Compulsory Voting
by What happens when a law is enacted that mandates voting by all qualified citizens? Can there be compulsory voting, in the first place? Or is there such thing as right not to vote?
The issue of compulsory voting, which generally may include provisions of whether the non-voters are going to be imposed with punishment, is nuanced. Hence, the question whether it is right for the government to craft a law against non-voters cannot be answered by a simple yes or no.
For one, we have to understand that there is an intuitively appealing reason against compulsory voting. Rights are commonly understood to include an element of choice or discretion. Every right is an opportunity for a citizen to exercise his/her free will. Rights are ours to execute or not; just because one can do something does not mean one should. Thus, it is contradictory to find a free country with compulsory vote as voting should not be a forced act.
But this understanding of rights in terms of liberty as non-interference, particularly when applied to suffrage, represents a flawed interpretation of the idea of the right to vote and overlooks the centrality of the value of active electoral participation to that right. From one legal framework, it may be argued that an appreciation of rights in terms of non-dominion would even require active participation by electors and the imposition of sanctions for non-voting would not be inconsistent in this sense! It is because the intent of compulsory voting is the preservation of the desirable democratic practice for its own sake. And while, at its face value, compulsory voting may be looked upon as defeating the freedom from official interference with individual decision-making and action, it definitely has its qualitative advantages such as: an electoral system in which ballots are cast without compulsion, an election result which reflects more accurately the considered preferences of voters, and the individual sense of fulfillment of being able to discharge a civic duty argued to be diminished or removed by the institution of compulsion.
Finally, we raise again our point: is it right for the government to impose compulsory voting? Our answer is yes and no.
Liked it
-
-
-
-
-
Post Commentpapaleng
On September 2, 2009 at 3:18 am
pretty intriguing question. But if you are a law-abiding citizen of your country, then you must vote if the circumstances allowed, Remember not all are privilege to cast his vote.
cutedrishti8
On September 2, 2009 at 3:55 am
Nice one to share…great one
kairos
On September 2, 2009 at 8:55 am
pero ang botante pa rin ang masusunod kung sino ang kanyang dapat isulat sa balota…at iyon ay hindi na maaaring maimpluwensiyahan ninuman (ideally.)
kairos
ember
On September 2, 2009 at 2:34 pm
What happens when a law is enacted that mandates voting by all qualified citizens?
It will be passed, but it will not be implemented. In the interpretation of laws, there is a presumption against absurdity. If such a law would be passed, but would result to it being absurd, it will be declared unconstitutional.
What would be the intent of such law, if it would be passed? Is it to compel people to exercise one’s right? We must understand that basic or fundamental rights are not within the realm of the powers of the government. Of the three great powers of the government, it is the police power that would most likely be used to exert such effort to compel people to exercise the right to suffrage. However, police power is subservient to the due process clause and the equal protection clause as provided by the Constitution (1987 Philippine Constitution, that is), which provides that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws”. As such, the fundamental rights of the people should not be hampered in the passage of such a law other wise, it would be declared unconstitutional, subject to the filing of a case to a court of proper jurisdiction.
Supposing that such law would be passed, interpretation of such law would be always be first, in harmony with the Constitution, and other existing laws of the land.
So, again, what would happen if such a law would be passed? It would merely encourage the exercise of one’s right, but a sanction that compels people to vote would be going against Constitutional prohibition on subsequent punishment that unduly curtails expression.
Joey F.
On September 7, 2009 at 12:40 am
While the Constitution encourages every citizen to exercise their right to suffrage. However, the same is not compulsory. The Civil Code (Article 19) provides that rights may be waived. Thus, the right to suffrage, just like other rights, may be waived.
In order to compel an individual to vote then the statutes must provide for a penal provision else the same would be a toothless law. Thus, If there will be statutory provisions that would compel a qualified person to vote then there will be a lot of citizens who will suffer the penalty of not voting, persons such as those who by reason of health, i.e. those bed-ridden, or due to distance or circumstances were hindered from voting.
Logic would tell us that it is impossible for any legislative act to compel the exercise of the right of suffrage.