On the Justifiability of Compulsory Voting: Reply to Lever

Annabelle Lever’s thought-provoking article rests on three broad claims that I dispute, partly on conceptual and partly on empirical grounds. Her first claim is that low and declining turnout is not especially worrying. This encompasses the implication that socio-economic disparities in turnout are not significant and the claims that high turnout does not confer greater legitimacy on the outcome of elections and that abstention connotes consent and even participation. Her second claim is that there is nothing special about voting as a means for self-government. This encompasses the suggestion that ‘the consequences of voting are too uncertain for voting to be a necessary implication of our duties’. Her third claim is that ‘voluntary political participation’ is a defining value of democracy that is ‘undercut’ by requiring people to vote. This encompasses the claim that the harms of failure to vote do not justify compelling people to vote and the assumption that there exists a ‘right’ not to vote.1 I address each of these arguments in turn. IS