8/13/2019 CV Not Democratic Legitimacy

1/2

Voter turnout does not solve for democratic legitimacyAnnabelle Lever, Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation, The University of Manchester LawSchool, 2009 (Liberalism, Democracy, and the Ethics of Voting, Politics, Volume 29, Issue 3, pages 223 227, October 2009)Democracy means that we are entitled to participate in politics freely and as equals. However, thisdoes not mean that we must exercise our political rights, however important it is that we should havethem; nor does it require us to consider electoral politics more important than other endeavours . Inestablished democracies, our political rights help to protect our interests in political participationwhether or not we actually exercise them. Likewise, we need not refuse, accept or offer to marrysomeone in order for our right to marry to be valuable and valued. Rights can protect our interests ,then, even if we do not use them . For example, they make certain practical possibilities unthinkable.Most of the time we never consider killing others in order to get our way; nor do they consider killing us.So, while it is true that democracy requires people to be willing and able to vote, the empirics oflegitimacy, as well as its theory, make turnout a poor proxy for legitimacy or for faith in democraticgovernment (Lever 2009a and 2010).

Compulsory voting does not uphold democratic legitimacy just because voting ordemocracy is a public good, it does not mean that participation is obligatoryAnnabelle Lever, Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation, The University of Manchester LawSchool, 2009 (Liberalism, Democracy, and the Ethics of Voting, Politics, Volume 29, Issue 3, pages 223 227, October 2009)We can put the point more sharply. The idea that non-voters are free-riders assumes that voting is acollective good whether because high levels of turnout are necessary to democratic legitimacy or forsome other reason. But this begs the question of whether high levels of turnout are a collective good.Turnout has partisan effects. So even if some level of turnout is a public good, voting is not a purepublic good as long as it has some bearing on who wins or loses an election. To suppose that people

are morally wrong to abstain therefore requires us to assume that the co-operative aspect of voting ismore important than the competitive. This is not a conceptual truth about elections, and may be falsenormatively and empirically (Lever, 2009a and 2010). We cannot evade the complexity of democraticpolitics and morality, then, by insisting that democratic elections are a public good. Indeed they are.But this no more requires us to vote than it requires us to join a political party or to stand for electionourselves. A sufficient range and quality of parties and leaders is a prerequisite for democraticlegitimacy and, offhand, seems at least as important as ensuring a sufficient quantity and quality ofvoter participation.2 Moreover, morality sometimes requires people to assume positions ofleadership and responsibility that they would otherwise choose to forgo. Nonetheless, it is incrediblydifficult to get from the idea that we may sometimes have such duties to the conclusion that weactually do have such duties.

Compulsory voting encourages random votes because people are forced to voteagainst their willIDEA, 2012 (Compulsory Voting, http://www.idea.int/vt/compulsory_voting.cfm) Another consequence of mandatory voting is the possible high number of "random votes". Voterswho are voting against their free will may check off a candidate at random , particularly the topcandidate on the ballot. The voter does not care whom they vote for as long as the government is

http://www.idea.int/vt/compulsory_voting.cfmmhttp://www.idea.int/vt/compulsory_voting.cfmmhttp://www.idea.int/vt/compulsory_voting.cfmm

8/13/2019 CV Not Democratic Legitimacy

2/2

satisfied that they fulfilled their civic duty . What effect does this immeasureable category of randomvotes have on the legitimacy of the democratically elected government?

Voter turnout does not solve for democratic legitimacyAnnabelle Lever, Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation, The University of Manchester LawSchool, 2009 (Liberalism, Democracy, and the Ethics of Voting, Politics, Volume 29, Issue 3, pages 223 227, October 2009)Democracy means that we are entitled to participate in politics freely and as equals. However, thisdoes not mean that we must exercise our political rights, however important it is that we should havethem; nor does it require us to consider electoral politics more important than other endeavours . Inestablished democracies, our political rights help to protect our interests in political participationwhether or not we actually exercise them. Likewise, we need not refuse, accept or offer to marrysomeone in order for our right to marry to be valuable and valued. Rights can protect our interests ,then, even if we do not use them . For example, they make certain practical possibilities unthinkable.Most of the time we never consider killing others in order to get our way; nor do they consider killing us.So, while it is true that democracy requires people to be willing and able to vote, the empirics oflegitimacy, as well as its theory, make turnout a poor proxy for legitimacy or for faith in democratic

government (Lever 2009a and 2010).

MAJORITY OF PEOPLE NEVER ACTUALLY CONSIDERED- Civic participation a fail

Increasing voter turnout does not solve the root cause it would increase voterdisillusionment because it would remind voters how little their vote counts.Eric Rosenbloom , science editor and writer Kirby Mountain (k- 12 Textbook publisher), Is MandatoryVoting a Good Idea?, New York Times, November 13, 2011 ,http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/opinion/is-mandatory-voting-a-good-idea.html?_r=1. William A. Galston (Telling Americans to Vote, or Else, Sunday Review, Nov. 6) might have it backward

regarding the cause and effect between low voter turnout and political polarization. Many countrieshave fiercely polarized politics along with high voter turnout. The difference that Mr. Galston missed isthat the American system inevitably ensures both polarization and low participation. Without aparliamentary system, our winner-take-all politics means that most votes are indeed meaningless. Formost people, voting does not lead to a greater sense of participation in government, but ratherreminds them over and over that their voices are not represented. The problem is not voterturnout. It is a system of government that can never be responsive to the majority of its citizens.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/opinion/is-mandatory-voting-a-good-idea.html?_r=1http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/opinion/is-mandatory-voting-a-good-idea.html?_r=1