Mandated Choice Policies: When Are They Preferable?

• Author: Jens Damgaard Thaysen,Andreas Albertsen
• Date: 01 September 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912920936361
• Published date: 01 September 2021
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920936361

Political Research Quarterly

2021, Vol. 74(3) 744 –755

© 2020 University of Utah

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1065912920936361

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

Article

Introduction

New Zealand and several U.S. states require applicants

for a driver’s license to choose whether to register as

organ donors: no choice, no driver’s license.1 As one of

several countries with compulsory voting, Australia fines

electors who fail to vote AU$202: no electoral choice, and

you are left AU$20 poorer. When states fine nonvoters or

withhold certain goods from those unwilling to choose

their donor status, they are pursuing mandated choice

policies. Although mandated choice policies are coercive,

legal obligations to choose differ from conventional legal

obligations and raise important questions about when

such policies are justified.

The work of Cass Sunstein has been a key contribution

to the literature on mandated choice policies. In his 2014

article and subsequent book on the topic, Sunstein (2014,

2015) sets out a range of criteria for choosing between

mandated choice policies and opt-out policies. Whereas

Sunstein focuses on both mandated choice policies intro-

duced by private companies and elected politicians, we

focus only on public mandated choice policies. More

importantly, while Sunstein compares mandated choice

policies with prominent alternatives such as opt-out poli-

cies, our focus is the justifiability of mandated choice

policies and how different mandated choice policies vary

in whether they are justified. This paper compares com-

pulsory voting and mandated choice in donor registration

to explore the nature of mandated choice as a tool of state

regulation and how to evaluate the appropriateness of

this tool. These two policies are chosen for comparison

because they represent two policy spheres where man-

dated choice policies are frequently suggested and

employed. Furthermore, as both policies have been

implemented in various places, there is actual legislation

in place which can be discussed. The section “Shared

Features for Mandated Choice Policies” discusses some

general features of mandated choice policies. The section

“Assessing Mandated Choice Policies” scrutinizes a

framework for evaluating mandated choice policies

developed by Sunstein and presents an alternative. The

section “The Relative Justifiability of Compulsory Voting

and Mandated Choice in Donor Registration” compares

compulsory voting and mandated choice in donor regis-

tration using the developed framework.

Shared Features for Mandated

Choice Policies

Compulsory voting and mandated choice in donor regis-

tration share the defining features of mandated choice

policies. Highlighting these contribute to our general

936361PRQXXX10.1177/1065912920936361Political Research QuarterlyThaysen and Albertsen

research-article2020

1Aalborg University, Denmark

2Aarhus University, Denmark

Corresponding Author:

Andreas Albertsen, Department of Political Science, Aarhus BSS,

Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 7, bygning 1340, 259, 8000 Aarhus

C, Denmark.

Email: aba@ps.au.dk

Mandated Choice Policies: When Are

They Preferable?

Jens Damgaard Thaysen1 and Andreas Albertsen2

Abstract

Under mandated choice policies, people are free to choose whichever option they prefer, but “choosing not to

choose” is penalized. In Australia, voting is mandatory, and abstaining is penalized with a fine. In New Zealand and

several American states, it is mandatory for those who want to obtain a driver’s license that they decide whether to

register as organ donors. If they fail to do so, they will not receive a driver’s license. Proponents of such policies stress

that they may be the least autonomy-infringing ways of achieving some good and provide society with knowledge

about people’s preferences and are, partly for these reasons, preferable to employing defaults. This article compares

mandated choice in voting and donor registration with respect to the ends served, how a mandated choice policy will

serve these ends, the distribution of burdens, and the nature of the possible options. It is argued that mandated choice

is more attractive in the context of donor registration.

Keywords

mandated choice, organ donation, compulsory voting, mandatory choice, voting ethics, active choice