The election season

The case for compulsory voting ... Pity the Brits, French and Americans where politicians have to "get out the vote" ... Nathan Twibill on the advantages of the "median voter" strategy ... Vote early, vote often 

In 1957 political economist Anthony Downs coined the term "rational ignorance". His central point was that unless you are a policy wonk who intrinsically enjoys research, it is not rational to give up your time to research who to vote for and why. 

This is because the likelihood of your vote influencing the outcome in a large election is vanishingly small - before you even take into account the possibility of being in a "safe seat" - so it's just not worth the effort.  

If one is going to vote anyway, I would hazard that most would turn their mind to who they want to win and vote accordingly, even if they know their vote is unlikely to matter. 

Once at the ballot box, it is no more effort to vote for who you would prefer in government than to vote otherwise. 

A much stronger version of the argument can be made in terms of voting at all. If my vote is so unlikely to matter, why subject myself to the inconvenience? 

In some jurisdictions, not least in many American states, this inconvenience can be significant. I might have to proactively register to vote, sending a letter or visiting a government office at set time before a given election, without any prompting. 

Election day might be a day when I ordinarily work; especially in the UK, which has two bank holidays every May but not on an election day once every five years. 

I might be planning to be outside of my registered catchment area when it's time to vote, but strict electoral rules prevent me voting elsewhere or voting by post. 

There might be too few polling stations in my area or hours may not be long enough, such that voting equals queuing for hours. All of this so I can have a 99.99 etcetera percent chance of not affecting the outcome. 

These inconveniences are easily and cheaply remediable, relative to what's at stake, by measures such as automatic enrolment and electoral funding. But the fundamental issue of the individual irrationality but collective importance of broad political participation is best resolved by making voting compulsory. 

Remarkably few countries have done so. And, according to a 2020 poll by the Pew Research Centre, this is despite substantial public support. 

There is strong majority support for voting to be made mandatory in  Germany (66%), France (65%), the UK (63%), and the US (51%) - none of which has compulsory voting and three of which have crucial elections either right now or in the next five months. 

Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron: voting voluntarily

Further research in 2022 found that in the most recent national elections across its sample (OECD countries and a few others), the countries which enforced compulsory voting laws had average voting-age turnout of 78.2% (noting that many of the voting age population are not citizens and cannot vote), while those without compulsory voting laws had average turnout of 65%. 

For a more specific comparison, Australia introduced compulsory voting in 1924, at which point the percentage of those enrolled who voted jumped from around 60% to 90%, the level at which it has stayed in every federal election since. 

All that has been required to maintain this result by way of sanction is an explanation for not voting and a $20 fine if it's not good enough. 

The UK, on the other hand, without compulsory voting, had turnout of enrolled voters of around 75% in 1924 which dropped to 67% by 2019, not exceeding 70% in any election this century.

While the precise numbers can be debated, compulsory voting clearly increases expected turnout by an amount sufficient to influence posturing in any remotely competitive election. 

This matters. If politicians know that whether someone goes to the ballot box is not determined by political enthusiasm but rather ease, self-interest, or civic culture, a "get out the vote" strategy is likely to become less attractive than a "median voter" strategy. 

In other words, if politicians know their audience is going to vote regardless, they do not have to try to convince people to make the effort to turn up. Instead, they have to convince those who are truly deciding on the issues and the relative merits of the candidates. 

The protagonists of the British, French and American election campaigns will no doubt claim to want to govern for the whole country. But a close eye on both their policy positions and rhetoric might reveal that their system could benefit from giving them a stronger incentive to do so. 

Nathan Twibill is a researcher at the Law Commission of England and Wales