmund Burke once opined: “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion”. Straying from this principle is how you get politicians voting for disastrous but popular policies such as rent controls and price caps on food.
Charles Amos is a PhD candidate in political theory at King’s College London
THE VERDICT
Compulsory voting is reportedly on the table as three think tanks influential in Labour circles, including Quilter-Pinner’s IPPR are advocating for it. Voting reform is being discussed more broadly as the Reform UK and the Greens have gained in the polls, rupturing the two-party system. First past the post delivers stable governments when there are only really two parties competing, but in a multi party world it can result in administrations for which vast majorities did not vote, damaging their legitimacy. City PM is sceptical of calls to make permanent constitutional changes based on current and fluctuating circumstances – however if Britain continues to be a five, six or seven party democracy, some level of voting reform will surely become necessary.
However compulsory voting is not the answer. Quilter-Pinner is right that it would increase turnout and ensure politicians who get elected better reflect those they represent. And the policy seems to have done little harm in freedom-loving Australia. But Amos is right that our MPs are delegates, not representatives, and that the best legislators need not be a perfect mirror of the electorate. His point that there should be a very high bar for the state to compel citizens to do anything at all, while bluntly made, is hard to disagree with.