Of voter turnouts and electoral reforms

This article was written sometime ago

Photo courtesy of bkrealtist

As we all know, voting is compulsory. Hence, the interesting question is what happens if we do not vote?

According to the authority’s election website, when an eligible voter doesn’t turn up on Polling Day, the latter will be included in the list of non-voters that will be passed to the Registration Officer, who will remove his name from the certified register of electors. The next question is what penalties will the non-voter incur? Well, for one, the non-voter is disqualified from voting at subsequent presidential and parliamentary elections. Secondly, the latter is also disqualified from being a candidate in future presidential and parliamentary elections.

Hence, what happens if the non-voter wishes to get his name back on the register of electors to be eligible for voting at future elections? Well, the latter has to apply to the Registration Officer with an explanation behind his absence on that fateful Polling Day. If the reason is not sufficiently compelling, he has to pay a penalty of $5.00 to restore his name to the register.

Analyzing the trends for the past elections from 1997 onwards, the percentage of voters who didn’t turn up in 1997 was 4.1%. In 2001, the non-turn-out percentage increased to 5.4%, and in 2006, the non-turn-out was further increased to 6%. Imposing this current rule means that a growing number of Singaporeans will be disqualified from voting, assuming they didn’t (or a few did) make any attempts to get their names back to the register.

The imposition of such a rule and the growing non-voting percentage will have implications on the cohort of eligible voters, which will obviously shrink (e.g. if 20 out of 120 voters, do not vote in the last elections, assuming they did not attempt to restore their names to the register, there will be 100 eligible voters. If 20 more do not vote in the current elections, and the latter didn’t restore their names again, that means 40 voters are not allowed to vote in future).

The question we should be asking is whether such a harsh rule should exist in the first place? If we really believe that human nature can change for the better, then do we need to penalize ($5) those whom are dis-interested in the past but have since matured into responsible Singaporeans who vote diligently?

The other question we should be asking is if striking the voter’s name off the register is also just as harsh? Is there a need for such a course of action in the first place? If one does not participate in the state elections, is the state justified in taking away the voter’s rights to vote in the next elections. There is no reason why such a course of action should even be pursued. The state may argue that it may be a waste of time and resources to process the particulars and paperwork of those who do not even vote at an election. However, that in itself is not ample justification. The processing of particulars and paperwork for the entire electorate is a logistic issue, its efficiency is decided by the technicalities of the processing rather than the “additional inconvenience posed by non-participating voters”. Besides, the processing system is designed to handle the maximum population of eligible voters, hence the explanation of resource taxation is not justified.

The other interesting question to ask is whether non-participation is considered a vote in itself. A voter may decide not to vote for any of the contesting parties in his ward because he may have a favorite party not contesting in his ward or he doesn’t support either party. Thus, it will be interesting to deliberate on such a question. Say for instance, if a non-participating voter in a previous election gives an explanation to the Registration Officer that he doesn’t support either of the political parties contesting in his ward, thus he doesn’t show up. Is that considered a sufficiently good reason and he will not be penalized $5? How is a no-show under such circumstances different from a spoilt vote then?

Indeed, the increasing trend of voters not turning up is worrying, and this could only result in the eligible voter population shrinking. If the voter doesn’t turn up, he has to restore his name to the register. But, this gives rise to another pertinent question – is the deliberate decision not to turn up be considered a form of vote – the non-support for contesting parties. Is that reason compelling enough to escape the penalty fee of $5? Thus, is it time for a rethink and reformation of our electoral rules?