Oliver Heald rejects compulsory voting

Oliver Heald, Constitutional Affairs spokesman for the Tories, has rejected an Institute for Public Policy Research proposal for compulsory voting.  The proposal has already been backed by Peter Hain and Leader of the Commons, Geoff Hoon.  It comes after turnout shrank to 59% in 2001's General Election and was only 61% last year.  Turnout in local elections tends to fluctuate between 30% and 40%.  Ben Rogers, from the IPPR, thinks that compulsory voting would stop parties pandering to their core constituencies and force them to appeal to those people who are currently switched off politics - not least the young and the poor.

On last night's Westminster Hour Mr Heald said that compulsory voting was a cop-out from the real challenge of exciting voters with a fresher and more relevant politics.  He also said that Britain would need a system of individual voter registration to make compulsory voting work and we were a long way from having such a system.  He also suggested that revenue-raising may be behind the Hoon-Hain support for compulsory voting:

“At a time when violent crime is out of control and foreign criminals are roaming the streets, the police and courts have better things to do than enforce fines for not voting. Compulsory voting would be an unwelcome extension of the state into the rights and liberties of British citizens.  Under Labour’s plans, honest citizens could face fines of £40 or more from zealous town hall bureaucrats for failing to vote. We have already seen how speed cameras and parking fines are being used to rake in ever more money, on top of soaring council tax bills.”

The Exchequer wouldn't be the only beneficiary of compulsory voting if it was enacted at the same time as the Cameron-Tyrie political funding reforms.  If compulsory voting produced, say, three million more voters for the Tories it would raise another around £10m for CCHQ.

Compulsory voting might give a jump start to a campaign that Peter Hitchens launched in yesterday's Mail on Sunday (not online).  Mr Hitchens (recently interviewed on ConservativeHome) believes
that Britain's mainstream political parties are increasingly indistinguishable and that voters should start writing 'None of the above' on to the bottom of their ballot papers.  Hitchens (thinking of this no doubt) wrote:

"Gallons of make-up, legions of hairdressers, brigades of snakeoil salesman imported from America and Australia will not save them from the mass withdrawal of our support.  It may take a few years, but it really can happen if you want it to.  And then it will be up to us to build new parties, ones that actually speak for us rather than ignoring us."

Comments

[PassingThru]

Aside from the practicalities, and inventing yet another crime out of thin air, there also to me at least seems something paradoxically undemocratic about forcing people to vote. Even if they put 'none of the above' they are still participating in the electoral process, one that they may not agree with or support. A free country should not force its citizens to attend the voting box, citizens that may not believe in democracy.

I absolutely agree compulsory voting is wrong.

[James Maskell]

Oliver Heald eh? The person who put forward amendments for the "Death of Democracy" Bill? Well, this is a little bit in his favour. Voting should be a duty not a forced action. It should be a choice not an order as he rightfully argues.

Strictly speaking Labour could get its "Death Of Democracy" Bill put through then make it a crime to not vote. So while I support Healds comments on this, I call upon him to reconsider his amendents and simply oppose the Bill and instead campaign for amendments to Parliamentary Acts, which would ensure that only financial matters are dealt with and no new crimes created through this. If the point of the LRRB is to sort out the bureaucracy in business, then do so through the existing Acts, not through a new one. Its common sense.

[John Hustings]

I'm surprised David Cameron hasn't leapt at Compulsory Voting as the Tories' Clause 4!

[James Maskell]

Well, hes like Prescott when it comes to leaping on things...

[Yet Another Anon]

It might be worth introducing an Abstain option on Ballot Papers and then they can count the numbers of abstentions and in addition perhaps there could be some kind of Recall option where people could vote for a General Election at the same times as Local or European Elections with a 50%+ vote for a Recall triggering an automatic election.

Compulsory participation would be OK so long as there was an abstention option which would probably be best placed at the top of the Ballot Paper.

[Chad]

Compulsory voting and state funding of political parties are complimentary bedfellows and I wondered when the second party of this ugly formula would raise its head.

Of course those who currently stay at home are effectively voting "none of the above" in an environment where they have the right not obligation to vote.

I really can't see how you can object/support one but not the other.

Forcing the people to vote is much the same as forcing them to pay to vote which state funding effectively does.

Cameron could neatly show his small government credentials, wrap these two schemes together and reject both compulsory votes and state funding, but do you think he actually will?

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>Compulsory voting and state funding of political parties are complimentary bedfellows and I wondered when the second party of this ugly formula would raise its head.<<<<
Not neccessarily as there could be no provision of State support for political parties, even the right to free election broadcasts could be abolished and yet compulsory voting could be introduced and equally a system whereby there wasn't even a requirement to fill in and return Electoral Registration Papers and in which there was no state notification of elections could exist yet with state party funding - they are seperate issues.

In fact surely the easiest way to improve turnout would be to introduce a property qualification for people to vote - thus only those who owned property would be eligible to vote and this tends to be the group that turns out in the largest numbers, so the problems of low turnout would be sorted out at a stroke.

[Deputy Editor]

Compulsory participation would be OK so long as there was an abstention option which would probably be best placed at the top of the Ballot Paper.

It strikes me as a waste of time/money - most people who don't vote are in effect ticking the abstain box, whether out of protest or lack of interest. I'm sure forcing people to vote only to say that they are not voting any candidate would cause resentment.

If someone has good reasons for voting for who they want to vote for, I'm sure they will make the effort to post it off or go to the local polling station for a minute.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>It strikes me as a waste of time/money - most people who don't vote are in effect ticking the abstain box, whether out of protest or lack of interest. I'm sure forcing people to vote only to say that they are not voting any candidate would cause resentment.<<<<
In that case why have Compulsory Electoral Registration, surely the same argument applies the other way - why not make it voluntary for people to register to vote and stop sending out Electoral Registration Forms, surely this would save a lot of bureaucracy as if those not bothering to vote are simply applying their right to abstain then why make them register in the first place?

[CDM]

Why has everyone accepted postal votes at face value? They make mass voting fraud very easy, due to the impossibility of guaranteeing voter privacy which the simple booth provides. If people can't be bothered to turn up at a polling station to vote (with the exception of the sick and disabled who can't, and require postal votes) they don't deserve to have the voice heard.

[Deputy Editor]

Yes, it would save on bureaucracy to make electoral registration voluntary.
I think there is a difference, however, between being able to vote and choosing not to, and not being able to vote whether you decide to later or not.
I don't feel too strongly either way though, and I don't think it detracts from my main point about compulsory voting.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>Why has everyone accepted postal votes at face value? They make mass voting fraud very easy, due to the impossibility of guaranteeing voter privacy which the simple booth provides. If people can't be bothered to turn up at a polling station to vote (with the exception of the sick and disabled who can't, and require postal votes) they don't deserve to have the voice heard.<<<<
Postal Voting should be abolished completely, there is no adequate way of verifying the identity of voters, really there should be some kind of voting system based on identification of voters by Biometric means to ensure that they eligible to vote and that it has to be ensured that people are not voting on their behalf, if they require a proxy voter then they probably aren't fit to vote - if this means a travelling team of voting officals with Biometric scanners and an armed police unit to prevent interference then so be it, maintaining integrity of the vote is the most important thing.

[Tom Ainsworth]

In political terms, it is also in our interests to oppose compulsory voting, since more of our votes than Labour's come from sections of the population that are more likely to vote. I know the Editor thinks we should be appealing to the striving (i.e. working) classes, but we are not there yet...

[Nick]

If voting did become compulsory, there should be a "None of the Above" party, whose only policy would be not to attend any council meetings.

[Graeme Archer]

I am glad Oliver Heald has spoken about this. No way should any Tory have any truck with compulsion in regards to the ballot. (It's the cultural compulsion of the non-secret, postal ballot which makes me object to postal voting on the scale we now endure it also). It's typical sloppy thinking from the non-thinking majority ("mass participation would be nice, 'ergo' it should be compulsory") -- see the "arguments" in favour of ID cards for more of the same.

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>In political terms, it is also in our interests to oppose compulsory voting, since more of our votes than Labour's come from sections of the population that are more likely to vote. I know the Editor thinks we should be appealing to the striving (i.e. working) classes, but we are not there yet...<<<<
Nobody knows who those who don't vote might vote for mainly if compulsory participation was introduced - it might well not be Labour, who knows at the last General Election it could have resulted in a number of Independents being elected and Labour even losing it's majority, a lot of poorer people might not support the Conservative Party but there have been suggestions that since 1987 while Labour has gained many Middle Class votes it has also lost vast numbers of Trade Union voters who don't recognise the current government as a Labour government, obviously there are a lot of former Conservative voters who aren't voting either, in fact the Liberal Democrats gains in 1997 and 2001 were mainly based on falls in turnout of Labour and Conservative voters than much in actual gains by them from Labour or Conservative, in fact 2005 was the first General Election in which the total numbers actually voting Liberal Democrat had increased in a General Election since the merger in 1988.

[Yet Another Anon]

Or maybe the total numbers voting wouldn't change much and there would be vast numbers of abstentions and Labour would be unable to claim vast reserves of voters who expected them to win and were not turning out?

[Matthew Sinclair]

Nice to see my MP getting stuck in. He's absolutely right on this.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Nice to see my MP getting stuck in. He's absolutely right on this."

Are you from Letchworth then?

[Henry Whitmarsh]

The fact that these people have utter disrespect for the democratic process is not my problem. They don't like the system? Fine. The problem isn't with the system.

If I have a right to vote, then I also have a right not to vote. If you force me to vote then I don't have that right anymore. Idiots.

[Chris Palmer]

Compulsory voting:

1) It's again freedom of choice. If you don't want to vote, you don't have to. Why should you be forced by law to take part in a democratic process that you do not agree with. It's democracy all about freedom, and compulsory voting in my mine goes very much against that core principle.

2) At the moment, there of those of the electorate that vote and have little or no idea about politics, party polices, or seemingly about anything at all. Can you imagine who would be elected if everyone was forced to vote? Celebs off Big Brother might stand and be elected. It doesn't bear thinking about.

[James M]

I am fundamentally against compulsory voting as well.

However I would consider having a "None of the Above" box on the form.

Although one could argue that by not turning up - you are registering that choice - I am not sure enough politicians have taken apathy seriously. Thus an ability for voters to either not turn up or vote "none of the above" seems a possible compromise?

[Henry Whitmarsh]

RON votes are only counted in situations where there are a very small number of votes being cast, or where there is only one candidate. Not in a General Election.

Besides, democracy is based on the idea of *completely free participation* and forcing people to vote is entirely counter to this principle. Such elections would not be free.

Since when were we accountable to the government through the ballot box, rather than making the government accountable to us?

[Richard]

If someone can't be bothered to get off their backside to go up the local polling station then I don't want them having a say over how the country is run.

Obviously I have more respect for those who refuse to vote as a matter of principle.

Perhaps political parties ought to look into why people aren't voting for them e.g. the parties are perceived as having the same views on various important issues. None of the parties support significant tax cuts or tax rises, none support EU withdrawal, none support capital punishment, none support nationalisation, none are anti-free-trade etc

[Adrian Owens]

Debated with this Ben Rogers at Lancaster University recently, but there he represented the Electoral Reform Society and trotted out several further ill-conceived ideas.

Glad to see Oliver Heald swotting this away. We really have much bigger issues to get worked up about.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Well I have just seen the latest Party Election Broadcast - thats what it was called. I thought it was great, what a breath of fresh air David Cameron is in front of the camera in contrast to the smirking Blair or any of his arrogant MP's. The message was good - I thought and the use of colour very upbeat. I LIKED IT!

[Richard North]

Given the rebellious mood developing in this country, a compulsory vote would afford the population an opportunity to defy the establishment in what is, in effect, a victimless crime.

As with the census, where there was large-scale disobedience, there would be refusal on a very large scale, leaving the government with the prospect of having to fine hundreds of thousands of voters, or of climbing down, with the inevitable loss of authority.

On that basis, the idea is a non-starter - which, of course, means that this government will try to introduce it.

Bring it on!

[Yet Another Anon]

>>>>Celebs off Big Brother might stand and be elected.<<<<
Surely the most likely people to vote for such people would be the chavs who are most concentrated in Labour seats and so that might well be far more disuptive of the Labour Party resulting in a number of Independents being elected in otherwise Labour seats and surely disrupting the current government so that it loses it's majority is the beginning of a fast track Conservative rise to power?

[Richard Carey]

If voting did become compulsory, there should be a "None of the Above" party, whose only policy would be not to attend any council meetings

Not wishing to encourage anyone to vote for them, but one or two of the minority parties seem to have this as their policy already.

Well I have just seen the latest Party Election Broadcast...The message was good - I thought and the use of colour very upbeat. I LIKED IT!

I quite agree! Great stuff - a wholly positive ad. What a contrast to the personal, negative ads of a Labour Party that has run out of time in national government and run out of ideas in local government.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Celebs off Big Brother might stand and be elected. It doesn't bear thinking about."

Well the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow used his election as a platform to get on Celebrity Big Brother...

"If voting did become compulsory, there should be a "None of the Above" party, whose only policy would be not to attend any council meetings."

See previous point.

[Louise]

The onus should be on political parties to inspire the electorate to go out and vote for them. The fall in the voting numbers has more to do with the lack of trust in politicians than sheer laziness on behalf of the electorate. People care about what happens in their areas, but don't believe that politicians will do anything about their concerns. Compulsion to vote will do nothing to improve this, just increase the belief that politicians care more about themselves and their own world rather than the problems in the "real world".

[Martin]

I am pleased that Oliver Heald has rejected this proposition. It should be up to political parties to inspire the electorate. I am not a fan of coercing citizens into turning up at the ballot box. Every man should have the right to chose whether or not to participate in the democratic process. I find that it is always a good gauge of the democratic health of this country to see how many people turn up on polling day. You do not have this measure with compulsory voting. Many people will bring with them, the pragmatic realism that the election result will be between the two main parties and thus, people will vote for one of the two depending on who they despise the least. It is often remarked that this is the one place on earth where we vote people out of office rather than voting them in, but a compulsory voting system would surely exarcebate this problem. How else are we supposed to be able to accurately survey the extent of the political apathy that so many members of the population feel at this time.

I have a different idea as to why Hain and Hoon are in favour of this proposition. The polls always underestimate Tory support, yet the polls of those certain to vote are always a more accurate prediction of what will happen on election night. I wonder if the lesson from this is that Tory supporters are more likely to turn up on polling day, and therefore compulsory voting would neutralise this small advantage we have in an electoral system that is otherwise very biased against the Conservatives. I hate to take the cynical view of events, but this is a post-ideological Labour Government that for me, believes in nothing but power for its own sake.

As for Peter Hitchens' idea, i am confused as to why he thinks his idea is so original. I have had plenty of friends who have written this on ballot papers. Correct me if i am wrong, but do they not read out how many ballots are disallowed when they read out the results on election day anyway. Why would writing "none of the above," really be any different. Whatever one writes, this is simply called spoiling your ballot paper, it is not new but I would agree with Hitchens that it is better to turn up and write this than to not turn up at all. This at least gives you a voice.

[Yet Another Anon]

The lowest turnouts tend to be in Labour seats though which is partly why Labour has been getting majorities with such low votes whereas safe Conservative seats tend to have quite high turnouts which pile up majorities in safe seats so even if there were increases in turnouts it probably wouldn't increase Labour's majority anyway and who knows might result in a number of previously safe seats being lost by Labour in General Elections, might help both main parties in Local and Euro Elections.

[Matthew Sinclair]

"Are you from Letchworth then?"

Yes. Studying in London but I'll be heading home on the 4th to vote.

[Serf]

I agree with those like Chris who say that it will increase the impact of the ignorant on politics.

If someone has not bothered to vote before today, why do we believe them capable of making an informed choice?

Yet if they are forced to vote, they will have the same impact on the result as people like us who actually care.

[Alexander Drake]

OK - I am going to play devil's advocate here and offer an alternative point of view. You know you want me to.

As an Australian, I think that compulsory voting has been good for the Australian electorate, and the Australian party system. However I will explain why I now think its introduction now would be bad for the UK Conservative Party.

OK, firstly to why I think it's worked well in Australia.

First, compulsory voting (or more accurately, compulsory marking off the electoral roll at election time) gives everyone an enhanced sense of ownership of their polity. What amazed me as an Australian living in Britain was the comparative lack of a sense of ownership that Britons have of their constitutional arrangements, parliament, and responsibilities of citizenship. By comparison, Australians know their vote in a referendum can change their constitution, and that our constitutional arrangements are in place because we prefer them, not because of inertia.

Second, in an age with large scale immigration, and the initial social alienation and dislocation that this potentially brings, compulsory voting can play a part in the socialisation of immigrants, once they have become naturalised and gained the vote (the 1 million UK migrants we have are particularly bad at taking up Australian citizenship). Voting becomes a major civic activity, and being able to participate is a way for migrants to know that they belong to their new home country. For a country like Britain with a major immigration intake, this could be an invaluable, practical step, to give some punch to what a fancy citizenship ceremony represents. Australia is used to being a net importer of citizens, but Britain isn't. The thing is, Britain doesn't have a choice. Competition between OECD states for skilled workers is now too competitive for complacency on skilled immigration intakes. This might help make that process of adjustment easier on the British polity.

Finally, as a partisan Australian Liberal, compulsory voting is good for us because it exposes the 'battlers' - the voters Tim calls 'strivers' - to the Left nonsense churned out by our Labor Party. Our culture wars are sharper than yours becuase our identity is more in flux as a New World country, and so the 'black armband' view of Australian history, politics and society (we are guilty of genocide, Britain and US sold us out at every opportunity, etc) can be used more effectively by us with regular punters to paint a Labor Party heavily dependent on chardonnay socialists. If regular punters are forced to see their rubbish in an election campaign, they realise that Labor are (now) a bunch of weirdos more quickly, and more effectively from our perspective. It's why the NO campaign in the republic referendum in 1999 argued, "If you don't know, vote no".

The opposing POV that I'd like to argue the toss on came from both Louise and Martin that '...the onus should be on political parties to inspire the electorate to go out and vote for them...' This sounds great in theory, and this is what motivates us as Party activists (that's the Conservative Party, Chad, fyi) but it isnt what motivates many, many voters. Negative campaigning, done effectively, works.

OK - now having earnt the ire of most ConHomers, here's why I think it mightn't be a great move right now for the Conservative Party.

First, Martin is spot on imo in saying that Hain and Hoon are in favour of this proposition - they're not dummies, and they've decided that it would favour Labour more than us. That's enough to be worried, although I'd be interested to see if other Tories had studied its likely consequences for us. (Hint to Anthony Wells at YouGov!!!)

Second, I think the UK Party system could have coped more easily with injecting something like compulsory voting maybe 30, or 50 years ago - but now it's too brittle, and would mix up the 2.5 party system too much for us to know conclusively what its effect would be. A stable party system is good for the Conservative Party. Adding lots of voters would be a leap in the dark which may not help us, as those who made point about low turnout helping us have said.

So, compulsory voting forces us and Labour to look and sound more 'mainstream'. Bad for us because it forces Labour to discipline itself if it wants to stay in. Hard for us because as a party orientated towards the individual, parts of the Party would find it harder to discipline themselves to shut their collective mouth so as not to 'scare off' undecided voters with beliefs that might be perceived as odd, but deeply held by some activists. Unfortunately I don't think we are strong enough to pull that act off. So it would make compulsory voting slightly dangerous I suppose.

A few random thoughts. I've had a long day and it starts bright and early tomorrow so I'm grabbing some kip. Good night!

[Oliver Heald MP]

I glad to see so many people, including constituents if mine, posting on this issue. I think Martin (May 01, 2006 at 22:27) puts it best when he says “It should be up to political parties to inspire the electorate.” It is quite wrong, in a democracy, to force people to vote. It is against freedom of choice. Democracy, as Chris Palmer says (May 01, 2006 at 18:27), is about choice and freedom of expression. Forcing citizens to vote goes completely against these values.

It’s a bit of cheek when the Labour Party has so disillusioned its supporters, now for Ministers to say they will force them to vote.

With regard to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, or “Death of Democracy” Bill, as James Maskell called it, I have some good news. During Recess Jim Murphy MP, the Minister in charge of the Bill, wrote to the Chairman of the Regulatory Reform Committee, Andrew Miller MP, promising to amend the Bill to ensure sufficient safeguards are in place and to ensure that its powers can only be used for deregulatory purposes. Whilst I will wait for the Government to publish the amendments before I deicide to support them, I am hopeful that this government may finally deliver an effective deregulatory measure. Given that the British Chambers of Commerce Burdens Barometer estimates that the cost of new regulations introduced on business since 1997 has now topped £50 billion, I am sure that you will agree with me that a deregulatory Bill is desperately needed.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Welcome to ConservativeHome, Mr Heald. Keep doing a good job for the people of North East Herts (and the Great Ashby area of Stevenage)!