Westminster Is Finally Asking Whether Voting Should Be Compulsory.
During the last general election in 2024, turnout was just 59.7% which was the lowest level at a general election since 2001- it was also 7.6% lower than in 2019(commonslibrary.parliament.uk). Recently, it has come into discussion whether voting should be made compulsory for UK residents who are eligible to vote, including a potential fine or mandatory vote option of “none of the above” (ippr.org).
Why the idea has momentum
The IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research) have been pushing to make voting compulsory and sees mandatory voting as an aid in allowing for a fairer society. They argue it is the first step to ‘new democratic citizenship’(ippr.org). The reform opens the door for democratic citizenship by removing the unequal turnout rates which affects the voices which are heard. When voting is made optional, there is a high tendency for certain demographics of society to be marginalized due to their inability to vote. An example is young people whereby, roughly less than two thirds of 18–24-year-olds voted during the 2024 general election compared to three quarters of people aged 65 and above(bbc.co.uk). This approach creates a psychological awareness that everyone’s vote matters- everyone’s voice is important regardless of demographic. Additionally, near-universal turnout increases political pressure for better education and more representative electorates.
In Australia voting has been obligatory since 1924 and despite initial concern that compulsory voting would dramatically reduce the number of voter turnouts, it has instead led to more people voting. In the 1925 election votes were above 91% and since voting became obligatory, votes have never been below 90% which suggest strong stability and consistency(peo.gov.au). This is relevant to the UK voting situation as Australia shares the same parliamentary system as the UK. It has a constitutional monarchy, a Prime Minister who leads government from within parliament and legislature in which ministers are held accountable. Furthermore, Australia’s success can strongly be used to dispel initial fears of rebellion coupled with disengagement which may occur because of this radical approach.
Case Against
Consent, Not Obligation
Approaching voting as a forced duty, treats low turnout as the problem meanwhile for many political disengaged people- the problem is the system itself. One of the biggest reasons why people may not exercise their democratic right to vote, is due to a complete lack of trust in the political system which promised to care for them and address their concerns. We must remember politics concerns itself on serving the interests of the people, delivering on promises- if these are not fulfilled, we cannot just expect people to continuously deliver in the polls. People are not livestock which should be; herded to the polls people should be free to object from voting.
Masked Discrimination
A 10-pound fine would hit differently in an upper-middle class socio-demographic compared to a lower-class socioeconomic demographic. How could we say we want to foster equality through a universal mandatory voting system yet, the effect of non-voting clearly discriminates depending on the type of household you are in. Moreover, even if they would be an increase in the overall education pertaining to politics- this does not guarantee the depth would be the same between class systems. In middle/upper class households, political talk would constantly be a point of discussion at the dinner table meaning any further government sponsored education schemes- is just reinforcing the knowledge which they have acquired at home. Meanwhile, in a lower-class environment, a single government sponsored education scheme may be the only opportunity to gain in depth political knowledge. This matters as it makes mockery of the IPPR’s proposal that universal voting will create equal citizen standing- how can citizen standing be equally if not everyone is voting from a similar knowledge level.
Nuanced Conclusion
Weighing this argument, its paramount to separate the two lenses: the government and the people. Through the lens of the government, is the idea universal voting is paramount as it keeps the political body accountable whilst ensuring the upcoming generations stay engaged. “The people lens” argues voting should be a seal of approval which freely honours trusted representatives, not an obligatory demand imposed by the state.
My overall view leans closer to “the government lens” but with nuance- voting should be compulsory, but it must have a ‘none of the above option’. This allows for honest expression of what people want while also alleviating the unintentional discrimination due to unequal access to political knowledge. Lastly, the ‘none of the above’ option contributes to the data itself- giving the government a clearer signal which non-participation ever could.
References
*House Of Commons Library: 2024 General Voter Turnout
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/general-election-2024-turnout/
*IPPR: Make Voting Compulsory (2026)
*BBC: Why more young people don’t vote in UK elections (2024)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cley905dg20o
*Parliamentary Education Office (PEO): Commonwealth Electoral Act 1924
