Imagine this dialogue:
American citizen: "So you mean that if you Australians don’t vote, you get a fine?"
Australian citizen: "Yeah, and when you Americans don’t vote, you get George W. Bush."
As surely as politicians lie, citizen apathy produces democracy atrophy. Much more than a right – in a democracy voting is an irrevocable civic duty. No mental gymnastics can help you jump over this ugly reality: Voter turnout in all American elections averages markedly less than half of eligible voters. This disgrace must be fixed.
Here are my proposed solutions: We should make voting mandatory, give voters the option of “none of the above,” make Election Day a national holiday, provide same day registration everywhere, and lower the voting age to 16.
No single reform is a panacea. But together, these five reforms can dramatically re-energize voting in America. They could be placed in one constitutional amendment and ratified by the states in time for the 2008 presidential election. Limiting public support, however, is an elitist mindset among people with political power, wealth and intellectual arrogance. They wrongly dismiss large numbers of citizens for their lack of education or political involvement. Electoral reforms can create a culture of voting that ultimately produces a more informed public.
Mandatory Voting
This is not a radical idea. Over 30 countries have compulsory voting. Violating the law usually merits something akin to a parking fine, but it still works. When Australia adopted it in 1924, turnouts increased from under 50 percent to a consistent 90-plus percent. Conversely, when the Netherlands eliminated compulsory voting in 1970, voting turnouts plunged from 90 percent to less than 50 percent. Polls regularly show 70 percent to 80 percent of Australians support mandatory voting. Research found that people living in countries with compulsory voting are roughly twice as likely to believe that their government is responsive to the public’s needs and 2.8 times as likely to vote as compared to citizens in countries without compulsory voting. Is compulsory voting inconsistent with personal freedom? No! We have compulsory education, jury duty, and taxes that are more onerous than voting periodically. And all people have to do is turn out to vote. What they do with their secret ballot is up to them.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Clavos
Some good ideas, especially mandatory registration, counting dissatisfaction, and same day registration with proper ID.
I'm not sure about letting 16 year olds vote.
I'm surprised you didn't address the idea of voting online: did I miss it?
Good article, and a theme which very much needs exposure and discussion.
2 - Joel S. Hirschhorn
I know some people want to see more voting by mail or even online. But one reason why I wrote about making Election Day a national holiday is to make voting a social, family and community activity that brings people out of their home-based social isolation to mingle and talk with others about voting, politics and government. We need a lot more old-fashioned conversations as politically engaged citizens.
3 - Clavos
Fair point.
It would be nice to have a choice, however.
4 - moonraven
When they start COUNTING ALL the votes--instead of just throwing away those that aren't convenient (they never count any absentee ballots), I might consider voting again.
5 - Mohjho
Didn't Saddam Hussein and Joseph Stalin implement mandatory voting?
6 - Sisyphus
Yes, voting is mandatory in Australia, where politics and politicians are no better than in the U.S. After all, mandatory voting resulted in the Aussies' current PM, John Howard. I rest my case. :)
7 - Clavos
After all, mandatory voting resulted in the Aussies' current PM, John Howard. I rest my case. :)
Does Aussie mandatory voting also mandate who one votes for, too?
8 - Sisyphus
"Does Aussie mandatory voting also mandate who one votes for, too?"
Of course not, which is sort of my point. Forced voting doesn't equate to a more informed electorate. On the contrary, where voting is voluntary, at least theoretically, the voters have an interest in the issues and candidates or they wouldn't be voting. Mandatory voting almost guarantees a less informed vote.
9 - Clavos
Mandatory voting almost guarantees a less informed vote.
Or it might stimulate the public to become more informed and take a greater interest.
Either way, it will tend to reduce the effect of a small group forcing their agenda on the entire population.
10 - troll
I (almost) would go for mandatory participation if 'none of the above' were put on all ballots as suggested by the author as a meaningful option requiring a new nomination process and re-vote if 'none of the above' gets the majority of votes...
further - IMO mandatory participation is desirable as it would clarify a 'no vote' as an act of civil disobedience
11 - Clavos
@#10:
Agree on both your points, troll (!!)
12 - moonraven
Nobel Laureate José Saramago wrote a book a couple years ago called AN ESSAY ON LUCIDITY--in which folks voted in blank en masse. They called new elections and it just continued to happen. A very interesting read by a writer with an uncommon grasp of politics.
13 - Jonathan Scanlan
In my honest opinion, mandatory voting should really be coupled with a preferential system. If you have a "no vote" box at the bottom, then voting is just a nuisance for those less interested.
However if you have preferences, then that means that people can either drop it in the box without ticking anything, or their vote can count when their particular candidate doesn't actually get through.
From what I've seen, this leaves the public weighing up different parties and politicians in comparison. And it means that the major parties have to compete for the prefs of the minors.
14 - STM
Clav: What does happen with mandatory voting is that the two main parties are less polarised. They don't have to manufacture issues to get the attention of voters. Voting is also preferential, rather than first past the post ... the Liberals are at the bottom of the pile on my ballot card when I vote. That means you can have two choices: if I want to register a protest vote, I'll vote for an independent or another party that will at least give its preferences to Labor, so I know it hasn't been wasted in the final wash-up. Yes, people do become more informed about the political process - but they become more informed about the real issues rather than things that have been manufactured to win votes.
You also don't have to vote. You can go to a polling station, have your name crossed off the electoral list as having voted, and put in an informal vote if you wish. It's not a perfect system, but it works for us. Can't see it happening in the US, though, what with all those arguments about Constitutional rights, 1st amendments and the like :)
15 - STM
And I'll add to this ... my view on compulsory voting and the benefits: democracy isn't just a right, it's a privelege, and carries certain responsibilities in return. One of those is to vote.
16 - Clavos
One of those is to vote
That, and helping in the defense of your country (assuming real need), are the two most important obligations of citizens in free societies, IMO.
17 - Sisyphus
Clavos: "That, and helping in the defense of your country (assuming real need), are the two most important obligations of citizens in free societies, IMO."
Yes, comparing mandatory voting to the draft is an interesting analogy.
18 - STM
Yes, I agree totally. It's what constitutes time of need that's always the bugbear, though.
19 - troll
Nationalism Blows
20 - STM
Blows what? Or who?
21 - STM
Calling Clavos: mate, with summer coming up, would you like me to send you your very own genuine Slouchie, BTW? There would be only one caveat - don't wear the bastard with the side folded up.
22 - troll
dead bears
23 - jaz
for troll in #19
imo, ANY -ism, -ology or hyphenated-American is bullshit
that's why it's called Reason...
but i digress
24 - STM
BTW Joel, as I've expressed to other commentators, I agree with the premise that America is no longer a genuine democracy ... it's now just an amorphous political system that exists only for those who can afford to subsidise or lobby politicians - many of whom want the power and prestige that goes with public office but not the responsibility that goes with truly representing their constituents.
25 - jaz
ummm...sorry to be picky...but the U.S. has NEVER been a democracy
we're a representative Republic...thank you very much...elected with democratic process
minus five from your term paper, Stan
heh