On the issue of whether voting should be made mandatory, which I wrote about last month, I wanted to share with his permission some correspondence from reader Paul Hughes, together with my response:

I just listened to your podcast on the “Australian” system of mandatory voting. I think you addressed the topics covered in the podcast well. However, I did not hear what I consider the best justification for mandatory voting, increasing the election’s credibility.

It seems to me the most compelling reason in favor of this system is removing the voter disenfranchisement/​voter fraud argument. It seems clear to me that if one party loses, they will protest on the grounds of voter fraud. If the other party loses, they will say it was due to voter suppression. Won’t mandatory voting, with the option to return a blank ballot, give a full accounting of every one of voting age, thus removing some of the ridiculous rhetoric coming from both parties?

And my response, which I’ve lightly edited and expanded:

Thanks for writing. It’s an interesting point and I don’t deny that it has some weight at a time when alarms over claimed voter suppression and fraud contribute to polarization. And it would have a different, also important weight if we assume that many localities witness actual, purposeful, and effective voter suppression or fraud.

Overall, my response on suppression would still be that the first and best line of defense against such suppression consists of vigilance by the courts, combined with executive oversight by states and (as explicitly provided in, e.g., the Fifteenth Amendment) by the federal government. Sacrificing the liberty of the citizenry is not to be resorted to while other, more targeted means are available to address maladministration on this important matter.

It might also be noted that mandatory voting in practice in many countries coexists with actual voting rates that fall much short of 100%, with the challenge of outreach to marginalized populations actually worsened if nonparticipation carries legal penalties that may drive people further into hiding from the state.

A few further comments on the topic of voting fraud. In theory, if enforced, mandatory voting might help curb at least two grave kinds of electoral dishonesty: the fraudulent casting of votes in the name of persons who are legally qualified to vote but currently choose not to; and the possible interception and discarding of genuine votes sent by mail or left in insecure dropboxes. Again, both abuses can and should be held in check through means that do not involve coercion of large numbers of bystanders. In particular, prompt and efficient communication to voters by authorities of when and whether a vote has been counted in their names is one way to assist in identifying both kinds of illegality.

Also on the subject of compulsory voting, colleague Andy Craig has a point-counterpoint for InsideSources with advocate Miles Rapoport, reprinted in many newspapers. Rapoport’s “pro” argument is here and Andy’s response is here.