"What if duty were the condition of freedom? In defense of mandatory voting"

After 40 years of uninterrupted democracy, its importance seems to be at stake.

When I was 17, a teacher who taught the subject of "Civic Education" told me that "democracy is not just about voting; it is about choosing to participate." That phrase has resonated with me to this day. Today, I reframe it: perhaps voting is not about choosing to participate, but rather the first act of those who, in a healthy democracy, must do so. While in various parts of the globe there are calls to reclaim the right to vote (like in Haiti, Sudan, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo), in many Western democracies, there is a debate about whether that right should also be a duty. In relation to this crucial axis, I pursue the purpose of comparing the perspectives and arguments of the presented authors. In this line, the texts by Rapoport and Dionne Jr. (“In Defense of Universal Suffrage”), Lacroix (“A Liberal Defense of Mandatory Voting”), and Burrus (“U.S.: Mandatory Voting Guarantees Ignorant Votes”) open a debate that is both philosophical and political: is mandatory voting a violation of freedom or its highest expression?

Mandatory Voting as a Condition for Substantive Equality

I have always been struck by how the most vulnerable sectors seem to be absent from the political map. Not because they don't matter, but because they don't vote. Or rather, because the system neither invites nor incentivizes them to do so. At this point, Rapoport and Dionne Jr. propose a powerful correction: they raise mandatory voting as the remedy for this systematic exclusion. The authors argue that in countries like the U.S., where participation is voluntary, the citizens who actually exercise the vote tend to be wealthier, whiter, and older. Evidently, this leaves the rest of the country out of decisions (Rapoport and Dionne Jr., 2020).

Far from considering it a form of coercion, Lacroix offers a more philosophical and transformative approach. From a liberal conception of equality, he argues that forcing people to vote does not mean less freedom; on the contrary, it provides additional conditions to exercise it equally (Lacroix, 2007). His idea that freedom also implies the real possibility of exercising it is deeply convincing to me. What use is the ability to vote if the social, economic, or cultural context effectively excludes you?

However, Burrus fundamentally opposes this. With his clear and predictable stance, he asserts that mandatory voting would be an intolerable state interference in the private sphere of citizenship. He even equates it to a violation of freedom of expression. "Not voting," he says, "can be a legitimate form of protest" (Burrus, 2015). But he does not clarify (nor does it seem to concern him) what happens to those who do not vote not out of political conviction, but as a consequence of structural neglect. Defending that "freedom not to vote" without considering the complete picture is, more than respectful or a form of manifestation, functional to a deeply entrenched and unequal status quo that benefits a few.

There are facts that cannot be ignored. In Belgium, where voting is mandatory, the participation gap between people with and without higher education is significantly smaller than in countries where voting is optional (Lacroix, 2007). That difference is no small matter. Forcing everyone to vote compels the system to address everyone, even those it tends to forget.

Individual Freedom Does Not Oppose Civic Duty

Many view freedom as the total absence of impositions. But, is not a deeper freedom one that allows us to construct the norms of coexistence together with others? Lacroix (2007) proposes a republican conception of autonomy where voting is not coercion; rather, it is an active expression of community belonging.

Participating in collective decision-making, even if it starts from the minimal obligation of voting, is what makes us true citizens. This idea finds resonance in the comparison made by Rapoport and Dionne Jr. (2020), establishing a similarity between mandatory voting and the duty to serve on a jury. A widely accepted yet uncomfortable practice that reflects the value of contributing to the common good. Voting, like judging a peer, implies acknowledging that democracy is not sustained by spectators but by protagonists. Protagonists who are willing to take real action.

Burrus's objection concerning uninformed voters also frequently arises and is not without merit. He notes that many citizens do not know enough to vote responsibly and that forcing them only exacerbates the problem (2015). But there is an essential detail he omits: information does not magically appear when voting is voluntary. In fact, in countries with mandatory voting, campaigns often become more educational because they must reach everyone. Misinformation is not combated by exclusion but by inclusion with tools.

Moreover, there is the most crucial nuance of the system: mandatory voting does not force a choice. Blank voting, nullifying a ballot, or even justifiable abstention are allowed and respected options. No preference is imposed, only presence. As a society, we can no longer normalize that the electoral silence of millions has no political consequences.

This debate profoundly engages those who study and inhabit democratic systems, fundamentally in a socio-cultural context marked by historical inequalities. Mandatory voting does not solve all problems; however, it does represent a foundation upon which to begin building an equal democracy; one that truly does not exclude. It is concerning to continue confusing freedom with comfort or right with privilege. Some fear coercion; but the real risk is that the system continues to ignore those without a voice to shout. In concluding this report, as Dionne Jr. reminds us, "a nation founded on the idea that government is only legitimate if it has the consent of the governed must reject the notion that the consent of some is enough" (Rapoport and Dionne Jr., 2020). That phrase decisively encapsulates the defense of mandatory voting. Democracy cannot be decorative. It must call everyone, even those who do not wish to, even those who do not know who to vote for. The mere act of being there, of saying "I exist and I care", is also a way of building power.