Natural election

The air is buzzing with excitement. First-time voters excitedly walk to the polling station with their proud parents in tow. Families bite their nails as they tune into live updates on their TV.

Well, not exactly. In fact, it could be any other day. Many are likely not even aware that local elections will take place today in 230 of England's 317 councils, with voters deciding the future of thousands of local seats.

Local elections are rarely met with much enthusiasm, yet their outcome has a substantial impact. Local authorities are responsible for many public services, including libraries, housing, refuse collection and transport.

In fact, 14% of England's overall spending on public services is done through local government, amounting to over £70bn per year.

And this year's results will be particularly telling. It is British prime minister Rishi Sunak's first electoral test, with pollsters predicting that the ConservativesA traditionally right-wing or centre right political party in the UK. Members are sometimes called Tories. will lose their grip on a number of significant councils in both the "Red wall" and the "Blue wall" to the Labour PartyThe main left-wing political party in the UK. and the Liberal DemocratsAlso known as the Lib Dems, a liberal political party in the UK. .¹

Conservative party chairman Greg Hands has predicted that his party will lose 1,000 seats, whilst Labour activists are reportedly estimating that the true figure could surpass 2,000. A ToryA member of the Conservative party.  bloodbath could cast doubt on Sunak's leadership and bring renewed force to party in-fighting.

It could be an exciting and historic chance for democracy to flex its muscles, pundits say. But turnout is expected to hit all-time lows amid widespread apathyLack of interest or enthusiasm. and the distraction of the coronation weekend.

Sunak is not the only one who will be tested by today's events. This election also marks the rollout of new voter ID laws, as voters will be turned away from polling stations for the first time if they do not have valid photo ID.

The scheme has been criticised heavily, both for its practicality - two million people across the UK do not currently possess a usable photo ID - and for its expense. The Cabinet OfficeThe Cabinet Office is part of the centre of government, alongside No 10 Downing Street and the Treasury. Its head office is near Downing Street.  estimated that the cost of enforcing the new ID could be as high as £180m across a decade.

Some fear that voter ID will also play its part in suppressing turnout, with many concerned that it will disproportionately affect young people, the unemployed and people with disabilities.² Thousands of potential voters are expected to be turned away tomorrow for turning up without ID.

Many are concerned by a lack of appetite for the electoral process. Democracy is an old tradition, deriving from the Athenian style of direct plebisciteWhen all of the members of an electorate directly vote on an issue. . Nowadays, many seem to regard it as more of a burden.

It has led some to argue that Britain needs to consider making voting compulsoryNot optional. . Around 15% of democracies around the world use mandatory voting, including Belgium, Argentina and Australia. 

It would certainly raise turnout, which has averaged at a measly 65% in the six general elections Britain have had so far in this millennium. But it would also even out voter demographics - people under the age of 35 are thought to be twice as likely to abstain as those over the age of 55 - meaning election results would likely be more reflective of the views of the general population.

But others worry that forcing reluctant voters to turn out would do nothing to tackle the underlying causes of political apathy, rather compelling them to tick a name on the ballot paper for the sake of it - and probably at random.

Yes: Forcing people to vote would lend more legitimacy to electoral winners and provide greater guidance about what the majority of the population actually wants. Currently, many voices are left unheard.

No: A key aspect of democracy is choice. To take away people's right to refuse to vote would be an unspeakable hypocrisy. Besides, many people do not vote because they are ill-informed - why force them to choose between candidates they know nothing about?

Or... There are better ways to deal with voters' apathy than force. Better education, incentives to vote and more political stability would all increase turnout.