Compulsory Voting in the UK?

An Australian solution may help heal Britain's fractured democracy.

It is good to see that there is now a lively debate developing over the potential introduction of compulsory voting in the United Kingdom. A number of Labour aligned think tanks have published papers supporting it and several Labour MPs have proposed amendments to the Representation of the People Bill which would essentially involve the adoption of Australia’s approach on compulsory voting.

Much of the advocacy is being done by The Campaign for Compulsory Voting which is led by Charles White. Support for the reform is not just from Labour people, there has been support from a former Tory Chancellor Sir Jeremy Hunt for example.

There is plenty of speculation that the new Prime Minister Andy Burnham is a supporter of the reform.

Of course in Australia we have enjoyed compulsory voting for 102 years. We estimate that 97.5% of Australians entitled to vote are on the register and of those about 90% vote at each election.

Strictly speaking the legal obligation is to attend a polling place and receive a ballot paper. The citizen can then write anything or nothing on the ballot paper but must deposit it in the ballot box. About 5% of electors cast informal votes but most of those are people who have failed to number every square (we have preferential voting). Some do write rude words on the ballot paper, in one case I witnessed (when I was a student working as an electoral assistant) a voter drew a beautiful sketch of a donkey on the Senate ballot paper and wrote underneath it “The Ultimate Donkey Vote”

There are opponents to such a reform in the UK one of whom is Daniel Finkelstein who this week [26 July] used his column in The Times to make a number of claims about compulsory voting, one of which was that it was more likely to help the Labour Party. That has not been the Australian experience. In the 102 years since compulsory voting was introduced the Australian Labor Party has held national office for 36 years only.

Lord Finkelstein also said that compulsory voting would not encourage people to vote voluntarily when compulsion was removed. That has not been our experience. In 2017 my government held a voluntary, postal plebiscite on legalising same sex marriage. 79.5% of the ballots were returned and a YES vote of 62% was recorded.

But his main objection seems to be that compulsory voting would increase the UK’s participation rate by 50% - from 60% turnout to 90% - with an extra 15 million people casting a ballot. He complains that the new voters would be “the least well informed, least interested and also least well-established citizens.” among whom he speculates would be included “the young”.

To an Australian, this type of objection is quite breathtaking. It is fundamental to our concept of democracy that we should do everything we can to make sure every single citizen casts a vote. So not only do we have the (not very scary) menace of a small fine, we make it easy to vote - with pre polling, postal voting and of course, unlike the UK and the US, having polling day on a Saturday as opposed to a day in the regular working week.

One wonders whether the noble Lord would favour the re-introduction of a property test for voters; that would ensure voters were “well-established”. Although, given his concerns about a Labour tilt in the electoral playing field, I am not sure he would favour a requirement that voters had a University degree to ensure they were “well informed”.

Surely a key objective of a democracy is to maximise the participation of all the people, regardless of their wealth, education or enthusiasm for reading political columns in The Times or anywhere else, and it would seem self-evident that a system where 90% of the people vote is better, more legitimate than one where 60% vote.

Anyone who has participated in an Australian election, held on a Saturday, will know we are only half joking when we call it our “festival of democracy”. Yes people will still distrust politicians and complain about taxes being too high and benefits too low. But at least everybody has a say and even the grumpy cynic has to lever himself off the couch and go to vote. That’s compulsory. Partaking of the “democracy sausage” invariably offered by the school P&C is entirely voluntary but highly recommended

Our British friends would be well advised to adopt compulsory voting and preferential voting as well. I understand there is less support for adopting preferential voting since there was a plebiscite held on the question of what the Brits call “the alternative vote” and it was rejected.

But times have changed. In the UK today there are five major parties, from left to right they are: The Greens, Labour, Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Reform. In addition there are a number of smaller parties and of course there are always independents including the now famous Count Binface.

With a first past the post system the winner is whoever has a plurality - more votes than any other candidate. With so many candidates and parties this will likely mean many constituencies will be won with pluralities below 40%, maybe below 30%. Couple that with low turnout and your electoral system is delegitimised

In Australia our major parties have seen their primary vote percentages drop down to the low thirties or lower, but because preferences are allocated in every electorate the winner will have more than half of the votes cast on a two party preferred basis. In other words the winner will have been elected by a majority of the voters, albeit for some of them the winner will not have been their first pick.

In these troubled times, it is important that electoral systems are designed to bring people together, to include everyone and above all resolve our political contest at the centre.