Mandated Voting

As early voting on a special ballot in my county begins tomorrow, I was confronted with a startling statistic; last year only 6% of the almost half million residents in my county showed up to vote.

Mandated voting has always been a quiet discussion when confronting the low voter turnout that the United States experiences. Most notably in modern politics, Obama suggested the idea in 2015. Since then Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Washington have introduced compulsory voting legislation. However, mandated voting has strong roots in American history.

In 1636 there are records that Plymouth colony fined voters for not turning up to elections. Several other colonies followed suit in the subsequent years, each with varying penances. However, by the end of the 1700s it seems lack of enforcement had made these laws obsolete.

Jumping forward a century, the debate surrounding mandatory voting boomed. Starting in the 1880s, we see changes like women's suffrage and progressive reform push compulsory voting to the forefront. In the next four decades eleven states introduced bills that would mandate voting; none were successful.

After the 1920s there was a drop off of publicity and interest in compulsory voting. There is scant public or scholarly endorsements of it, and almost zero legislative ideas that supported it. After the highly contested 2000 Presidential election the conversation was brought back around; it has continued to gather moderate momentum into the 21st century. Several politicians and political scholars have outlined the pros of mandatory voting.

It Increases Representation and Legitimacy

• More accurate reflection of the population: Voluntary voting tends to skew toward older, wealthier, and whiter voters. Mandatory voting would amplify the voices of younger, poorer, and more diverse citizens.

• Greater legitimacy: When nearly everyone votes, election outcomes are harder to contest and more representative of the people's will—fewer claims of illegitimacy, fewer doubts about mandate.

  
  

It Boosts Civic Engagement

• Voting can be a “gateway” activity: once people vote regularly, they may become more politically informed, discuss politics more, and engage in other civic actions. In Australia, for example, turnout is consistently over 90%, and citizens still report feeling free—not forced—because the process is normalized.

It Reduces the Influence of Extremists

• High-turnout elections are less vulnerable to fringe groups. When only the most passionate or radical voters show up, outcomes skew toward extremes. Mandated voting could bring in the moderates and the disengaged, potentially cooling political polarization.

  
  

It Reduces the Need for Expensive Get-Out-the-Vote Campaigns

• Instead of spending millions to drive turnout, parties could focus more on policy and ideas.

• It levels the playing field—wealthier campaigns wouldn’t have an automatic advantage just because they can afford better mobilization efforts.

  
  

It Reinforces Voting as a Civic Duty

• Just like jury duty, paying taxes, or following traffic laws, voting could be seen as a shared responsibility—something that keeps the system functioning for everyone.

• People often assume mandatory = oppressive, but light enforcement (like a small fine) works in other countries without angering citizens.

So, if there are a solid list of pros and a history of interest in mandating voting, it begs the question: why hasn't mandated voting caught on in the U.S.? 27 countries have enacted compulsory voting. Unsurprisingly, the countries that require citizens to vote have a significantly higher turnout than the U.S. The United States has only about 30% participation in off-cycle elections. Even turnout for Presidential elections is low compared to other democratic countries. There are be several reasons why the battle for those who support compulsory have an uphill battle in the U.S.

Constitutional and Legal Barriers

• Freedom of speech = freedom not to vote: The First Amendment protects not just the right to speak but also the right to abstain. Many legal scholars and political think-tanks like the libertarian Cato Institute, argue that forcing citizens to vote could be seen as compelled speech, which would likely face constitutional challenges.

• States run elections: Our centralized election system means that each state has it's own set of voting laws. Mandating voting nationally would require either a massive federal overhaul or 50 states individually passing similar laws, both highly unlikely.

  
  

American Political Culture

• Individualism is king: Unlike some countries where civic duty is emphasized, the U.S. values individual choice and freedom above all. To be frank, part of American political culture is the idea that no one can tell us what to do.

• Low trust in government: Many people, particularly younger and marginalized voters, don't believe their vote matters or that the system represents them. Some use withholding a vote as a silent protest.

  
  

Political Resistance

• Partisan implications: Mandatory voting tends to boost turnout among lower-income and younger populations, who often lean left. This creates fierce opposition from conservatives who view it as a power shift. At a time when we see conservative states increasingly pass voter-suppression laws, it seems very unlikely they would support mandated voting.

Practical and Logistical Issues

• Enforcement headaches: What happens if someone doesn't vote? Fine them? Jail time? Community service? Many countries with compulsory voting have a mixture of all three. Since we have covered that lack of enforcement was a major cause of mandatory voting failing in colonial and progressive-eras, there is little reason to think we could effectively enforce it now.

• Access is still unequal: Many Americans face barriers to voting—long lines, lack of ID, confusing ballots. Mandating voting without solving access first would unfairly penalize people already struggling to vote.

If any U.S. states who have floated compulsory voting legislation ratify it, it’ll be important to study how it plays out—who turns out, how it affects trust in government, and whether it really boosts civic engagement. But even with solid research, mandated voting has a long road ahead. Between legal challenges, cultural resistance, and the headache of figuring out fair enforcement, it’s not a quick fix. Still, if done thoughtfully, it could open the door to a more representative government, and one that could reshape American democracy.