<![CDATA[The debate over compulsory voting has re-emerged amid rising abstentionism and declining voter participation in Indonesia's electoral democracy. The research gap addressed here is that prior studies on compulsory voting have proceeded in isolation: philosophical studies remain unresolved on whether democratic legitimacy justifies compulsory voting, comparative studies rarely engage constitutional doctrine, and Indonesian legal studies have not integrated the two. This study examines whether the right to vote may be reconstructed as a legally enforceable duty under Indonesian constitutional law, and assesses its implications for democratic legitimacy. Using normative legal research through statute, conceptual, and comparative approaches, this study analyzes Indonesia's constitutional framework, popular sovereignty doctrine, and the experiences of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, and Argentina. Results show the right to vote under the 1945 Constitution is an individual right rather than an enforceable duty, democratic legitimacy depends on the freedom and quality of voters' choices rather than sheer turnout, and non-coercive alternatives are more constitutionally defensible than sanction-based compulsion. The novelty lies in reconstructing five constitutional-normative principles political autonomy, substantive legitimacy, proportionality, non-discrimination, and subsidiarity of law to public trust that distinguish constitutional nudging from problematic compelling, a framework not yet articulated in prior Indonesian scholarship.]]>
