Compulsory voting and right-wing populism: mobilisation, representation and socioeconomic inequalities

Abstract

When all citizens vote, the influence of radical parties decreases.Despite this being a central justification for compulsory voting in the past, it has been absent from contemporary debates. I examine the normative and empirical premises of the 'moderation thesis' in relation to radical right-wing populist parties today and suggest that, under certain conditions, compulsory voting can limit these parties' appeal. First, it replaces the excessive mobilisation of discontented voters with a more universal mobilisation.Second, it addresses the problem of underrepresentation offering a more pluralist type of representation than the populist one. And third, it reverses socioeconomic inequalities that drive support for populism through the egalitarian effects that compulsory voting has on policymaking. My central thesis is this: because compulsory voting embodies inclusivist, pluralist and egalitarian values, it addresses some of the grievances that drive support for right-wing populist parties without carrying the same normative costs as populism.

Mainstream Voters, Non-Voters and Populist Voters: What Sets Them Apart?

“…Third, given that the evidence we present here demonstrates that mainstream voters, non-voters and populist voters maintain a distinctive relationship with the democratic regime, practical policy responses such as mandatory voting should perhaps be more carefully weighted in regard to potential consequences for the democratic regime (e.g. Malkopoulu, 2020). Comparing our findings with cases with mandatory voting like Belgium would appear promising for studying what happens when people are forced to vote even when they do not appear to have strong liberal democratic credentials.…”

Moving toward the Median: Compulsory Voting and Political Polarization

“…Singh (2021) examines whether party manifestos show evidence of moderation (that is by deemphasizing issue positions central to their ideologies such as social justice and equality for parties on the left and law and order for parties on the right). Malkopoulou (2020) focuses on support for rightwing populism. de Leon and Rizzi (2016) focus on support for extreme left parties.…”

Allotted chambers as defenders of democracy

“…However, we all agree that policy areas such as vote system choice or laws on political parties, that indirectly affect the power distribution between political parties, call for the consultation of randomly selected citizens. 13 Because citizens who tend to abstain are weaker partisans, obliging everyone to vote (i.e., compulsory voting) is thought to yield more moderate election results and shrink the presence of extremist parties in formal political arenas (Malkopoulou, 2020). 14 Both these facts help explain why American states are increasingly entrusting the redistricting process to independent bodies staffed through random draws from a pool of volunteers.…”

“…1313Because citizens who tend to abstain are weaker partisans, obliging everyone to vote (i.e., compulsory voting) is thought to yield more moderate election results and shrink the presence of extremist parties in formal political arenas (Malkopoulou, 2020). …”