In my third argument, I discussed how cost would be an issue for mandatory voting. The cost for government and individuals would create issues with the compulsory voting system.
Another point to consider when discussing mandatory voting is the issue of cost. Advocates for mandatory voting argue that the system the government is using now has created a biased voice; due to the fact that some citizens just do not have the money to vote, these citizens voices’ go unheard on Election Day (Solari par. 7). While I understand and agree with this problem, mandatory voting will not solve this issue. If America was to make mandatory voting a law, the government would have to set repercussions for the people who chose not to vote, which would bring them right back to the families who do not have the money to vote or money for fines not to vote. There are some countries who have already taken part in compulsory voting and the government can look to for guidance in this decision. In Australia, citizens are required to vote, but the government has made the election process effortless for the voters (Solari par. 12). Solari gives one example from the perspective of an expert on Australia’s voting system: “In fact, according to one researcher, ‘voting is so easy in these well-regulated systems that failure to vote is far more burdensome than voting’” (par. 12). Essentially, Australia is trying to keep their high voter turnout; however, when there is a cost to vote and a fine for the people who do not vote, that makes life difficult for the less fortunate families. Lastly, there are many finance issues with the idea of compulsory voting that would have to be taken into consideration. On top of the financial problems for individual families, there are also governmental costs that would be troublesome. Gratschew relays this in her article saying that the political parties can benefit financially from compulsory voting (par. 7). Also some advocates for compulsory voting say that the government could save money. Solari discusses that if every citizen was required to vote, then the candidates would not have to pay to try and draw the voters into the polls. Mandatory voting would also contribute to eradicate political propaganda, which would also save money (Solari par. 10). Although this may be true, mandatory voting still brings more problems than solutions to the table. For example, the competitive drive to beat an election competitor would still exist, so the candidates would still want to spend money on advertisements to endorse themselves. (Solari par. 20). Moreover, Solari supposes, “The United States could probably not afford the luxury of making voting as easy a process as it is in Australia, because the sheer mass of the rush to the polls on Election Day would create roadblocks to democratic success-no matter the design of the electoral structure” (par. 19). His point is that even though mandatory voting may seem beneficial to some problems, there are other problems this law would cause. Many different perspectives agree that there are many problems with mandatory voting. America has enough financial issues as it is, but if mandatory voting became a law there would be more costs. Essentially Solari is saying that the government may save a few dollars here or there, but that money will either be spent in another way or the money made would not be enough to make a difference: “Thus, it is reasonable to assume that money would not be saved, but would rather be transferred from a general mobilization standpoint, to a partisan mobilization standpoint” (par. 20). To conclude, at first the idea of compulsory voting may seem like it will save the government money, but in reality this policy could end up costing America more money.