When they say that it's "good for democracy," you know it's a bad idea.

According to NPR, this guy William Galston of the Brookings Institute thinks compulsory voting is a good idea. (HT to the LRC Blog)

He says that "it's good for democracy." 

Well, I say that it's also good for totalitarianism. And it's immoral. 

Here's the theory:

"Galston believes that the 'participation of less ideologically committed voters' would lead to depolarization.  He concedes that while 'passionate partisanship infuses the system with energy,' the U.S. electorate is as polarized as it was back in the 1890s, which 'erects roadblocks to problem-solving.' And while many 'committed partisans prefer gridlock to compromise,' gridlock is 'no formula for effective governance.'"

I have a few problems with Galston's theory.

1. He is assuming that mere legislation is the same thing as solving a problem. But this is common. How many times do you hear politicians claim that they "reached across the aisle" in order to "get things done." They don't mean that the problem that the legislation was meant to address has been solved by said legislation. They just mean that they passed legislation. As Don Boudreaux has recently pointed out, this is what passes for achievement in the political realm.

2. He is overlooking the fact that our constitutional republic is based on the idea that gridlock is good. While frustrating to some, a slow and a careful legislative process is good. That's why we have the separation of powers and checks and balances, and don't give our executive dictatorial powers. That a government is able to pass legislation quickly and easily is a vice of that government, not a virtue. 

3. He says that the non-voters are "more in the middle, less ideological than those on the right or the left." This assumes that dreadful (and false) left-right dichotomy. While I'm not trying create my own dichotomy here, there is an alternative (and perhaps more accurate) way of dividing political ideologues: On the one side are the slightly different wings of the supporters of government solutions to social and economic problems (republicans and democrats); on the other are those who prefer less government and more freedom. I wouldn't say that the latter are the "moderates" who are "in between" the left and the right. Of course, as is unfortunately the case with most who are in politics and the media, this part of the political spectrum doesn't appear to be on Galston's radar. 

4. It's not so obvious that low voter turnout is bad for democracy. The way I see it, low turnout sends a very important message: it says that a lot of citizens either (a) don't care, (b) don't like their options, or (c) are fed up with the system in general. Compulsory voting prevents that message from getting across. In other words, citizens are actually, in a sense, prevented from letting their voice be heard. This, it seems to me, is very undemocratic.

I'm not really one of those "voting is evil" types, but I would love it if turnout actually dropped significantly. That way, no president, or any other elected official, could claim that "The People" had given him a "Mandate." And this just might make politicians a little more humble, and less ambitious, than they otherwise would have been. 

And let's not forget that there are other ways to get more voters out. As Randy Holcombe suggests: Let them vote "None of the Above."