Election and referendum voting should be compulsory in the UK

Why the UK Should Implement In-Person, Compulsory Voting Over One Week

The re-emergence of sectarian voting from the Islamic communities in the UK makes me increasingly worried about voter fraud and voter harvesting in the UK.

There is a good article here about political Islam in Tower Hamlets.

Sectarian voting - where people vote along religious, ethnic, or rigid ideological lines rather than on policy or merit undermines the principles of a representative democracy, weakens national unity, and allows identity politics to dominate elections. While political tribalism has always existed to some extent, sectarian voting entrenches divisions, fuels extremism, and prioritizes group identity over effective governance. I may write another article about just why this presents such a threat to the UK from the Islamists but I will concern myself here about how we can combat it.

The democratic process is at the heart of a functioning society, and ensuring high voter turnout is essential for legitimacy, representation, and political stability. The UK operates on a voluntary voting system, with options for postal and overseas voting, but this has led to concerns about electoral security, turnout disparities, and the coercion in certain voting blocs. Sir Eric Pickles reported on it as long ago as 2016.

Compulsory in-person voting over the course of a week could solve these problems and create a more engaged, representative, and secure democracy.

The Case for Compulsory Voting

One of the major flaws in the UK's electoral system is low voter turnout. In recent elections, participation has often hovered between 60% and 70%, with some groups - particularly younger and lower-income voters - consistently underrepresented. This allows certain demographics to wield disproportionate political influence while fostering policies that cater more to those who vote reliably rather than the whole population.

Compulsory voting, as implemented in Australia, addresses this by ensuring that elections reflect the true will of the electorate rather than just the most politically engaged or privileged groups. In Australia, turnout has consistently been over 90% since the introduction of compulsory voting in 1924, and the system is widely accepted as a cornerstone of its democratic success. The requirement to vote encourages political awareness, as citizens know they must engage with the issues before heading to the ballot box.

Critics may argue that forcing people to vote infringes on individual freedoms, but democracy is built on both rights and responsibilities. Just as citizens must pay taxes, serve on juries, and abide by laws, voting should be seen as a civic duty rather than an optional privilege. And this is key and something that we forget - the right to vote is both a privilege and an obligation.

Those who do not wish to vote for a particular candidate will always have the option to spoil their ballots, ensuring that their participation does not feel coerced but remains an obligation of citizenship.

Why In-Person Voting is Essential

The UK has relied increasingly on postal and overseas voting, which, while convenient, presents serious risks. Postal voting, in particular, has long been associated with concerns about fraud and coercion. In some communities, and lets be frank that this consistently means Islamic communities, there have been documented cases of ‘vote harvesting’ - where individuals collect and submit ballots on behalf of others, sometimes under pressure or manipulation.

It is not hard to see that in the Muslim household where the husband and father dominates that you won't be getting too many contrarian votes from the other members of the family. A postal vote is the perfect way to ensure that the 'right' candidate gets the vote.

Overseas voting, too, raises questions about fairness. While it is reasonable to allow expatriates to participate in elections, the logistics of ensuring that ballots are sent, received, and counted accurately can be challenging. More importantly, those living abroad for long periods may be less directly affected by UK policies than residents, yet they can still influence domestic outcomes. The fairest approach would be to limit voting to those physically present in the country, ensuring that the government is chosen by those who live under its policies day to day. I mean - they can always fly back for a week , can't they? And if they can't do that every 4 or 5 years then really they have no business voting.

By moving to an entirely in-person voting system, we would eliminate these vulnerabilities. Voters would be required to physically attend a polling station, present identification, and cast their votes in a secure environment. This approach drastically reduces the risk of fraud, coercion, or vote tampering while reinforcing the integrity of the democratic process.

Expanding the Voting Period to One Week

One of the common arguments against compulsory in-person voting is that it could be inconvenient for many people, particularly those with demanding jobs, childcare responsibilities, or mobility issues. However, a simple solution is to extend the voting period to an entire week rather than just one day.

A one-week voting window would provide flexibility while maintaining security and ensuring high participation. Workers on shift patterns, parents managing family responsibilities, and those with disabilities would have ample opportunity to find a convenient time to vote. Unlike a single election day, where weather, transport disruptions, or unforeseen personal circumstances can prevent participation, a week-long period would make voting accessible to all.

This approach has been successfully implemented in other democracies. In the United States, many states allow early voting to accommodate different schedules, though turnout remains inconsistent due to the voluntary nature of their system. With both compulsory and extended voting, the UK could create a gold-standard model that ensures both high turnout and security.

In fact, why don't we celebrate the entire process and the good fortune we have that we are allowed to determine who Governs us by making that day a bank holiday and encourage some street parties, merriment and drinking, 1981 Charles and Di marriage style?

Addressing Concerns and Implementation Challenges

You may argue that enforcing compulsory voting would be difficult or unpopular. However, the Australian model demonstrates that enforcement can be simple and effective. Those who fail to vote without a valid excuse (such as illness) receive a small fine, similar to a parking ticket. This is enough to encourage participation without being overly punitive. In the UK, such a system could be enforced through automatic notifications, and non-compliance could be handled with minor financial penalties or community service obligations.

Ensuring that all citizens can reasonably access polling stations could be addressed by increasing the number of polling places, making sure they are well-staffed and in accessible locations. Additionally, mobile voting stations could be introduced for hospitals, care homes, and remote areas to ensure that no one is disenfranchised.

Finally, concerns about voter apathy must be considered. Some argue that forcing disengaged people to vote will lead to uninformed or random choices. However, evidence from compulsory voting countries suggests the opposite - when people know they must vote, they are more likely to seek out information about policies and candidates. Political literacy improves when engagement is required rather than optional.

The Long-Term Benefits for UK Democracy

If the UK were to adopt in-person, compulsory voting over a week-long period, the benefits would be profound:

1. Higher Turnout and Political Legitimacy - With over 90% participation, the government would truly reflect the will of the people, increasing trust in democracy. This is something we desperately need.

   
   

2. Reduced Electoral Fraud and Coercion - Eliminating postal and overseas voting would close significant security loopholes and prevent vote manipulation. This is going to be increasingly necessary as we see the rise of sectarian voting.

   
   

3. Greater Political Awareness and Engagement - Citizens would become more informed about policies and elections, leading to better political discourse - and responsibility.

   
   

4. Fairer Representation - No demographic or social group would be able to dominate elections simply because they vote more reliably.

   
   

5. Enhanced National Stability - When everyone participates, political decisions are less likely to be driven by extremes, reducing polarization.

   
   
   
   

In the face of growing concerns about democratic integrity, voter apathy, and electoral security, the UK needs a system that ensures maximum participation, security, and fairness. Implementing compulsory in-person voting over one week is the most effective way to achieve this. It would make elections more representative, secure, and accessible while reinforcing the fundamental democratic principle that every voice matters.

Time is running out for us in the UK. I think we have 4 years left to save this nation. This is something that Labour will not consider but I think it should very firmly be on Reform's radar.