Compulsory Voting, Campaign Finance and Representation: A Comparative Study of How Things Might be Different if Everyone Voted

Big money in U.S. elections appears to be obstructing the representation of the average American in government. Yet, campaign finance regulation is unlikely to change in any meaningful way in the near future. The purpose of my... [ view full abstract ]

Big money in U.S. elections appears to be obstructing the representation of the average American in government. Yet, campaign finance regulation is unlikely to change in any meaningful way in the near future. The purpose of my senior year research has been to look at a potential alternative that might address the same bias in government—turnout. Some democracies around the world have a policy of compulsory voting—all eligible voters are obligated to show up at the polls on Election Day. Would nearly universal turnout counteract the big money bias introduced by lax campaign finance regulation? I am studying the interaction between compulsory voting and campaign finance as they related to quality of representation (how responsive a government/legislative body is to all of its citizens, not just corporations and those with money). I begin with a large-n regression analysis to see if the interaction term has an effect on representation in representative democracies. From my results, I chose 3 countries to study in-depth: Australia, Chile and Brazil. These three countries have enforced compulsory voting and varying strength and types of campaign finance regulation, allowing me to examine more closely the mechanisms by which these policies influence representation.