It is estimated that 90-million Americans or about 37% of the country’s voting-eligible population did not vote in the 2024 election. Many political experts have postulated that compulsory voting would increase civil and political engagement, increase accessibility and increase turn-out for under-represented voters. While the aspirations of compulsory voting in theory are noble, the consequences of enforcing mandatory voting may not be so rosy. Voting should not be mandatory, as it would require a change in the Constitution, would increase the number of uninformed voters casting ballots, and could create hardship for those who are unable to vote.

As of 2024, there are over 20 countries that make voting mandatory. Some of these countries include: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, and Greece. In most of these countries, there is a monetary fine for not voting, upwards of 70 US dollars. In the US, several states have introduced bills that enforce mandatory voting such as Massachusetts, California, New York and Washington. None of these states, however, enforce the law. In 2022, a mandatory voting bill was introduced in the House of Representatives and polls suggest that upwards of 30% of Americans support a mandatory voting law. 

Those who support a voting mandate believe that this would ensure that all citizens are contributing in elections. Undoubtedly, voting would increase. In Australia, 90% of registered voters have voted in federal elections since voting became compulsory in 1924. According to Alistair Campbell of TheWeek.com, “Those countries who have compulsory voting…tend to have healthier democracies and healthier democracies tend to be happier places,”One natural effect of mandatory voting would undoubtedly be that all voters, regardless of their political beliefs would have a say in each election, not just those voters whose beliefs tend to be at the fringes of the political spectrum. In an Op-ed published in The New York Times that supported mandatory voting, William Galston states that low voter turn-out creates political polarization. However, one drawback of forcing people to vote who otherwise would not cast a ballot is that there would be an increase in ‘random’ votes or ‘donkey votes’ as they are known in Australia, votes cast for random candidates simply to comply with the law.   

Those in favor of mandatory voting argue that such a law would compel citizens to become more informed about who is running for office, their stances on various issues and the complexities of the pertinent issues impacting the election. Research shows, however, that uninformed voters do little to increase their knowledge during elections and often turn to social media, media outlets, and other platforms that spread misinformation. In a retort to the Op-ed by William Galston, Jason Brennan, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University, argues that the “median voter is incompetent at all politics” and states,”If we really want to help America…we should encourage citizens to vote well or not vote at all.” In the era of Artificial Intelligence, deep-fakes, and mass-proliferation of misinformation, many eligible voters would look to political-ads, Twitter or Truth Social to inform themselves and this is not the kind of electoral system that would ultimately benefit our country. 

According to another Op-ed in The New York Times about the difficulty of changing the Constitution, Aziz Rana, a professor constitutional law at Cornell University stated, “We have an amendment process that’s the hardest in the world to enact. “That’s the reason why it’s basically a dead letter to enact constitutional amendments.” To give an idea of just how nearly impossible it is to pass or change an amendment, out of almost 12,000 amendments proposed since the founding of the Constitution, only 27 have been adopted. In order to make an amendment, a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate is required, followed by approval in at least three-quarters of the states, which today is 38. On top of this, the original writing of the Constitution states that Congress can not interfere with the First Amendment right to speech and the press. This has long since been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that all American speech can not be infringed upon by any branch or section of the federal, state, or local government. The Equal Rights Amendment which would ban discrimination on the basis of sex was passed by Congress in the 1970s and is still waiting to reach 38 states to ratify it. 

Not only would making voting mandatory require a herculean effort to change the first Amendment of the Constitution, many would interpret such a law as an infringement on their civil liberties. Many people do not see voting as a means of exercising freedom of speech in order to demonstrate their political opinion. Most importantly, enforcing such a law could potentially create a burden to those who are ill, infirm, and those who are physically unable to get to vote. People who cannot afford to take off from work or run the risk of getting fired may also have to pay too high of a price. Consequences for not voting in countries that have made voting compulsory range from small fines, as little as five dollars, to disenfranchisement and imprisonment. Enforcing a compulsory voting law could create undue burdens for those whose votes are historically least represented, namely the marginalized. For example, according to NPR.org, Asian-Americans and Latino-Americans had the most unregistered voters of all voters of color despite them making up the country’s top two fast-growing electorates by race or ethnicity. The reasons why include language barriers, not having a valid government issued photo ID, and other socio-economic obstacles like not being able to take off work or obtain transportation to get to a voting poll.  

There is no doubt that compulsory voting in the US would increase voter turn-out, but before creating and enacting such a law, we need to ask, at what cost? Research shows that many voters would not make the extra effort to inform themselves about important issues and about the candidates running for office, many would show up to the polls casting “donkey ballots” and enforcing such a law could create undue hardship for certain already marginalized populations. Furthermore, when considering such a law, we must examine the effects carefully and consider whether taking the drastic step of amending the Constitution would be worth the price.