Should voting be mandatory?

• Position: Debate

Last spring, President Barack Obama suggested that Americans be required to vote. "It would be transformative if everybody voted," he said. Many Americans don't exercise their right to vote, with participation in U.S. elections far lower than that in many other developed countries. In the 2014 midterm elections, 36 percent of eligible voters cast ballots, a record low since World War II. (In the 2012 presidential election, the figure was 54 percent.) Below, two experts--a fellow at a policy research organization and a law professor--weigh in on the idea of making voting mandatory.

[check] Analyze the arguments, cast your vote, and see instant results at upfrontmagazine.com

YES Twenty-eight countries, ranging from Brazil and Mexico to Singapore and Thailand, have some form of mandatory voting. The United States should join that list.

Consider the experience of Australia, whose political culture is quite close to that of the U.S. Alarmed by a decline in voter turnout to less than 60 percent early in the 20th century, Australia adopted mandatory voting in 1924; violators today are subject to a fine of about $15.

The results have been remarkable. In the 1925 election, turnout soared to 91 percent. In recent elections, it has hovered around 95 percent*, with most Australians now regarding voting as a civic obligation.

American citizenship today confers many rights but requires few responsibilities, especially since the abolition of the military draft in 1973. Requiring people to vote would reinforce the principle of reciprocity at the heart of citizenship: You must give to get. It would also make our democracy more responsive to the interests of all citizens, since elected officials are more likely to pay attention to those who vote.

Low voter turnout is one reason for the polarization of American politics: Hard-core partisans--very conservative Republicans and very liberal Democrats--are more likely to dominate elections when turnout is low. Moderate politicians often decide not to run because they know that the voters most likely to show up at the polls tend to support more extreme candidates.

Imagine our political system in a world of near-universal voting: Campaigns could devote far less money to get-out-the-vote efforts. Candidates would know they must appeal more to middle-ground voters without the most extreme views. Such a system would also improve our legislative process. Rather than focusing on symbolic gestures to appease partisans...