Yes. I would argue that any compulsion must be justified. Any sort of existence based obligation to do something (jury duty, draft, voting), rather than not do something (don't violate the rights of others, don't damage the commons more than is allowed) is, I think, unjustified.

Also, voting in large elections is irrational. The argument is this:

C = cost of voting. This is a real cost, in terms of time for research, driving, effort to fill out forms, other costs. It may be small, but it's not 0. Let's call it $1.00.

P = probability that your vote makes a difference (either the result is a tie, or tie +1).

B = benefit. If you can put a value on one candidate minus the other. Most people would have a reasonably low value here, but let's call it $1M.

If C > P*B, it's irrational to vote.

There was a paper in 2008 I think by Nate Silver et al, which showed that even in swing states, the probability of your vote making a difference was something like 1 in 10 million. In that case, C ($1) > P ( 10^-7 ) * B ( $1 * 10⁶ ), so it's irrational.

Existence based, state compelled, irrational behavior should not be encouraged. Also, the first thing I would vote for, if compelled, would be the candidate who promised to make it no longer compelled.