A surprising number of well-intentioned folk have commented recently how maybe voting should be compulsory and non-engagement punishable with a fine.
roger.c...@ntlworld.com
I think they’re asking the right question, just pointing it at the wrong lever. Apathy isn’t a personality defect; I think it’s a rational response to a system that keeps proving it doesn’t listen.
Roughly 30 percent not voting isn’t because millions of people woke up and thought “democracy is boring actually”. It’s because, over time, they learned that voting often changes the colour of the rosette but not the direction of travel. When wages stagnate, rents rise, public services decay and politicians keep their jobs regardless, disengagement isn’t laziness, it’s pattern recognition.
So, if the goal is to get people voting, punishment is the worst possible tool. Fining people for not voting just confirms the suspicion that democracy is something done to them, not with them.
You don’t build civic engagement by turning the ballot box into jury duty with worse PR.
The way you reduce apathy is painfully unglamorous.
First, make voting matter again. That means proportional representation so votes actually translate into representation, not safe seats where the outcome is decided before anyone queues at a primary school with a pencil on a bit of string. When people can see a direct line between their vote and a result, turnout rises. (This isn’t hypothetical.. it happens everywhere PR exists.)
Second, give people something real to vote for: clear manifestos, honest trade-offs, and policies that materially improve daily life. Not slogans, or “grown-up decisions” that somehow always land on the same people. When politics visibly changes lives, people re-engage.
Third, lower friction. Automatic voter registration, easier postal voting, elections on days people aren’t juggling three jobs (make it a bank holiday?) and a media environment that explains rather than sneers. A lot of non-voters aren’t apathetic, just exhausted.
Fourth, stop treating non-voters as morally deficient. Scolding people for disengaging from a system that keeps letting them down is like blaming passengers for not applauding the pilot after a crash landing.
Compulsory voting solves none of this. It boosts turnout numbers while hollowing out consent. You get more ballots, not more democracy. The disengaged don’t become engaged, they just become coerced.
If someone wants that 30 percent back, the answer isn’t “how do we force them”. It’s “what would make it worth their time again”.
That’s the uncomfortable bit, because it requires changing politics, not the public.