Why Mandatory Voting Would Harm America
This paper examines President Obama's proposal for mandatory voting in the United States, evaluating both claimed benefits and substantial drawbacks. While acknowledging that low voter turnout is a genuine problem, the paper argues that mandatory voting would ultimately harm American democracy through constitutional violations of free speech, regressive financial penalties for low-income citizens, and reinforcement of two-party dominance. The analysis concludes that alternative voting reforms better serve democratic principles and voter representation.
- Introduction and Context: Obama's mandatory voting proposal and its stated rationale
- Claimed Advantages of Mandatory Voting: Increased turnout and campaign finance reform benefits
- Constitutional and Freedom Concerns: Compelled speech violations and individual liberty issues
- Impact on Low-Income Voters: Regressive effects of mandatory voting fines
- Effects on Electoral Competition: Strengthening two-party dominance and reducing alternatives
- Conclusion: Why mandatory voting is not a viable democratic remedy
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Balances fairness by acknowledging the legitimacy of low voter turnout as a problem before critiquing the proposed solution.
- Uses specific data (2014: 36.4% turnout, 2012: 57.5%) to ground arguments in evidence rather than speculation.
- Structures the argument clearly—presenting both sides before mounting a systematic refutation.
- Identifies multiple distinct problems rather than relying on a single objection, strengthening the case through breadth.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective policy critique by separating the legitimacy of a problem (low turnout) from the adequacy of a proposed solution. This technique—often called "granting the premise while denying the conclusion"—makes the argument more persuasive because it avoids strawmanning the opposing position. The writer shows understanding of why mandatory voting might appeal, then systematically dismantles its viability.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a classical problem-solution-evaluation format. It opens with Obama's claim and context, concedes the turnout problem, then presents the proposal's claimed benefits before pivoting to three distinct critiques: constitutional (compelled speech), economic (regressive fines), and structural (party dominance). This order moves from strongest objection (constitutional) through practical concerns to systemic effects, building cumulative force.
Introduction and Context
President Obama recently drew criticism for comments made in support of mandatory voting. Mandatory (also called compulsory) voting involves government intervention to ensure that every eligible citizen votes during elections. On March 18th, the President suggested that mandatory voting "would counteract [campaign] money more than anything." He noted that "other countries have mandatory voting" and that the idea may be a beneficial "strategy" in the United States.
Before critiquing this proposal, it is important to note that this represents only the President's opinion. As of yet, he has no intention of enforcing this view through a constitutional amendment or any other official mechanism. With that clarification in place, we can examine what effects mandatory voting would actually have on Americans.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.