Compulsory voting: what choices matter?

• Lisa Hill
• The Indo-Pacific Governance Research Centre

Read the full text

23 August 2011Australia has one of the oldest systems of compulsory voting in the world. Compulsory enrolment was introduced at the federal level in 1911 but voting itself did not become mandatory until 1924. It wasn’t until 1984 that it became compulsory for Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders to register and vote.

Compulsory voting was introduced to address the problem of low voter turnout and it proved to be an extremely decisive and successful remedy. At the last federal election immediately prior to the introduction of compulsory voting (1922) the average turnout of registered voters was 59% (RV) but turnout at the first federal election after 1924 (in 1925) surged dramatically to an average of 91% (RV). The net increase over time since the introduction of compulsory voting has been 30.4 percentage points. Turnout rates among the voting age population in Australia have remained consistently high and against the pattern that has emerged in the rest of the industrialized, voluntary-voting world.

Although Australia is one of the few advanced democracies (and the only English speaking country) to compel citizens to vote, a number of other established democracies have shown serious interest in the idea. For example, due to declining turnout in Britain, the idea of compulsory voting is now being taken seriously there with one MP introducing a private member’s bill for its adoption. The UK Electoral Commission, the Electoral Reform Society of Britain and the Institute of Public Policy Research (UK) have all undertaken research to gauge its suitability for the British context. Likewise, there have been calls for its introduction in the US, Canada, New Zealand, Israel and even Jordan. But a significant obstacle to the adoption of compulsory voting in settings where it could be of real benefit is the uncritical acceptance of claims that it is impractical and expensive; that the public find it an unacceptable burden on autonomy; and that it is inimical to liberal and democratic ideals.