Outline
Possible thesis statement: Compulsory voting is an effective means to not only encourage turnout but to
make people see themselves as citizens in more than just a legal sense. The case of Australia provides
some interesting lessons.
I. Party-list systems are an alternative to compulsory voting that might encourage turnout.
a. Countries that have them compared to those with first-past-the-post
b. the case of the Netherlands and it's 75% turnout rate compared.
c. . . .
II. Compuslory voting is an option
a. Australia's changes in participation in election
b. 59% to 91%
c. In Italy, more people join political parties formally as a result
III. Nigeria showed abuses of compulsory voting in that it was all about getting the presidient's
supporters out.
a. . . .
b....
c.. . .
-----------------------You are not turning these in. I'm just calling this "Notes."
Notes
general response: Australia provides a case study in what stimulates voter turnout.
Compulsory voting does not even guarantee 100% turnout as the case of Australia shows, where as
many as 500,000 people in an electorate of 10 million (Lijphart 3).
First of all, it is interesting that even a legal requirement to vote doesn't provide for perfect turnout.
More importantly, requiring people to show up reinforces the deeper meaning of voting as a civic duty,
something that makes someone a fuller citizen.
There was a jump from 59 to 91% in voter turnout after compulsory law was implemented. Even though
no one took the fines seriously, people still felt compelled to turnout ("A Call")
It is not the punishment that is driving people to go to the ballot box but, rather, the signal being sent by
the government on the importance of people being dutiful citizens. An exercise like this might
strengthen the bonds of community or national identity. There is probably some peer pressure or civic
pressure at work in getting people to comply with the law.