Band 8.5 model answer

In a number of democracies, citizens are legally obliged to cast a ballot at election time. While some regard this as an infringement of personal freedom, I believe that compulsory voting is, on the whole, a sound policy.

The central argument in its favour concerns the legitimacy of government. When voting is optional, turnout is frequently low and skewed towards the wealthy and the elderly, with the result that elected officials represent only a narrow slice of society. Compulsory participation produces a parliament that genuinely reflects the whole population, and a government chosen by ninety per cent of citizens can claim a mandate that one chosen by forty per cent simply cannot. Obliging everyone to take part also encourages people to inform themselves about the issues, fostering a more engaged and politically literate citizenry.

Critics, of course, object that forcing people to vote violates the very freedom that democracy is meant to protect, and that citizens dragged reluctantly to the polls may cast careless or random votes. These concerns deserve acknowledgement, yet they are not insurmountable. Compulsion need only extend to attendance, not to making a choice: voters can still spoil their ballot or select a "none of the above" option, so individual conscience is preserved while the habit of participation is entrenched.

On balance, the benefits clearly outweigh the drawbacks. A modest legal duty to attend the polls seems a small price for a more representative and accountable democracy.

In conclusion, although compulsory voting can be portrayed as a limit on freedom, I am convinced that its capacity to boost turnout and strengthen democratic legitimacy makes it a policy well worth adopting.