The debate about compulsory voting.

• Author: Courtney, John C.

In 2004 Liberal Senator Mac Harb sponsored a bill in the Senate calling for the introduction of compulsory voting in Canada. The Harb bill on mandatory voting is one of only two to have been debated at any length in Parliament since Confederation. Over a century ago the same question was deliberated by the House of Commons as a result of private members" bills introduced by Guillame Amyot. As was also the case with Senator Harb's proposal none of the Amyot bills made it beyond second reading. This article compares the Harb and Amyot bills. Their arguments and analyses are revealing for what they tell us about the electoral politics of the time, the changed language of political discourse, and kinds of evidence that politicians more than a century apart employed in support of, or in opposition to, the proposals. In the 1890s compulsory voting was seen as a way of ending "electoral corruption;" in the early 21st century it was aimed at reversing declining voter turnout and at ensuring greater "political engagement." In terms of substantive argument the earlier debate was almost entirely without comparative reference points. That was not true of the later one. Even the titles given the bills by their respective sponsors may tell us something about the age in which they were introduced. The 1890s bill was called "An Act to make Voting Compulsory," in contrast to the arguably gentler form of obligation that was signaled by "An Act to make Voting Mandatory" in 2004.

**********

In three consecutive parliamentary sessions--1891, 1892, and 1893 a private members' bill on compulsory voting introduced by Guillame Amyot (Nationalist-Conservative, Bellechasse) was debated. (1) To Amyot the objective of compulsory voting was to secure "purity in politics." Elections, he maintained, had become corrupted through an odious custom in which parties, candidates, and voters took part. In a word, it as bribery. To ensure that their known supporters made it to the polls, candidates arranged for their transportation and, not infrequently, added a financial bonus to the voters once their vote had been cast. As described by Amyot:

One of the great troubles we [candidates] have to contend with during elections is to get the electors to the polls. A great many say: 'This year I am going if my day's work is paid, or I will go if they send for me.' This is a mere pretext to be bribed. They know that if anyone goes for them, that person will be provided with some money or something else [a bottle of whiskey?] to pay for their vote. (2) Of the handful of Members who debated the bills in the Commons (only ten MPs took part in the second reading stage in 1891, the largest number on any of the occasions on which the bill came before the House), none supported the charge of political corruption more than Sir Richard Cartwright (Liberal, South Oxford). He concluded that over his "very considerable number of years" in politics:

There are no sources of corruption in elections greater than those ... inflicted upon candidates by the temptation to bring persons from a distance to vote in any constituency. I know at the present moment enormous fraud and enormous corruption exists, and has existed for a number of years past in connection with the bringing of electors from distances. (3) Compulsory voting was supported as well as a way to end the "impersonating" of voters by others. According to Cartwright the practice was widespread of "bringing persons forward to represent men who for some time have been absent from a constituency." (4) If all electors were required to vote, so the logic went, then each elector would have to appear in person and impersonations would end.

The bills Amyot introduced in 1891 and 1892 were identical. They were also easily attacked by their critics, not so much on the grounds of introducing compulsory voting as for the penalties that could be levied should an elector not vote. Any elector without a "valid and sufficient excuse" who failed to vote would be liable to a fine not exceeding $50. (The equivalent in 2005 Canadian dollars would have been $1,104!). An elector defaulting on the fine could be imprisoned for up to 30 days and would be disqualified from voting in any election for the next five years.

In an unusual and much criticized section, Amyot's original bill also enabled any adult (elector or not) to recover the $50 penalty in an action for debt before a court of competent jurisdiction. In other words there was a financial incentive for those who squealed on non-voters and who sought to prosecute them in court. This did not sit well with other MPs, one of whom saw it as promoting a form of extortion that would lead to even more electoral corruption and would produce, in his opinion, a worse class of informers than had...