It is a commonplace observation that Adam Ferguson's social and political thought seems troubled by many conflicts. It has even been suggested that his body of work lacks system. Certainly, his corpus is diverse and complex, replete with ambivalence, tension and even paradox. This essay seeks to build a picture of Ferguson's conception of the good polity and to explore the tensions that lie within it. Despite some puzzling exceptions, these tensions are, in fact, reconcilable once they are understood in relation to his social science, his historiography and his attempts to forge a new approach to politics that could be described as ‘liberal-Stoicism’. The discussion begins by canvassing some of the complications and underlying assumptions of Ferguson's political thought.

The Background to Ferguson's Political Thought

Ferguson makes for demanding reading partly because of his somewhat disorderly style of writing and partly because of his ambivalent attitude to many political issues. It is not so much that his thought lacks system as it is that the system that exists must be carefully culled by the reader. Yet, Ferguson leaves no doubt that politics is important, not only because it is highly consequential, but because humans are other-regarding creatures of action and conflict and politics is the ideal forum for the exercise of this special nature. Ferguson agrees with Aristotle that it is language that makes us both fit and destined for life in a polity. Since humankind alone is capable of speech it is the only species destined for political life.

Ferguson's turn of mind is, in many ways, moralistic and romantic, yet his politics seems to have been shaped and constrained by a strong desire to be practical and grounded. Normative moralizing has its place but one should not moralize simply to defend an abstract principle; after all, the point of all systems and institutions is to make people happy.

Introduction

Simply put, compulsory voting exists where the state imposes a legal requirement to vote. The idea of being compelled to vote is anathema to many who live in Western democracies because it seems to run counter to both democratic and liberal values. But even though I agree that, in principle, voluntary political participation is preferable to obligatory participation, I argue in the following chapters that requiring people to vote can be reconciled with both liberal and democratic values.

In defending compulsory voting, I write as a normative political theorist, but I also approach the issue as a political scientist who is wary of normative arguments about elections and voting that do not engage with the empirical world. These kinds of arguments tend, either consciously or unconsciously, to embody assumptions about that world that, in turn, justify real-world laws and practice. Therefore, my argument is informed, where possible, by the empirical data and actual trends in electoral and political behavior. But, in the end, it is a normative argument written from a political-theory perspective.

Much has been written and said about compulsory voting, but quite a lot of it is controvertible. For this reason, the following set of arguments tends to be structured in response to criticism of compulsory voting and the high and socially even turnout it is able to deliver.

Summary of Argument

Before moving on to my general conclusion, I offer first a broad summary of the various steps and components of the rather dense argument I have given in the preceding chapters.

1. Compulsory voting is the only really reliable and decisive means by which to raise turnout.

2. Elections and the way they operate are important because voting is the agreed procedure for legitimizing governments.

3. High turnout is preferable to low turnout because low-turnout elections are less legitimate. Low-turnout elections are less legitimate because they are less procedurally legitimate: they only give a partial and biased picture of the priorities of the electorate. This makes the governments of low-turnout election less substantively legitimate because government attention is directed only to those sections of the population who vote. Because such people also happen to be better off than nonvoters, this exacerbates political inequality and results in unrepresentative government. Universal, socially even voting confers legitimacy on both the electoral process and the government that wins office.

4. There is no such thing as a right not to vote. The right to vote is fundamental: it is protective of all other rights, and its existence defines the very structure of representative democracy. It cannot, therefore, be legally waived, and any state’s refusal to allow citizens to waive it is justified.

5. Voting is not a privilege right: it is a claim-power-right. Further, it is not just a (claim-power) right: it is also a duty. Voting is a duty-right. Voting is a duty we owe to other voters so that (a) together we can constitute and perpetuate representative democracy so that (b) we can meet other classes of voters on equal terms for the purposes of self-protection and self-government.

6. Voting is not just any duty; it is a special duty because the existence and proper functioning of representative democracy depend on its performance. So too do our welfare and rights. When democracy functions well, rights are more secure.

7. Compulsory voting seems illiberal because it violates one conception of liberty: negative liberty. But, because it enhances other conceptions of liberty such as nondomination, autonomy, and positive liberty, it can be reconciled with liberal values.

8. …

The State of the Debate

The main argument against compulsory voting is the sheer weakness of the arguments for it. Over the past three chapters, we examined many attempts to justify compulsory voting. Some of these arguments were incoherent or self-contradictory. Others relied on questionable or discredited empirical speculations. Others relied on false or implausible normative premises. Even if we ignored these serious flaws, none of these arguments could then explain why a voting lottery would not be superior to compulsory voting. All the arguments were defective. The best of the arguments gave us little reason to support compulsory voting. Most of the arguments gave us no reason to support it at all.

At this point, we must conclude compulsory voting is unjust. Governments may not impose compulsory voting on their citizens, even if the overwhelming majority of citizens enthusiastically support compulsory voting. Australia, Belgium, and other countries must repeal their compulsory-voting laws immediately.

In this chapter, I stop refuting arguments for compulsory voting and instead produce an independent argument against it. In a sense, previous chapters argued that compulsory voting is bad because it is not good. This chapter argues compulsory voting is bad because it is bad. Remember, however, that the other side bears the burden of proof. Strictly speaking, to undermine compulsory voting, I do not need my argument in this chapter to succeed. The arguments of the other three chapters suffice.

Introduction

In Chapter 2, I examined arguments that claimed compulsory voting is justified because it would produce good consequences. None of these arguments was sound. So far the case for compulsory voting isn’t just weak – it’s practically nonexistent.

In this chapter, I focus instead on deontological arguments for compulsory voting. Some of these arguments try to establish that, for one reason or another, citizens have a duty to vote. The arguments then try to show that this justifies government in making them vote. Others argue that compulsory voting would in some way make citizens more autonomous or more efficacious. I argue none of these arguments succeeds in justifying compulsory voting.

Not All Moral Duties Are Enforceable

For the sake of argument, suppose citizens have a moral duty to vote. (Some people prefer to say we have a civic duty to vote, but that doesn’t change anything. It just specifies what kind of moral duty the duty to vote is supposed to be.) Now spot the flaw in the following argument:

The Duty-to-Vote Argument

1. Citizens have a moral duty to vote.

2. If citizens have a moral duty to do something, then government may force them to do it.

3. Therefore, government may force citizens to vote (i.e., compulsory voting is justified).

Where Are We the People?

Democracy is rule by the people. But what if the people refuse to rule? Many people worry if we do not have government by the people, then we will not have government for the people – at least not for all of them.

During presidential elections in the late nineteenth century, 70–80 percent of eligible Americans voted. For whatever reason, in the twentieth century, participation rates seem to have dropped to 50–60 percent. Midterm national, state, and local elections averaged a mere 40 percent.

A U.S. president has never been elected by a majority of eligible voters. In the 1964 election, 61.05 percent of voters cast their ballots for Lyndon Johnson – the largest majority any president has ever enjoyed. Yet, at the same time, because turnout was so low, Johnson was in fact elected by less than 38 percent of all voting-eligible Americans. We call Reagan’s 1984 victory a “landslide,” but less than a third of voting-age Americans actually voted for him. Less than a quarter of eligible Americans voted to reelect Bill Clinton in 1996. In all elections, a minority of the voting-eligible population imposes a president on the majority.