How to Answer a 30-Mark Source Question (Edexcel A Level Politics): Revision Note

Source

Compulsory voting

Supporters of compulsory voting argue that low turnout has become a serious problem for UK democracy. They point out that turnout at the 2024 general election fell below 60%, and that young people and those on low incomes are the least likely to vote. If everyone had to vote, they say, governments would have a stronger mandate, and parties would have to listen to all voters, not just those who reliably turn out. Supporters also argue that voting is a civic duty, like jury service, and that a small fine for not voting would quickly make voting a habit, as in Australia.

Opponents argue that compulsion would damage, rather than strengthen, democracy. In a free society, they say, the right to vote must include the right not to vote, and forcing people to the polls is an illiberal use of state power. They also warn that compulsion would add uninformed votes, which could make results more random rather than more representative. Some suggest that low turnout is a symptom of disillusionment with politics, and that making people vote would hide the problem rather than solve it. Instead, they argue, parties should give people a reason to vote.

Source: written by SME for this example

Using the source, evaluate the view that the UK should introduce compulsory voting.

In your response you must:

• compare and contrast different opinions in the source

• examine and debate these views in a balanced way

• analyse and evaluate only the information presented in the source.

[30 marks]

Model answer:

Turnout at the 2024 general election was 59.7%, the lowest since 2001, and has renewed the debate about whether the UK should make voting compulsory. [AO1] Compulsory voting is a legal requirement for registered voters to vote, usually enforced by a small fine, as in Australia. [AO1] Supporters see compulsion as a way to strengthen democracy, while opponents see it as a threat to liberty. [AO2] The source sets supporters' arguments about turnout, mandate and civic duty against opponents' arguments about liberty, informed choice and disillusionment. [AO2] This answer argues that the UK should not introduce compulsory voting, because the case against it deals with the causes of low turnout rather than its symptoms. [AO3]

The source's strongest argument for compulsory voting is that it would give governments a stronger mandate. [AO2] In 2024, Labour won a large majority on about 34% of the vote, at a turnout below 60%, so it was elected by roughly one in five of the electorate. [AO1] Supporters argue that if everyone voted, governments could claim to speak for the whole country. [AO2] This matters more under first-past-the-post, because the system already turns a minority of votes into a majority of seats, so a low turnout widens the gap between public support and power. [AO1] However, opponents in the source answer that compulsion would add uninformed votes, which could make results more random. [AO2] A mandate built on votes cast without interest or knowledge is not obviously stronger than one built on fewer, more considered votes. [AO3] On balance, the opponents' argument is more convincing here, because the legitimacy of a mandate depends on what voters are choosing, not just how many of them vote. [AO3]

The source also presents voting as a civic duty, comparable to jury service. [AO2] Australia has had compulsory voting since 1924, and turnout at federal elections is usually around 90%, which shows that compulsion can make voting a habit. [AO1] Because turnout there has stayed high across many decades, the source's claim that a small fine would quickly change behaviour has real support. [AO2] Opponents reply that in a free society the right to vote must include the right not to vote, and that compulsion is an illiberal use of state power. [AO2] This argument draws on a liberal view of rights, in which individuals, not the state, decide how to take part in politics. [AO1] The duty argument is weaker because jury service exists to make the courts work, while voting expresses a political choice, and a choice that is forced is no longer free. [AO3] Australia shows that compulsion is workable, but not that it is right. [AO3]

Finally, supporters argue that compulsory voting would make parties listen to all voters, including young people and those on low incomes. [AO2] At present, parties have an incentive to target groups who reliably vote, such as older voters, so policies on pensions are protected while issues affecting younger people receive less attention. [AO1] Issues such as housing costs and university tuition fees matter most to groups who vote least, so supporters argue that compulsion would bring them onto the political agenda. [AO2] Opponents agree that low turnout is a problem, but argue that it is a symptom of disillusionment, which compulsion would hide rather than solve. [AO2] Both sides therefore accept that unequal turnout distorts politics, but they disagree about the cure. [AO2] Supporters see the law as the quickest way to bring every group into the electorate, while opponents see the problem as one of trust, which no law can create. [AO2] The opponents have the better case, because forcing disillusioned voters to the polls does not make parties more trustworthy. [AO3] Their alternative, that parties should give people a reason to vote, tackles the cause directly. [AO3]

In conclusion, the UK should not introduce compulsory voting. [AO3] Supporters are right that low and unequal turnout weakens the mandate of governments, but the source's opponents show that compulsion would treat the symptom rather than the cause, and at the cost of a basic liberty. [AO3] If turnout keeps falling, pressure for reform is likely to grow, especially if a future government is again elected by around a fifth of the electorate. [AO3] Even so, the source’s alternative, that parties should give people a reason to vote, is a better answer than making voting a legal duty. [AO3]

Mark allocation:

• [AO1] knowledge and understanding, [AO2] analysis, [AO3] evaluation

• This answer reaches Level 5 (25–30 marks) because:

  • every paragraph pairs an argument from each side of the source

  • own knowledge (2024 turnout, Australia, party targeting) develops the source's arguments without adding new ones

  • each paragraph ends with a mini-judgement, and the conclusion follows from them

Common errors:

• Working through the source from top to bottom, so the two sides are never compared

• Adding new arguments from your own knowledge, which earn no AO2 or AO3 marks

• Ending with a summary of the paragraphs rather than an answer to the question

Alternative content:

• Whether young people and those on low incomes, whom the source names as the least likely to vote, would gain most from compulsion

• Whether compulsion is consistent with a liberal democracy that already makes jury service compulsory

Pair the arguments in your plan, not as you write. If you can draw a line from each argument for the view to the argument against that answers it, your paragraphs will compare the source rather than describe it.