Does a right also imply an obligation?

“It is a central conservative insight that democracy confers both rights and responsibilities. Attending a polling booth on election day is the mildest possible responsibility.”1    Greg Sheridan  

 

In a democracy one has a right to vote, but does that right also imply an obligation? Are not rights and obligations almost opposites? A right is something you are privileged to be granted; while an obligation is something you are required to do, generally because of a situation you have volitionally placed yourself in. It is therefore unlikely that the two go hand in hand.

We have the right to free speech, but does that mean that we are somehow lesser persons if we don't exercise that right by writing letters to the editor now and again or by not getting up on a soapbox at least once?

One aspect of living in a free country is that, unlike totalitarian states, we have the unfettered right to claim a passport and to travel. However it does not follow that because we have that right we must exercise it, and periodically leave the country.

The fact that a woman has a right to an abortion [in societies where it is held to be a right] hardly means that she must exercise that right.

A duty to our country?

“Voting is a civic duty”2 

Whereas it would probably be true that most citizens feel they have an obligation to their country with regard to supporting its defence or maintaining the public treasury, one must be careful to discriminate between doing something which is for the country and something which has no tangible benefit for the country but in effect would only

advantage certain politicians.

Is voting actually a value?

“In short, obligations may be imposed on an individual for the benefit of the society generally”[emphasis added]3

 

If one were asked to man a polling booth on election day, this would unequivocally constitute a service for the sake of democracy, but it is a different matter to claim that voting itself is a democratic service. As mentioned above in the JSCEM report, an obligation must be directed towards a benefit. If a person has an obligation then it is an obligation to present  to the beneficiary what the beneficiary sees as a value.

But how can one person’s vote be of value to the state?

A vote can only be of value if it produces some tangible benefit. It certainly is a value to the person who wants to vote, but from the point of view of the country, although the extra vote may direct the result one way or the other, the vote in itself, is meaningless. Even though universal suffrage is a good thing, what it means is that someone does not have to be qualified to vote. To vote, prerequisite lectures in economic, legal, and philosophical knowledge are not needed. But if the vote is not qualified, how can there be a quality in the vote? Of course for most of the time this is not a problem. This is because in an election there is generally no right or wrong result, there is only the result the people want. Yes, there are exceptions, such as choosing the more competent leaders to manage the affairs of state through predicaments such as wars or economic depressions. But even then, exigent circumstances, one would think, would demand encouraging people who were not sure to abstain from having an influence. People thinking they have the solution may not guarantee the correct answer, but they will certainly provide a better result than those who have spent next to no time considering the issues.

 

Comparing the value of a jury decision

Voting cannot be compared with the deliberations of a jury. At the end of a trial the judge will often thank the jury for its efforts. There is reason for this: members of the jury are directed to make the right decision according to law, after careful deliberation of the facts and arguments. The judge cautions them to not allow personal feelings to influence their decision, but only to come to what they believe is the right and just result by deliberating over everything they have learned in court, no matter how long it takes. To achieve what is hoped will be the correct result, potential jury members may even be denied the opportunity to serve if they are deemed  not suitable. 

Voting in an election is quite different. Voters are not warned against letting personal feelings sway their decision, forced to sit through hours of political party promotional material, or prevented from voting if they have personal ties with any candidate: a cornerstone of democracy is that no potential voter can be denied the right to vote. This is because voting is not so much about making ‘right’ decisions as about making decisions that personally reflect the beliefs and values of the individual voter. 

Even though history has proven that democratic governments provide the people with more benefits than autocratic ones, this is still beside the point, as it is not good government that justifies democracy anyway. Rather democracy exists purely for the sake of giving the people what they want. Given the highly subjective nature of what are considered to be public ‘goods’, good government also can only be defined as that which the people want.

A voter therefore does not have to justify his or her vote to anyone. It can be a completely arbitrary decision. Bearing this in mind, then if it is completely arbitrary and without justification, how can it be of value to the country? It is merely what the voter wants. How can one person's want be a value to anyone else? 

It therefore follows that if an individual’s vote is of no verifiable value then how do we link it to an obligation? Why should we be obliged to do something which in itself is of no value?

Must You Vote?By RANDY COHEN

Josh Anderson for The New York Times Voters in Charleston, Mo., in 2008.

The Issue

It is election day, and here in New York we are voting for mayor, or, more accurately, not voting. The campaign of the current mayor, Michael Bloomberg, has predicted that fewer than a third of registered voters will make it to the polls. Responding to our country’s typically low turnouts, some groups strive to get people to vote, not for anyone in particular, but as an expression of civic virtue (vote for the candidate of your choice, but vote). Should we support nonpartisan efforts to get people to fulfill this putative duty of citizenship?

The Argument

We should not. It is a fine thing to rally support for a person or a policy you esteem. It is reasonable to urge your neighbors to be informed about issues that affect your community. But it is irresponsible to encourage the unaware to put their ignorance into action so aimlessly. “Just vote” doesn’t express civic virtue; it’s sentimentality. You might as well urge the unpracticed to use power tools or Rollerblade. Simultaneously. At least they’d injure only themselves.

We are indeed an ignorant people. A 2008 survey found that only 18 percent of Americans could name all three of the following: the U.S. secretary of state, the British prime minister and the party that controls the U.S. House of Representatives. A 2009 study revealed that only about half of adults know how long it takes the earth to orbit the sun. Healthcare, the big issue of the day? Thirty-nine percent of Americans want government to “stay out of Medicare.” And then there’s bison awareness. The Wildlife Conservation Society asked 2,000 Americans more than 50 questions about bison. Apparently we are stunningly uneducated about bison affairs. Even more disturbing is that 2,000 Americans were willing to answer 50 questions about bison: talk about too much free time.

In our defense, politics is a complicated business, and few of us have the time or training or inclination to become sophisticated about all that we are asked to vote on. In other eras and other places, we assigned that task to a political party, affiliating ourselves with one that reflected our values and advanced our interests, choosing for example to vote Labor or Conservative. But what does it mean to vote Democratic when that party includes both Ben Nelson and Barney Frank? There’s such a thing as too big a tent, one so vast and shapeless that it no longer encompasses a shared sense of the public good.

In any case, voting is not an ethical obligation. Nor is it required by American law; voting is something citizens may do, not something we must, like pay taxes and attend school and, at various times in our history, perform military service. Many democracies have tried compulsory voting. Belgium, for example, introduced such a requirement as early as 1892, Argentina in 1914. Some later rescinded these measures, and where they remain they are not always vigorously enforced.

One rationale for regarding voting as a duty is that to confer legitimacy on laws and leaders requires a broad expression of the public will. If merely a third of registered voters participate in today’s mayoral election, and just over half of them vote for, say, Michael Bloomberg, he’ll gain office with the formal endorsement of only one-sixth of the electorate. Factor in potentially eligible voters who did not register and that number gets smaller. It shrinks further when you include non-citizens and New Yorkers too young to vote. The mayor is apt to be reelected by fewer than 10 percent of us. Some democracy. But while that outcome may be

unsettling, it does not follow that voting is an ethical duty. What sort of legitimacy is gained by shoving a voter into a booth where he finds no candidate he genuinely wants to support?

National efforts like MTV’s Rock the Vote are particularly idiotic (and not just because of that network’s determination to include the word “rock” in its every pronouncement, a sort of verbal MSG, to sprinkle on a little pseudo-hipness). A nonpartisan voter drive encourages people to vote who may well vote against you. Aren’t psychiatrists dismayed when a patient acts self-destructively?

More accurately, Rock the Vote and its ilk would be idiotic if they were effective. Happily, these endeavors are unlikely to alter the outcome of an election. A nonpartisan push is apt to rally Republicans as well as Democrats, liberals as well as conservatives, who will vote in the same proportions as those already inclined to go to the polls. The net result: nothing, save for the warm glow of civic virtue that comes from bullying your neighbors into pulling a lever, any lever.

This is not to argue against partisan efforts to get out the vote. It is admirable to work for the good of your family, your neighbors, your nation. Sometimes the way to do that is to vote in support of a particular candidate or ballot measure. When, for example, toxic air threatens your children, or a loopy cult aims to take over your local school board, and the ballot offers meaningful recourse, then voting rises to the level of a moral duty. That is, in certain situations ethics compels you not merely to vote but to vote a particular way. In such cases, the important consideration is not whether to fire a pistol, but in what direction.

Facebook Twitter

Google+

E-mail

Share

Print

citizenship, elections, voting Previous Post More Thoughts on Talking About Religion Next Post Following Up on Whether We Must Vote

From 1 to 25 of 132 Comments1 2 3 … 6 Next »

1. 1. November 3, 2009 1:10 am Link

For most of us voting is not a hardship (you don’t have to travel 50 miles by horseback to get to the nearest polling place). Sure, if you feel you don’t have enough information to make an intelligent choice, then you’re being honest by not voting. But if you just feel too cool to vote (“it’s all run by the corporations” or “they’re all the same anyway”), or none of the candidates are your perfect choice and are too lazy to choose the better of the two, it’s just a cop-out and I don’t want to hear you complain

about the govt afterwards. Then you’re just a spoiled brat who wants the govt to do what you want by somehow reading your mind, by magic.

— beninabox

2. 2. November 3, 2009 1:25 am Link

Cohen never attends to the possibility that ‘Get out the vote’ drives have a broader aim, namely, to inspire people to care about civic matters (to make voting ‘cool’).

Moreover, as eager as he is to offer statistical evidence of the ignorance of Americans, when it comes to establishing the premises of his arguments (e.g., “A nonpartisan push is apt to rally Republicans as well as Democrats, liberals as well as conservatives, who will vote in the same proportions as those already inclined to go to the polls.”) he offers literally no evidence. Would the ‘idiotic’ mtv drive, or drives to register the poor and disenfranchized, really have no net result. Prove it, smart ass.

(The smugness of this column rubs me the wrong way)

— Jeremy

3. 3. November 3, 2009 1:28 am Link

We need not vote unless a candidate meets our minimum standards. Not to vote is a form of protest in this age of barely differentiated republicrats. We need to see the low voter turnout of black neighborhoods in this light and not as a sign of irresponsibility. Sometimes I show up to vote for one candidate and ignore the candidates for other offices just to show that the latter did not meet my minimum standards, among which are a commitment to democracy, a belief in the power of government to do good, an absence of corruption and patronage as either a buyer or a seller of favors.

Many of my acquaintance believe Bloomberg’s third term try is a disqualifier even before one examines his record.

— CFB

4. 4. November 3, 2009 2:37 am Link

Sir,There are two good reasons that we have so many prominent non-partisan voter-turnout/voter registration organizations. First, non-profit non-partisan organizations have fewer legal hurdles when it comes to fund raising and spending money, as compared to a Political Acition Committee.The second reason is less concrete but also more important. The hope behind voter registration and voter turnout organizations is that if citizens are going to vote they will be forced to think about their vote. Americans may not know who Gordon Brown is or the difference between rotation and revolution, but I would at least hope that the voter who takes the trouble to fill out a ballot will put some thought into their decision.You deride the lack of civic engagement in this country yet discourage non-partisan

voter turnout efforts. These organizations look at voting as a gateway drug, the easiest way to start caring about their democracy and making more informed choices as constituents. These non-partisan voter reg/turnout efforts are not promoting one particular set of policies but are trying to create an informed electorate that makes a better choice.

— abignale

5. 5. November 3, 2009 2:41 am Link

Pretty weak article. Why not discuss the corruption of the MEDIA which dis-informed and dis-inclined voters to pay attention to what’s going on. (Does ANYONE believe the corporate media’s argument that citizens are begging to know if Sarah Jessica Parker walked her dog today—and could you please print MORE photos of this?) (Does ANYONE believe the media’s argument that more voters want to know what is the favorite sports team of an obscure Bloombag Campaign honcho than know Bloombag’s SPECIFIC plan to lower NYC’s record debt??) MEDIA’S JOB IS TO LIE. Plain and simple. At WHAT point do humans learn from the past? (My hunch is never ever ever.) Clean up crooked media and we fix the world. It’s that simple.

— cxb

6. 6. November 3, 2009 2:48 am Link

Mr. Cohen, this is a curious column indeed. You pose a question that is really a non-sequitor: voting is not a matter of ethics, and thus, your response – that “voting is not an ethical obligation” is so pedestrian as to be idiotic – even more so than “Rock the Vote”, which is in fact an admirable effort to improve civic engagement by the young, who are notoriously disengaged from the public sphere.

Casting one’s vote, e.g., for mayor of New York, is not necessarily an ethical matter – but it is a matter of civic duty. You assume that to simply cast a vote is useless, and I grant that an uninformed vote is generally useless. You also assume that putatively non-partisan voter registration efforts are also useless. However, your vary narrow interpretation of what casting a vote means – essentially, the flipping of a lever, or drawing a line on a ballot – limits its meaning to the mere mechanical act of voting. Instead, the act of casting a ballot could be viewed as only one, clearly measured, aspect of civic engagement. Engaging in civic activities and contributing to your community may also not be a matter of ethics. But an informed citizenry, actively engaged in improving the community and considering a wide variety of perspectives, is a common good. Otherwise, we would have not our participatory democracy, as debased as it may sometimes be, but at its extreme, a dictatorship.

So, “Must one vote?” No. But should one vote? Yes.

— Larry

7. 7. November 3, 2009 2:55 am Link

I follow the news very closely, but I can’t name the party that controls the House either.

— Joe

8. 8. November 3, 2009 3:17 am Link

Back in the 1970s my mother told me, “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain.” It was true then, and it is true now.

— Kevin Amsterdam

9. 9. November 3, 2009 4:02 am Link

Here is Australia voting is compulsory and fines are issued if you do not vote. I believe this creates an interest in citizens to care more and learn more about the political parties. This article assumes that forcing people to vote will not encourage them to learn about the consequences of their vote. If someone wants to void their vote, or perform a donkey vote, let them – they can still show they don’t care.

However, the decisions made by those in power should have a broader mandate than 10% of the population, particularly given the tendancy of the mainstream media (and Fox as well) to highlight politics.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance… and part of that vigilance is turning up to vote.

— Mike

10. 10. November 3, 2009 4:17 am Link

And what of the ethics of publishing this on election day? The very day that people need a gentle reminder to break from their everyday routine and vote, you give them the easy out, the “ethical” excuse not to, and in fact that suppressed turnout will play a key role in the elections today. The block of “always voters” will make it to the polls today, NYT blog be damned. Those “almost-always and often voters” will be looking for a gentle nudge, and you have just provided a gentle anti-nudge to your generally well-educated and thoughtful readership.

Election day; most journalistic standards denote today as a day of modest and respectful coverage, giving readership space to think about the issues on their own before heading to the polling booth. Across the country there are elections that matter. You know the readership of this paper is national, and you know there are elections outside of Bloomberg or not Bloomberg. People in Washington and Maine will be voting on an easily understood question of civil rights. Voters in VA will have to fill in a bubble beside a name and hope its the best for the future of the state. Even if the average voter’s education on the issues looks different than one’s own, that does not mean that their views are not valid.

While you may believe it is not ethical to sink resources into nonpartisan voter drives, I think it is unethical to publish this piece in a manner in which it will foster voter suppression with very clear and understood partisan outcomes.

I would say that I looked forward to reading more blog posts on this subject at a more appropriate time, except I don’t really trust you in this arena. I hope this is not your form of retribution for the Move On debate a few years back. That would be low.

Our government works better when we are all engaged. Yes, lots of people have a lot to learn about some of the issues and how government operates, but how are they going to learn if they keep getting told the debate isn’t for them? I hope you vote today.

— Christine Lewis

11. 11. November 3, 2009 4:50 am Link

Voting is not compulsory in Australia but it is close enough. You must enrol to vote when you turn 18 and once enrolled when an election is called unless you have good cause (more than 8 kilometres from a proclaimed polling place or oterwise unable to vote) you must attend a proclaimed polling place AND accept a vote.

People who fail to attend a proclaime dpolling place on Election day (always a Saturday) are prosecuted – they receive a modest fine. The fine is enforced in an analgous way to a parking ticket. Most electoral authorities will accept any reasonable excuse for not voting up to – ‘Why should 1?

Voting in Australia is secret. You are entitled to place the blank ballot paper in the box as unmarked as it was when you received it, despite this most Australians because they are compelled to enrol and to receive the vote go the final step which is to complete a valid vote and place the paper in the ballot box.

A number of virtues come from this. In most electorates the turnout of valid votes received exceeds 80%, so that there can be real confidence that the poll truly reflects the will of the people.

Secondly Australia has preferential voting – no-one can be elected until they have acquired at least votes totalling 50% of the voters enrolled. Again this provides confirmation that the electorate has selected either the politician they wanted (less common) or (more common) they have selected the politician they dislike least.

Australia inherited many aspects of its constitutional arrangments from the United States such as a federal government and a written constitution. We have a House of Representatives and a Senate. Our capital Canberra was designed by an American and reflects the design principles used to design Washington.

Democracy is a very imperfect way to run a country – but it is the best method we have developed to date – this is why there are real advantages for all democracies if you can come up with better ways to encorage people to vote and otherwise participate in the democratic process.

— Patrick QUILL

12. 12. November 3, 2009 4:54 am Link

Pfffttt… The reason the United States is so out of whack with reality is that people aren’t forced to vote.In Australia, voting is compulsory at the federal, state and local government levels. Forcing citizens to vote means even the most lacklustre citizen takes a smidgen of interest in the election. Both major parties are forced to the centre to win the majority of votes.You wilfully ignore the socio-economic poor who should have a great interest in voting, but are forced to work or can’t make it to a polling booth or don’t believe it would make a difference. Compulsory voting is ideal for a balanced, fair society.The result in Australia, stable middle-of-the-road government with excellent economic management (what recession, oh that’s right, we didn’t have one). The US could use a little more of that.

— Chris H

13. 13. November 3, 2009 4:58 am Link

“Many democracies have tried compulsory voting. Belgium, for example, introduced such a requirement as early as 1892, Argentina in 1914. Some later rescinded these measures, and where they remain they are not always vigorously enforced.” This article omits to mention that Australia has had compulsory voting since the 1920s, and that voter turnout there is around 95%. (This is fairly rigorously enforced- people who fail to vote an election are asked to explain this failure or pay a fine. Nonetheless, the fine is quite small, and it does not seem to be fear of fining which is the primary motivator in people voting, so much as an understanding that it is required of them). I understand that Belgium also has compulsory voting. I’m not suggesting that this should happen in the USA, merely that it seems a curious omission to focus on Argentina, and not mention a much more similar western democracy.

— Cait

14. 14. November 3, 2009 5:00 am Link

This is just a lazy excuse for not going and casting a ballot.

If you want to send a message, go to the polls and submit an empty ballot. It clearly says: I would have voted for somebody if there had been someone I would like to have voted for, but there wasn’t. I came here and you, the candidates, and you, the parties that out up those candidates (or got manipulated into putting them up, or whatever the case may be) failed me. But I can make the system work for me and let you know that.

You can say I am ready to act, to be involved, to give my mandate, by going to vote. And then express frustration and disappointment by choosing no candidate at the top of the ticket.

And what, there’s no ballot measure you might want to chime in on? No lesser office that deserves your attention and choice? Thinking too globally without acting locally, that’s not very smart.

Say, what kind of journalism is this anyway? If journalism can’t (or won’t) inform people about how to make a statement even when, especially when, no available candidate will do, what good is it? Every bit as pointless as an empty ballot left uncast. Talk about empty sentiments..

— dan kloke

15. 15. November 3, 2009 5:32 am Link

Does Randy Cohen have any credentials whatsoever qualifying him to write about ethical issues? He pretty consistently offers butthead opinions, as he does here.

— EEAnderson

16. 16. November 3, 2009 6:37 am Link

I think this article raises a valid point, but I don’t think it’s safe to assume that all people who choose not to vote are uneducated about the issues. I have encountered people who are very well aware of what is going on but who are “too busy” or too discouraged by political nonsense to participate on Election Day. I don’t think that these folks are morally obligated to vote, but I don’t think I’m crossing any boundaries by encouraging them to do so.

— Emily

17. 17. November 3, 2009 6:46 am Link

If one is ignorant of the candidates and issues, one can still vote ethically: go to the polls, then in the privacy of the voting booth, cast a blank vote, if the electronic voting apparatus will let you do so. This has the merits of preventing someone else showing up later at the polls claiming to be you, since you will have already signed in.This cuts down on the possibilities for voter fraud, and preserves your voting attendance record, which is public.

I wonder though if voting this way in primaries is a good idea. Sometimes I think all voting in a primary does is signal your party preference to the powers that be in the State legislature, who in turn will use that information to gerrymander the districts.

— TN

18. 18. November 3, 2009 7:08 am Link

The value of compulsory voting is this. Politicians cannot afford to cynically divide the electorate, the issues of the poor cannot be completely ignored because they do

not vote. It moves the debate toward the centre so lunatic positions on gun control, religion or education become to politically sensitve to challenge.

— Katherine

19. 19. November 3, 2009 7:13 am Link

Bravo. This is undoubtedly an unpopular opinion, but it is one I share.

— CO

20. 20. November 3, 2009 7:16 am Link

What is the moral standing of partisan GOTV campaigns when the campaigners blatantly lie to manipulate the electorate? Especially when that electorate is generally undereducated and economically vulnerable? And especially when the campaign’s goal is not to advance a particular positive agenda, but to keep power in the hands of people who feel they have a right to that power?

This article nails the problem with democracy. A healthy democracy requires an educated and engaged population. We don’t have that. And one party (pro-Creationism, anti-science, etc.) is morally determined to keep us ignorant.

Perhaps we should have a quick quiz at the doors of polling places. If you can’t answer 5 of 10 basic questions about our government and current issues, then you’re not qualified to vote that day.

— LB

21. 21. November 3, 2009 7:26 am Link

I’ve always thought that citizens should go to the polling place on Election Day and vote. My personal philosophy is to not vote in any contests that I don’t know enough about to make an informed decision. If that means that I just pull the big lever from one side to the other and back, then at least I showed that one more citizen of the Republic cared enough to get off the couch and show up to be counted.

— Dave

22. 22. November 3, 2009 7:29 am Link

For someone interested in responsible government, not using government as a tool for personal enrichment, voting can be a profoundly discouraging experience.

Nearly all candidates are captives to the system of legalized bribery we use to finance election campaigns. We complain about corruption in places like Afghanistan, but our own system is also based on corruption — but we are so used to it, we seldom call it what it is.

Both Presidents Bush and Obama are cases in point. Look at their campaign rhetoric and then look at their Presidential actions — both have often acted exactly opposite of what they promised.

— emily

23. 23. November 3, 2009 7:39 am Link

I’m voting today.

— DW

24. 24. November 3, 2009 7:46 am Link

Maybe the message should be “Educate yourself on the issues and candidates, then vote. All of this is your civic duty.” But “just vote” is succinct, and appeals to people’s need to exercise their power without taking responsibility for that power.

Over the years, I’ve found it’s nearly impossible to make an informed decision about judges (unless someone’s clearly corrupt or you know some lawyers) but even before the internet, the League of Women’s Voters offered information on everyone and everything else you might vote for. I missed a local mayoral primary and a vote for school board because of medical emergencies but otherwise, have voted in every election, no matter how small for 30 years even if it meant taking time off work and two busses to get back to the polling place in my former district. You can educate yourself and vote responsibly without giving up a huge chunk of time.

— J.M.

25. 25. November 3, 2009 7:47 am Link

Bison awareness? I thought we took care of that during the bisontennial.

Unfortunately, political candidates and their staffs have found that it is often better to avoid issues and campaign only on emotional appeals that have nothing to do with policies, leaving us almost as ignorant as if we had paid no attention. We then must choose by party and hope that the big tent isn’t so big that we end up voting for someone who will not often act in our interests.

— Dick

1 2 3 … 6 Next »

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Search This Blog

Previous Post More Thoughts on Talking About Religion Next Post Following Up on Whether We Must Vote

Follow This Blog RSS

Recent Posts

November 1784

Free Speech and the Former Domestic Terrorist

How do we define the outer limits of what should be acceptable as public speech?

November 1213

More on the Ethics of Prostheses

Returning to the Greco-Roman tradition of oiled nude athletes was one solution that several readers suggested.

November 10138

Are High-Tech Prostheses Fair?

Isn’t opening able-bodied competitions to disabled athletes like the double-amputee Oscar Pistorius, fitted out with futuristic J-shaped blade extensions, just political correctness run amok?

November 046

A New Way to Comment on Moral of the Story

Starting today, the comments section of this blog will work a little differently, in ways that should be familiar to those of you who comment on articles in the Times.

November 04

Following Up on Whether We Must Vote

More thoughts about whether we should support nonpartisan efforts to get people to vote.

Airing Dirty Laundry? The Takeaway With Randy Cohen

Archive

About Randy Cohen

Randy Cohen has written humor articles, essays and stories for numerous newspapers and magazines. His first television work was writing for “Late Night With David Letterman,” for which he won three Emmy Awards. His fourth Emmy was for his work on “TV Nation.” He received a fifth Emmy as a result of a clerical error, and he kept it. For two years, he wrote and edited News Quiz for Slate, the online magazine. Currently he writes the The Ethicist for The New York Times Magazine. Each week, in Moral of the Story, he will examine a news story from an ethical perspective.

Email your suggestions for news topics to Randy. Times Topics: The Ethicist

Comment Moderation Policy

Magazine Columns by The Ethicist

Is It Wrong to Steer Business Away From a Philanderer?

By CHUCK KLOSTERMAN

The Seventh Commandment’s role in retail.

Fahrenheit 45-Fun

By CHUCK KLOSTERMAN

Tape destroying; burglar fooling.

Does the Golden Rule Hold Up in Modern Society?

By CHUCK KLOSTERMAN

The problem with treating others as you would like to be treated.

Annual Cavity Drive

By CHUCK KLOSTERMAN

Wake up and have some candy.

Parts and Labor (and Luck)

By CHUCK KLOSTERMAN

The squeaky wheel; a loud-and-clear decision.

Watch Now: The day the lights went outALSO IN VIDEO »

Devastation in the Philippines after typhoon

Vows: Diana and Aaron teach a surf-inspired fitness class together

Constitutional Opinions

A Case Against Mandatory VotingGovernment should not force people to be free.

By Fred L. Smith

Smaller Larger Print Article

Big government "solutions" for every social problem under the sun are all around us. I thought I'd seen them all -- until recently, when I found myself debating a statist proposal to cure apathy. Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute and I recently debated mandatory voting. He argued in favor and I in opposition. Ornstein brought up many interesting points, however, and I feel compelled to present my thorough responses below. I have always held the expansion of liberty as the most important goal of public policy, but it cannot be achieved through forceful regulation. The use of force to encourage freedom, I believe, is self-contradictory and practically and morally wrong.

Mandatory attendance at polls is still mandatory voting.

Ornstein was quick to point out that he doesn't necessarily support mandatory voting, but rather, in accordance with the system currently in place in Australia, "mandatory attendance at the polls." To me, this is just an attempt to deflect attention from the "mandatory" part. Poll "attendees" are still required to cast a ballot, and in Australia those who fail to do so -- even if they showed up at the polls -- can be prosecuted. Even choosing "none of the above" or "X," as is possible in Australia, involves casting a vote.

Ornstein touted as a success the fact that, under Australia's compulsory system, only about three percent of voters write in "X." Meanwhile, in America, over 40 percent of eligible voters don't even go to the polls in any given election. So Australia is better off, right? If Ornstein's goal is to get only three percent of eligible American voters choosing "none of the above," then he will also have to deal with 37 percent of uninformed, disinterested, and apathetic Americans being forced to cast ballots for candidates about whom they know little, if anything at all. What good could come of that?

Consensus is not a democratic value.

In his previous writings on the topic, Ornstein argues that mandatory voting will bring America to the center and eliminate the "polarizing" effect of partisan politics, especially in primary elections. His theory is that elective voting creates an environment where parties stir up their bases, leading to the election of increasingly more liberal Democrats and increasingly more conservative Republicans. With all of these radicals in office, he argues, "valuable Congressional time is spent on frivolous or narrow issues (flag burning, same-sex marriage) that are intended only to spur on the party bases and ideological extremes. Consequently, important, complicated issues (pension and health-care reform) get short shrift."

Who decides which issues are important? Shouldn't politicians respond to what their constituents tell them is important? I chided Ornstein for trying to make everyone play "nice," as if politics could somehow lead to consensus through a utopian deliberative process. The Australian system he cites has not produced a placid political process by any means -- and it's already been in use for decades.

Jury duty and voting duty serve different purposes.

The most common argument put forth by supporters of compulsory voting is that, just as Americans have a civic obligation to perform jury duty, they should face a similar obligation to vote. This seems like a tempting argument, but it is based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The Sixth and Seventh Amendments to the Constitution specify that both criminal and civil defendants have the right to a jury trial by their peers. For you to enjoy that right, your peers -- and you in turn -- must serve on a jury. This is one of the few instances where the Constitution compels citizens into service. There is no constitutional right to serve on the jury -- it is a constitutional requirement on all voting citizens. This compelled service is correctly called a civic duty.

Voting is very different. No less than five constitutional amendments mention the right to vote, but nowhere in the Constitution is voting defined as a civic duty. As such, jury members are required to listen to both sides and then carefully deliberate before reaching a decision. Voters cannot be forced to listen to hours of campaign speeches before voting.

Most importantly, jury trials and elections serve different purposes in the American system of government. Juries act as a check on the power of the state, by shifting some of the judicial decision-making power to private citizens. Voting, by contrast, is the process by which

citizens delegate power to government. Therefore, compulsory voting would entail forcing large numbers of people to make an uninformed decision on a matter of crucial importance.

Ornstein eventually conceded that compulsory voting would require "trivial" enforcement costs and would constitute a "trivial" loss of freedom. Yet the cumulative impact of past "trivial" costs has created today's huge budget deficit. And even "trivial" losses of freedoms over time move us in the direction of tyranny. Opinions may differ on whether greater voter turnout is a good thing, but no one should support policies designed to force people to be free.

(Mr. Smith's research assistant, Jacqueline Otto, contributed to