If we really want the parties to reconnect with voters, we should import – from Australia, say, or Brazil – a far more important innovation: compulsory voting. Obliging people to cast a ballot may sound illiberal, but it has the huge advantage of forcing political parties “to reach beyond their comfort zone”. Labour/Democrats could no longer seek to win elections by “wooing liberal, public sector, welfare-dependent and unionised voters”, or the Tories/Republicans by wooing “the propertied, wealthy and rural”. It would also put an end to the favouritism shown to older voters, who vote in greater numbers than young people, with foreseeable results. With compulsory voting, parties would have to consider the effects of their policies on everyone. Insisting that voters devote 20 minutes of their time once every four or five years to the act of voting seems a small price to pay. (Tim Montgomerie, The Times, quoted in The Week).
No doubt the argument would be that in a “free” country no one should be forced to vote, and that not voting is a type of vote in any case. I believe, on the contrary, that an Epicurean answer would be: “You are either a citizen or you are not. Maybe you don’t want the aggravation of being directly involved in politics (Epicureans don’t do that), but at least you should find the time to pick someone you trust to represent you. Otherwise, don’t complain later.
I’m sorry Robert, but compulsory voting is profoundly un-Epicurean. Epicurus would have been horrified if the Athenian state had forced him to participate in the politics of the day. People have a right not to be interested in politics, just like everything else.
Another problem is that current voters are better informed than non voters. Compulsory voting would force a load of uneducated voters into the electorate. This would have the effect if dumbing down politics, making it more about personality and less about policy.
I think we should learn from countries like France and Denmark, that have a high voter turnout without it being compulsory. We should have Sunday voting, when people have more spare time than a Tuesday. We would make the process as easy as possible, through e voting and automatic registration. And if you are too stupid or disinterested to vote, you wouldn’t have to.
You are, of course, right. Epicurus would not approve of my suggestion. I wrote the post after reading articles about how old people supposedly ( and not necessarily accurately) have all the money and young people can’t afford to buy houses , or even find jobs. To classism has been added ageism. Let’s leave aside for the moment the fact that the self-same young people will be inheriting assets (money and houses) in due course whose values will have been grossly inflated, and that a good proportion will in many cases be very well off, having done nothing for it particularly, except being born to the right families.
Ihave heard complaints about the government coddling old people. If that is the case the younger ones should vote for people who want to stop it. At the moment it is older people who vote, and the politicians duly concentrate on pleasing them. If, like Australia, everyone was expected to vote this could be altered. So many people won’t vote, and its not out of principle – they can’t be bothered.
The fact is that life has always been like this, the way of the world. The young have to work, struggle, experience ups and downs and their share of hardship. And eventually the older generation leaves a lot of them rather comfortable on top of anything they have earned themselves. A bit of hardship builds character. I feel that in this totally child-centric age some kids, a minority, are not used to the idea of struggle. Actually, the Australian system doesn’t work very well, but at least politicians there have an incentive to ensure things are fair. Fair is Epicurean.
I think the only solution to the perception that the government is enriching the old at the expense of the young, is to vote for parties that explicitly promise to do otherwise. In the UK, I believe this means voting Labour, because they are disproportionately supported by the young. However, I understand that many Conservative young people will understandably not be pleased by my suggestion. I also understand that we don’t want to fan the flames of generational warfare, even though some balance is needed.
There is also a contradiction here for the Left. On the one hand, we don’t want to cut the benefits of the old as part of a general opposition to austerity. There is a recognition that providing benefits as generously for the young as the old would be unaffordable and unnecessary, because young people are (mostly) in work. But we also recognise the generational injustice of the current system. The solution must be to increase investment in young people, and also maintain a welfare state for the old- albeit one that is more affordable than now. This must be funded by tax increases on unearnt income: property, inherited wealth, land etc… This would improve young people’s relative prospects, increase intergenerational social mobility, reduce income and wealth inequality, and increase economic growth.