USA Founding Fathers make citizen voting compulsory

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

We the People....

Article I
Section 4
3: Participation in the democratic process being both a right and a responsibility, it shall be compulsory for all eligible citizenry to attend a place of voting, have their name duly checked against an electoral roll, and submit a ballot paper in each Election for Senators, Representatives and the offices of President and Vice President

4: Failure of eligible citizens to participate in the electoral process shall be punishable by fines as determined appropriate by the Congress.

5: Each state shall have a constitutional responsibility to ensure that all eligible citizenry have the means and opportunity to exercise their democratic right and responsibility of participation in the electoral process for Senate, Representatives and the offices of President and Vice President.


In OTL most democratic societies emphasize voting as an voluntary right in the same sense that free speech is a right but everyone has the option of whether or not they wish to exercise it.

A small number of countries (including Australia) emphasize that it is NOT ONLY a right
but ALSO a responsibility of citizens to participate in the process, in the same way that participation in jury service is considered a civic duty.

The main argument usually against compulsory voting is that "why should people be forced to vote for a party if they don't like any of them".
Well, in fact compulsory voting doesn't mean that at all.
Under the system in place in Australia, it is compulsory to turn up at the polling booth, get your name crossed off, receive a ballot paper and stick it in the ballot box.
It is NOT illegal to submit a blank ballot paper or even a paper with some obscene drawing scrawled across it.
What you choose to do (or not do) to your ballot paper is an entirely secret process.

The other argument that is sometimes raised against compulsory voting is that it somehow undermines the democratic process by making political parties "lazy" and taking their voter base for granted.
This argument I find very weak since, as already mentioned there is nothing to stop disillusioned voters handing in a blank paper.

Furthermore, anybody who knows how politics really operates will understand that under voluntary voting there are two unequivocal negatives.
a) Elections are often won NOT by the side with the best ideas, but with the side with the best "get out the vote" machine i.e. the most money.
b) Extremists are more motivated to vote as a political block than Joe Average therefore political parties find that their agendas become hi-jacked by these motivated minorities (hello Republican Party? :rolleyes:).

So in my ATL lets imagine that Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers in their infinite foresight and wisdom decided
that instituting compulsory voting was an important pillar of ensuring the continued legitimacy of the Republic and it's healthy democratic process.

What influence might this have had on politics?
Note that I have carefully worded the new insert to the constitution as "eligible citizen", meaning NOT universal suffrage.
I am assuming that universal suffrage would continue along much the same path as OTL.

One probable result would be to make both sides of politics more centrist which means less leverage to the Religious Right in American politics.
Would prohibition still have been introduced?
Would Wade vs Roe be as incendiary as it is today?

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Jefferson... Well, I suppose it might make it more obvious that the southerners were using literacy tests, property qualifications, and various other methods to bolster their total reported population while also keeping it in as few eligible voters as possible. Though Virginia was the largest colony at first, so ehh. Maybe it would be a felony not to vote, meaning that if you had the polls open and closed at a designated time and location that it would mean a few dozen people could control each state.
 
IMHO it would be more interesting to see what happened if they used some kind of proportional representation (just as most of europe does) instead of 'first past the post'
 

JRScott

Banned
I assume your numbers mean these are Clause 3-5 added to the originals Clause 1-2

The Religious core of beliefs would be stronger, remember only 10-15% of Americans do not believe in God today and it was much less than that 50 years ago, the rest all have some establishment in the belief not only in God but in the tenants taught by the Bible. Muslims and Jews are historical minorities but they to have strong beliefs.

Forcing the majority who are religious to vote, whereas many chose for whatever reason not to historically just means you move the needle more center of right.

As such it is unlikely any decision like Roe vs Wade even passed, the Bible's admonishment Thou Shalt Not Kill would take a much heavier precedent and make it unlikely that you could find a situation where judges would be appointed that would find Roe vs Wade as OTL. If it was found in similar manner it would have additional restrictions like only in the case of the health of the mother, incest, or rape where it might be allowed.

Prohibition not only probably did pass but probably lasted longer than historically.

One thing is for certain though if you have such high participation in voting it is far less likely that people would stay in the same office for decades at a time. 2-3 terms and no doubt they've offended enough folks in their district and they'll be voted out the next election. This means a far greater turnover in the House and Senate as the years go by.

It also makes it highly unlikely that FDR could win 4 terms, 2 at best, which will drastically change WWII.

You would probably have churches under this system doing the more Whitfield type sermons against the excesses of government and the like, today most are cowed by the IRS laws into silence but in a country were the majority always votes those IRS laws will not come to light in a similar manner as the people that support such suppression will shortly be out of office.
 
One thing is for certain though if you have such high participation in voting it is far less likely that people would stay in the same office for decades at a time. 2-3 terms and no doubt they've offended enough folks in their district and they'll be voted out the next election. This means a far greater turnover in the House and Senate as the years go by.

Im not sure about that.
Prime Minister Robert Menzies of Australia served 17 years continuously as PM under compulsory voting.

It has been argued btw that compulsory voting makes pork barrell politics less viable since its harder to buy off a constituency when the number of voters is much larger.
 
Im not sure about that.
Prime Minister Robert Menzies of Australia served 17 years continuously as PM under compulsory voting.

To be fair one of the major reasons that Menzies was reelected so many times was that the ALP was fighting among themselves.
 
To be fair one of the major reasons that Menzies was reelected so many times was that the ALP was fighting among themselves.

True.
The point to make though is that compulsory voting in itself doesnt mean high turnover of politicians, necessarily.
 
i doubt things would be radically different.

Most who dont vote would be forced to show up. They would either vote for a major party candidate or just pick someone at random. 3rd party candidates would do better but probably still be a minimal factor.


Roe v Wade was a Supreme Court decision and unlikely to change.
 
For the most part, when the Constitution, elections were handled entirely by the states. There was no federal role. Also, in many ways the US Constitution is (thankfully) a profoundly anti-democratic document,witnessed by the electoral college and the original language that did not provide for direct election of US Senators.

It is virtually impossible that the constitutionas written in 1789 would place a legal requirement on all citizens to vote. What might have made more sense to the constitutional convention would be to make election days in which federal officials were being chosen a mandatory holiday in all states. That would probably increase the number of actual voters in these elections. I wouldnt see the framers extending this to local and state elections as this would be seen as federal intrusion into state business.
 
Top