Everyone would vote if it was an app, stupid outdated booths. Imagine if banking was still that antiquated.
3
I'm not sure why all these studies assume that the people who don't vote are less informed than the people who do vote. There's no reason that an increase in voter turnout is also an increase in misinformed voters. Indeed, often the most passionate and loud arguers about politics are the most wrong.
1
One possible effect is not mentioned in this article: If voting were mandatory, then "riling up the base" would not be so important. Right now, the extremist vote is all a question of turnout; i.e. a moderate candidate might not excite a far right-winger or left-winger and so the voter might stay home on election day. But no Bernie Sanders supporter, if forced to go to the polls, is going to vote for Trump out of spite. No Tea Partier is voting for Hillary just because the republican is too moderate. So exciting the base is entirely motivated by a question of what percent of the base get out to vote.
At this point, I think the biggest problem in american democracy is the polarization--both parties are so focused on getting high turnout from their base that all forms of compromise or bipartisan cooperation are political poison, to the detriment of having functional government. If mandatory voting would ease this, perhaps that would be a step back from dysfunction.
2
Basically Republicans have to cheat and intimidate to win, because their policies hurt the majority of voters who work vs. speculate with other people's money. This leads those with less to consider the system rigged and their vote a pointless waste of time. Sadly, they are often correct.
1
Bi-partisan politics is like two sports team and it’s always Liberals vs. Conservatives, with both sides automatically opposing each other on every issue.
Candidates from both sides are crafted like how the music industry crafted boybands. For the Dems they’re essentially trying various degrees of cloning Obama, with candidates who now follow his mannerisms, speech patterns, and dress style (e.g. Cory Booker, Beto O’Rourke) and with Repubs they keep putting up the same conservative caricatures.
It’s a manipulative game and I hope one day we have a viable 3rd party candidate with a fair balance.
I usually vote 3rd party but I know it’s futile and I think most people who see things the way I do chose not to bother voting for these insincere candidates.
If people can't be bothered to jump through the minimal hoops of registration, why would we trust them to jump through the more onerous ones of actually getting a clue about the issues and candidates?
@Jon That was a great line if false equivalence. The hurdles set up by GOP-people whose insidious intention is to make it hard for peole to vote is simply shameful. How you make yourself informed is a completely different issue.
1
If having a say in who governs you is important to you, you make the effort to vote. If it isn’t, you don’t. We don’t need to treat people like children. Adults should take responsibility and exercise their right to vote. If they choose not to, for whatever reason, they should not complain about who governs them.
@Leo Corrigan Sorry, but are on the wrong page, this piece is essentially about intentional manipulation of the voter procedure to make it hard for fellow citizens of your country with the "wrong" opinions to vote. You may label it "GOP driven voter manipulation" and it should be condemned as morally corrupt.
As a Belgian who has been living in the US for 2 years, I have thought a lot about this topic. Voting is mandatory in Belgium which I now realize is not the norm.
From my experience, mandatory voting can definitely lead to uninformed voting. Many people I know just vote like mom and dad told them to, which makes it difficult to tip the balance and improve.
BUT, I also strongly believe that citizens have rights and duties. Voting is one of those duties. I understand that freedom of choice is very important for Americans so I would advise that if you don't want to vote for someone, make sure that you vote AGAINST the people who would strip you from your voting right.
Also, if you don't elect people representing your opinion, you are giving up your right to complain about how your country/state/town is managed...
Thank you for this article!
2
@Julien Forthomme That was a great piece of advice: "If you can't find your candidate: Vote AGAINST those who want to strip you from your voting rights."
Americans should ask themselves, why isn’t exercising their right to vote mandatory?
Because one party would not be able to disenfranchise voters who don’t support their candidate. That’s why.
I wish a law could be made which makes it mandatory to vote or else face a financial penalty like a tax.
2
@Manderine
I concur, but only if civics class is mandatory in junior high schools nationwide. Our populace must understand how the government operates.
1
Let’s start with Saturday-Sunday voting. It’s easy. It’s non-controversial. It’s fair.
1
@Steve Cohen
No, it's not. Some religious dictates, as well as work schedules, may impede weekend voting.
How about the option of nationally mandated mail voting or the traditional Tuesday polls considered a national holiday (or half-day)? Then we all have the choice of either mailing it in or having time off work to vote.
1
During late summer 2016 documentary filmmaker Michael Moore traveled around our nation trying to discover what Americans were actually thinking. Based on the degree of public indifference and apathy that he encountered he predicted that Trump would beat Clinton. Long reflection on that disillusioning experience led him to observe that our largest political party isn’t the “Democratic” or “Republican”, but non-voters. They hold our destiny and ultimate fate in their hands and couldn’t care less.
Our plebiscite system is deliberately designed to facilitate their indifference so, I suppose, one start-point should be to reform it. And would be, if the oligarchy controlling the greater whole, our political system, didn’t believe that widespread non-voting is to its benefit. Our legislatures are corrupted by legions of lobbyists and crippled by intramural competition, so among incumbent politicians self-interest predominates. Their primary focus isn’t making wise, effective policy but “dialing for dollars”, fund-raising for their next re-election campaign. So they try to sell as many votes as possible to the highest bidder while pretending that they are doing no such thing.
I see no possibility that our election systems will be reformed to encourage participation, as happens in Australia and other countries.
2
It would be a great thing if everyone voted, then each major political party would honestly try to get each person's vote, instead of trying to suppress the votes of those that they can't appeal to.
2
Most democracies hold their elections on week ends for obvious reasons. The fact that the US does not do this is yet another indication that the country has yet to become a real democracy.
3
Thank you, Ms Badger.
For me this issue should be at the top of every party plank and the focus of many expensive ads.
2
Compulsory voting would be a sure fire way of making those who are supposed to represent all of us turn their focus away from the Kochs of the world. Getting big money out of politics and compulsory voting would represent a Democratic system. The current system has been rigged and manipulated into a contorted mess that serves the wealthy above all. How can we as "leaders of the free world" even pretend to profess ourselves as such with a straight face under the current system is beyond me. Lies and manipulation driven by greed are the opposite of a free society. Clearly people must see this, right? Wake up. VOTE
4
An underlying assumption being made by those quoted in this article is that people who already vote are actually "informed" voters rather than simply those who have the time and resources to vote, and assumes that anyone who doesn't currently vote is "uninformed"--it is a narrative that is reductive and simplistic.
Imagine you live in Alabama, where your photo ID must accurately match the voter records, which assumes you have resources to get a photo id, a stable home address, a way to get to ID stations (closed by the dozens in poor areas), and the time and money to get an ID. To vote, you have the time to stand in line at a polling place relying on volunteers (volunteers/voting materials affects wait time), & that you can take off work (heaven forbid you're an hourly worker who needs those wages), and/or find childcare, and have a way to get you to the polling place. For those of us who have stable home addresses, resources, and jobs that allow time for voting, this doesn't sound like a big deal and it is simply inconceivable that people don't just exercise their right to vote, but try to appreciate how limiting these factors can be for a significant number of our citizens.
It is so much more than the tidy delineation that "informed" voters show up and anyone who doesn't is "uninformed"-and it is ludicrous to perpetuate the narrative that elections are the result of "informed" voting rather than evidence of those who have voting resources and those who don't.
9
Hi, Ashlee,
By the very fact that I had to prove some type of verification that I'm human to type this should speak measures. By simply providing a comment to you, I'm being tracked. Whether I like it or not, I'm sacrificing my anonymity to provide my thoughts to your critique of the piece. The collective We have a right to privacy, but no longer.
Information is the key to success and success should be measured by those who use said information. There have been many articles about how to navigate information, but unfortunately I don't know any that speak to how to use the information. Registering to vote is no different than informing oneself to use information.
Getting out to vote is no different. Such as applying physics is no different.
Should one consider casting a vote, they shall be informed. But who am I to tell the difference in informed. Typically, the state government handles that. Immediately after that, it is incumbent on the individual to acknowledge that casting a vote is a choice and often times hard.
Civic duty is hard to follow through with, and often times hard to comprehend. Should the individual be allowed to vote? Yes, if they are American and pay for the services for said Americans.
1
@TJ It's great with 'information' but it's greater to process it wisely TJ! That means ie, to focus on the relevant parts of any complex issue, like your final lines of Americans right to vote. Noone argues against that whether they pay their fees or not.
A few observations from someone who has lived in many countries but is a citizen of Australia (and a huge fan of compulsory voting).
Recently, Australia had a non- political binding postal survey on same-sex marriage (ie. our parliament wasn't legally required to even follow the results, and unlike in regular elections, Australians were not legally required to vote). Whilst the politicking behind why this even occured in the first place is tedious and complicated- the relevant fact here is that almost 80% of Australians over 18 voted! I will say that again 80%!
The thing about compulsory voting is that it makes it clear that representative democracy is actually a participatory system. The entire public need to be involved if democracy is going to do what it says it is on the box - "Represent the People".
The thing I absolutely love about compulsory voting is that it means the government has to make it incredibly easy for people to vote. Our elections are always on a Saturday, you can vote all day, you can vote at any booth in the country and every local school will have a polling booth. If you can't vote on the day, you can vote earlier at pre-poll booths (not as many as on election day- but still most people could access one fairly easily). Or you can also do postal voting. Oh, and as a traveller- if you happen to be oversees- you can just pop into an Australian Embassy and vote there.
I was filled with horror to hear how hard it is to vote in the USA-
15
@Xena-
It’s also a question of scale.
Australia is a small country. Huge, geographically. But most of its population is concentrated in its southeastern corner, the coastal cities and towns from Brisbane in the northeast to Adelaide in the south. Sydney. Canberra. Melbourne. Roughly equivalent to a half-dozen midsize American states (Kentucky, Iowa, Arkansas, Nebraska, Georgia and Tennessee).
That compactness and commensurate communality makes it much easier to achieve political consensus there than here, although watching the near civil war waged over Alexander Downer’s fate almost a quarter century ago shows that some things are as impossible there as here.
Maybe the question should be "What if Everyone Who Voted Paid Taxes?
@Gerry Everyone with the possible exception of the wealthy pays taxes. Two things no person can avoid - death and taxes. This should include voting in a representative democracy. America has always had a poor grasp of democracy. We are good at the language of democracy, not so good at the practice.
1
@Gerry
What if every voter got a $500 tax deduction.
1
Only when you think your colored (blue/red) team will win does this even make sense.
Clearly, ALL informed citizens of age should vote.
Uninformed citizens voting is nonsense and does not mean representation or anything of the sort, it just fudges informed voters with random uninformed voters, mostly voting to gain some service at no cost to them but at a cost to other citizens.
Just as the NFL doesn't get better if they let everyone play, neither does an election reflect wise choices if everyone votes.
4
@David Is the president currently encouraging wise voting by practicing demagoguery?
Is wisdom a poll tax in your mind, something to be achieved before you can become self-governing?
Self governing people vote in their own representatives to run their own government.
I have no faith in the wisdom of the Republican party when they support lying and cheating as acceptable practices in government.
2
The Republicans have stolen the 2000, 2014, 2016 elections.
The result was wars, a deep recession, retirements lost.
Forget the Russians, the hacking was done by Republicans, with minority precincts in many states given voting machines that didn't work, or register the vote for President. Add Koch funded Interstate Crosscheck, and voter Id, and the picture is clear, the Republicans are in power illegitimately, and now are packing Federal courts, and the SCOTUS with illegitimate picks. Mitch McConnel has played a key role illegally in packing the Fed appeals courts. This will only garner pro corporate decisions, how the 1% want it.
Our government is now illegitimate due to the theft of our elections. It appears the voter purges and other tricks used by Republicans will once again be challenges too late by private entities, the DNC has been AWOL protecting our sacred vote.
is it perhaps due to the sidling up to corporate interests by the old guard of the DNC?
Voting should be convenient, either by mail, or online. If the banks can secure with 100% accuracy your purchases, and use encryption, there is no reason the people cannot vote online, and receive a copy of their ballot similar to a receipt.
For far too long our sacred vote has been disenfranchised, our Democracy subverted. This is the cornerstone of our Democracy, it is time to end the Republicans attack, and ensure all legal Americans of age can vote.
10
@ecoalex, it's the Democratic districts that keep"finding" ballots. When Michigan had to do that ridiculous recount for Jill Stein, it was Detroit that had irregular ballots. Detroit is not Republican!
"No state offered elections entirely by mail before 2000. "
Not only isn't this really true, Oregon had many vote by mail elections before 2000. But it is totally misleading in the context of changes wrought by Bush/Gore. Oregon passed a measure to go entirely to vote by mail in 1998. 2000 was the first presidential election held in Oregon using vote by mail, it clearly was NOT a response to the 2000 election.
But hey, it supports your narrative so who cares?
What we ought to do is pay every citizen $500 for voting. The real problem is that elections now are almost all about turnout, which means emotional appeals that motivate people to vote and attacks that will discourage voting for a candidate are the order of the day. Good media, lousy for self-government.
2
Is it possible that our vaunted two-party system is to blame for the low voter turnout? In the last election, I judged neither candidate worthy of the office and thus didn't expend the energy to press a box on a screen.
Voter turnout will increase when there are candidates worthy of the time and effort to register. Perhaps a third, credible, party would help?
@Utterly Clueless The expected impact of an individual vote is small, so it's small expected value typically dwarfs the marginal cost of casting it. Thus, at the individual level, non-voting is rational.
Contrast this to the payoff for Charles Koch who spent hundreds of millions over the past 40 years on his hobby of turning the country right. Given his fortune, the relative for his "fun" was negligible -- imagine his delight when, in contrast to a typical voter, his activity yield a vast ROI of what he put in.
So there you have it. Getting to the polls for a regular individual is at the individual level, a waste of time. Giving hundreds of millions to move votes with fear is a great investment for a Charles Koch.
The Australian system in which non-voters are charged a small fine ($20) changes this calculus for almost no cost. It would really work (registration of qualified voters and turnout there is typically in the 90% range). People who'd prefer low participation claim "philosophical" reasons to be against such a system.
But we all know better.
4
@Utterly Clueless We don't need a third party that can't win (very hard in a winner takes all vote...extra parties only help in parliamentary where non-majorities still get some representation). What we need is to remove party labels from all voter materials and elections.
We need good candidates, not more parties.
3
@David
You realize that congress is organized around two parties? The majority party makes the decisions.
The quality of the candidates may matter in the aggregate, but deciding which party to caucus with is the biggest impact almost any elected legislator or congressmen will have.
Voting for the person, not the party, is really dumb unless you don't think there is any difference between what the parties will do. Removing the label from the ballot is demanding that people vote in ignorance.
1
The GOP...the party is like a bad bacterial infection threatening to destroy the entire body. Flipping the House would be a much needed antibiotic.
4
I'm white. I'm over 50. I think everyone who is over 18 and a citizen should be able to vote. No random rules. No "requirements". Just proof you've registered.
I don't care what ethnicity, age or gender the voters are. I don't care if it looks like I'll be in a minority. The only minorities I'll be in are constructs someone else has placed on me. As an American, as a human, and as an adult, I support more people voting, because that's the right thing to do.
Please don't tell me I'll lose if more people vote. We will all win. Each and every one of us.
15
@Michelle Without an ID, how do you know who they are or where they live? Voting is based on states, counties and districts, and without a residence, how do you know that a voter belongs where they want to cast their ballot?
2
We have many problems with voting and with our system of electing officials, especially to the two highest offices, president and vice-president. First, the two major parties have a lock on the system and are written into laws in most states. Their status on the ballot is automatic. An effort has been made to include third parties or independent candidates, but there is no way for it to succeed, barring a revolution at the ballot box, given the Electoral College.
Furthermore, the Electoral College system discourages participation. If you favor candidate A but you are certain your state will support candidate B for president, why bother? Your vote will be wiped away by the majority in your state. If we had a system where both the popular vote and the EC determined the outcome, there might be 10 to 20 million more votes in a presidential year. That alone would change the course of America and more accurately reflect public will.
These and other facts about our democracy do not require a Ph.D. in political science to see and understand. Where is the public debate? Where is the effort to make reforms and secure our nation's future? Nowhere.
To be a politician in America is to be bound to one of the two major parties and thus fearful of anything that might weaken the one you are in. We need principled, true leaders who will work to reform matters, top to bottom.
5
@Doug Terry Ranked choice voting is part of the answer.
2
@Doug Terry Because we are a republic, not a democracy. We are "united states" not "united citizens."
But I agree that "winner takes all" is a bad solution for all minority ideas like green parties, libertarians, socialists, etc. Our "winner" often doesn't even have a majority.
1
@Doug Terry-
The Electoral College exists to give small low-population states like Iowa, South Dakota, Nebraska and Rhode Island some political leverage against the colossi: Texas, California, Massachusetts, Florida, Pennsylvania and New York. Otherwise, the colossi would dominate them, crowd them out. Their needs and interests would be ignored — like Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.
I heard years ago that if everyone voted, Democrats would never lose. It may seem far-fetched to some but I believed it at the time and believe it more than ever now.
Which party is constantly trying to affect how people can vote? Hmmm. Wonder why.
11
How someone can argue that "everyone" voting (OK, even 90%) is a bad idea is beyond me. Holding that view means they call into question the actual concept of popular elections. The only basis for that argument is that they don't want certain people to vote. I am not totally on board with requiring people to vote but am very on board with reforms related to voting day scheduling, absentee or early voting, secure voting, national standards for national offices, accessibility of polling places, and many others.
Australia famously requires people to vote. Lately their government is more like Italy than Italy. I think they have had five PMs in six years. That is not down to required voting, but required voting doesn't mean better government, just a more publicly-sanctioned government. (There is also a big difference in multi-party proportional elections vs. first past the post elections. It's difficult to compare but I still prefer the latter.)
As for voter fraud, well, that's a problem the US would like to have. People are hardly beating down the doors to vote, risking fines and prison for the sake of casting a vote. The problem is the opposite - not enough people want to vote. And one political party intends to keep it that way.
6
@Stevenz the major effect of compulsory voting is to drive electoral success to the centre, and removing the get out the vote factor.
Politicians are then motivated to recruit the centre, rather than activate their base.
Australia suffers from the same rabid partisanship as the US; the difference is that the Liberals (yes, that's really their name but it's not who or what they are), the local analog of the Republicans hijacked by the Tea Party, have lost a heartland electorate in a by election triggered by the disposal of a sitting PM, and will likely lose government by historic margins in the next election.
Compulsory voting moderates politics: I didn't like it in principle before moving here from the UK, but it's just better.
1
@Stevenz There is a constant refrain about some marginalized group that is blocked from voting when the vast numbers of regular citizens simply care not to vote (they aren't blocked).
The ultimate solution to the problem of uninformed voters is to make smarter voters. The U.S. should double the percentage of its GDP devoted to education.
7
@Charles Packer ,,,and, by the way, spread the resources much, much more evenly.
5
@Charles Packer...About 220 million Americans (out of 330 million) only graduated HS. And about 40 million didn't finish HS. That's a very large percentage who are under-educated and not capable of understanding larger issues. Educate them? Leaders don't want that. Certainly not Trump. Industrial leaders don't want a thinking populace. They want good workers who don't think at all. Politicians make their living by playing to the frightened ignorant. They don't want to suddenly educate them. It's up to the individual to get educated. But, the history of this lowly-educated, reactionary populace show people will never educate themselves. Living a fantasy life with superstitious beliefs is much easier and is more suited to lower IQs. Give precious money to education? Not happening.
4
@bb Like many who read the NY Times, you have this idea that one must have a higher education in order to understand the bigger issues. That if you only have high school education or didn't graduate that you are low IQ, incapable of making informed decisions if given the information needed. This is exactly the attitude that cost the Dems the vote. It's elitist thinking. These people were under estimated, just as you are doing now. Neither party wants the populace to know just how really unethical they have become. Tactics have risen to an unconscionable level of dirty politics and mud slinging. It isn't the industrial leaders who don't want a thinking populace. It's anyone who has power over the people that don't want a thinking populace. This includes the government at all levels, which means the parties themselves. Reading these comments from Dems (The NY Times is Dem biased) is the same whine that Republicans have....word for word, only the names have been changed. All the accusations are exactly the same on both sides. This being the case, why do none of you with your elitist attitudes and pricey educations realize that all of us are being played? I certainly do and I only have a GED (gasp). By underestimating these people, Hillary lost and rightfully so. She was unfit leadership material by any standard. And, while Trump plays the fool, what no one seems to see is that he is sheer genius at reverse psychology in his tactics. He's the best ally Dems could possibly have.
There should be national laws governing registration and access to voting machines. States rights need to go on this issue. We are a nation and every single citizen should have the exact same rules for voting. This is 2018 for goodness sakes!
11
@eag
If by "voting machines" you mean paper ballots, i'm on board. Hackers can change e-votes.
8
@eag But we are "united states," and states/counties hold elections.
"Others aren’t convinced it’s a problem that the voting population doesn’t resemble the American population. Some groups just aren’t that interested, they say. Trying to coax them to participate — tailoring our laws to “political couch potatoes,” as Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, once put it — would lead only to bloated voter rolls, likelier vote fraud and a more uninformed government, they warn."
What is more uninformed than electing someone with no political experience to the Presidency?
13
@nom de guerre. And since when have elected officials cared about information?
1
Voter suppression has been a huge part of American politics since the early 1800s. Most people don't realize that free blacks could vote in the North early in the 1800s, but their rights were curtailed when conservative white politicians started losing. After the Civil War, black suffrage got black Congressmen elected in the South—but that suffrage only lasted as long as Federal rifles guaranteed it. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and good old fashioned violence made the black vote negligible until the 1960s, when the Voting Rights Act came into effect and dealt with the worst of these abuses. With these latest absurdities (photo ID, moving polling places out of town, etc.) we are simply returning to our norm; a nation of white people working tirelessly to disenfranchise anyone who doesn't look, talk, and think like they do.
3
Voting should be considered a fundamental part of citizenship and should be taught that way in public schools. College students should be required to register as a basic act of teaching citizenship even though most colleges have backed away, far away, from the concept of morality and responsibility in education (the better to avoid controversy and potential lawsuits).
This is an issue I have thought about for many years. Our democracy is rendered into an anemic state by the lack of participation. In one recent election in Texas, for example, only 33% of voters turned out. Shameful. Consider the rest the discouraged majority.
Face it, in truth we would all like the uninformed, the lazy, those on drugs or lost to alcohol to stay home. We have a reckless tweeter-in-chief in the White House because he activated a couple of million or so (my guess as to the numbers) who otherwise would have not voted (and expressed their discontent in other ways) PLUS those who cared but did not bother.
Bear this in mind, too: the Electoral College system discourages participation. If you favor candidate A but you are certain your state will support candidate B for president, why bother? Your vote will be wiped away by the majority in your state. If we had a system where both the popular vote and the EC determined the outcome, there might be 10 to 20 million more votes in a presidential year. That alone would change the course of America and more accurately reflect public will.
8
A rather odd question, given that only 39% of eligible voters are Republican. They, of course, ALL vote.
Thus, If everyone voted, as we should, we would never have a Republican president. Now THAT would be making America great.
7
@citizennotconsumer You assume that people always vote for the party in which they are registered, often as an 18-year-old who never bothered to change it as they aged and became more conservative.
@citizennotconsumer 2017 Gallup poll concludes that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 24% Republican, 42% Independent.
2
It's really not a fact based difference here.
Fact is - there is no evidence, even after a lot of searching and allegations, of ineligible people voting in any significant numbers - the most noteworthy, BTW, have been Republican voters voting multiple times.
Fact is - when you register to vote, you've just proven you want to vote.
Fact is - we are a democracy, and our Constitution does not allow you to decide that because you don't like how some people vote (populism, images of uninformed voters), you can impose any kind of barrier to their votes.
Fact is - the same party who puts up all kinds of loopholes to being able to register to own a gun is all over making people register to vote - interesting which one they seem more threatened by.
9
I will leave aside the claims of the ignorant voter, a sad indictment of the U.S. education system, I suppose. But unmentioned in this article is a feeling of powerlessness, that a single vote makes no difference. Logically, there is sense to this, because rarely is an election decided by the marginal vote. One's civil duty in a democracy, to vote, is an important and illogical act. That is a bit of a paradox. But any successful society relies on a bit of selflessness.
2
What good is the right to vote in a rigged election?
No, I do not believe voter fraud is a serious issue on a national level, but can be on a local.
How can any person who pays attention to the scummy tactics of both parties seriously believe that at some point voter fraud would be beyond at least some of them?
Nonetheless, it can be done. The federal government has to take control of elections to minimize local chicanery.
However, with our electoral college disproportionately skewing the value of our votes (and keeping us from mob rule), large turnout is a fantasy. Also, 538 has already told me who is going to win my local elections. Why waste my time? Of course, if I just had to throw a ballot in the mail, I might consider it.
Voting on the weekend should be the biggest no brainer ever.
Easier to get volunteers to man the polls, since they don't need a day off of work.
Easier for most Americans to vote
Our voting system is designed to prevent working people from voting, and increasingly it's being designed with fewer polling places in very targeted areas - how long do we tolerate that, how much of that is there before we really can't be called a democracy, representative or otherwise?
9
I offer a thought experiment about voting in a national election. Which of the following choices would be most likely to produce radical change in the body politic?
1. Everyone votes. I don't know what that would be. Say somewhere between 150-200 million people.
2. Fewer and fewer people vote, down to an arbitrarily low number.
Under choice 1, Republicans and Democrats will enjoy their standard split which does not vary greatly from 50/50. The crumbs to to the mavericks.
Under choice 2, as the vote tally diminishes, the crumbs become progressively larger, exposing a vulnerability. Is this a partial explanation for why political elites urge people to the polls?
@James Rothenberg
Did you read the article?
In option 1, it is not a 50/50 split. It is quite different from what we have today.
3
It sounds good in theory to require all adults vote. However, watching some,Trump supporters howling during his rallies, I have to wonder.
How do you get people to educate themselves on all sides of an issue or all candidates before casting their ballots? How do you encourage people to vote? My state, NY, doesn't allow early voting .
Finally, the best candidate may not be a Democrat or a Republican. My congressional district has a Green Party candidate who seems more qualified than the major parties. However, I don't dare vote for her, as I feel my vote will be wasted.
Obviously, greater voter participation isn't a simply solved problem.
1
To get better policies, we need better politicians picked BY the voters, rather than POLITICIANS PICKING their voters. To get better politicians, we need to make it easier for EVERYONE to vote in free, fair, transparent elections. The two major parties have a stranglehold on the primary process. The GOP relies on gerrymandering and voter suppression to stay in power, but Dems could do the same when in power. Politicians won't give up power unless forced. Time for voters initiatives in all 50 states. For starters:
1) Nonpartisan redistricting.
2) Open primaries with ranked voting. We all pay for the primary elections, so independents should have a say in candidate selection. Needing to appeal to ALL voters should help eliminate the extremists now favored by party primary voters. Ranked voting assures that multiple candidates would not be spoilers.
3) Not sure how to do this, but take election management away from elected partisan officials and set election standards to eliminate illegal voter purges, closing polling places so "they" can't vote, reduction/elimination of early voting, etc.
4) Automatic voter registration.
5) Ban black box voting machines w/no paper trail. Mandate paper ballots and rigorous post-election audits to verify count accuracy.
6) Make voting by mail easier and free. I tried it once in Nebraska for "convenience," then had to drive to the post office to get the 54 cents postage stamp needed.
7) Saturday election day.
8) Restore felon voting rights.
11
As H. L. Mencken said: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it, good and hard."
Universal voting is a great idea in theory, but until we can find a way to ensure that voters are well informed, the solution is worse than the problem. We already have a system where name recognition and celebrity status counts more than actual skills and experience. Do we want more of that?
1
@J. Waddell
In America, ultimately, money has pretty much poisoned the entire process and that has created a system in which even those politicians who once had noble ideas about representing their constituents, NOT the donors. and "do the right thing" for the country, really, only exist few and far between.
Sadly, there are probably many qualified and committed candidates out there in America who would be willing to run for office, BUT, when they look at the amount of money required just to "get in to the process" and of course, the "strings attached" that go along with it, they decide to "pass".
I am afraid in today's political landscape in America, it is the donors, of course, re-directed through the party hierarchy itself, that picks the candidate, NOT the constituents. Trump was an anomaly who, in terms of policy, ultimately, turned out to be even better than the Republican Party and their donors would have hoped for.
3
I worry about the implications of Mr. Caplan's assertion that the more people who vote, the more uninformed the electorate becomes. To me, this is a problematic line of thinking. Do we no longer value a representative democracy? Should a sizeable portion of our voting electorate stay home because they are not qualified or informed or educated enough to vote?
While I of course prefer an informed electorate over an uninformed one, I would not advocate for eliminating eligibility all together - or label more people voting as "a problem." American voter turnout is quite low enough. We need to include people in the process, not exclude them. Encouraging people to vote encourages engagement with the issues and policies that affect them. I am no supporter of Trump, but I believe that our democracy has enough robust safeguards in place to prevent outright demamgoguery, and I think that the first step to improving voter intelligence is to encourage participation.
I will say however, that Mr. Caplan should be weary of privilege with regards to assumptions about voters. If he believes that voters are uninformed, I think he should evaluate why, then work on strategies to promote voter education. Not every American can afford to spend as much time engaging with political issue on the same substantive level as a professional economist...
24
@Nick
Realistically, if we look at the way that states controlled by Republicans(two-thirds) are significantly cutting back funding for public education (and it is getting worse), it is quite clear these states and their governments have an agenda in which they no longer desire to have an educated public with critical thinking skills. To do otherwise would not serve that agenda.
In Trump's world today, facts, opinion and conspiracy theories are now totally intertwined and if a significant percentage of the population cannot or are unwilling to spend the time to sort it all out, then, they will believe what they wish to hear and nothing more. Truth is what you make it.
Unfortunately, in some respects, Mr. Caplan's assessment of uninformed voters cannot be ignored and is correct.
9
@Nick
Caplan is also making some huge assumptions. Is a person who doesn't work more well informed than someone with an hourly job and a very up close and personal view of business, worker, and life issues?
6
@Nick
If we took his theories to the letter, we should then allow to vote only people who can prove a certain level of education. (Which is not right either)
Being willing (and able) to vote doesn't guarantee education, effort informing yourself on the issues, or even having the best intentions for your country at heart. If that is the excuse for making voting more difficult, the only premise under which it works is if you assume that republicans are better educated, and that's why they are more likely to vote. I mean, the group with less college degrees, with millions of people who think the world is 5,000 years old, the easiest to manipulate (like this new obsession with undocumented immigrants invading the country and bringing illnesses when we have (and have had for years) at least five times less people trying to cross the border than in the year 2000. The people that are killing others on the streets and places of worship, the people that believe in pizzagate, and the deep state, and the birthers. Yeah, quite a lot of educated voters, whose wishes should count more than anyone else's.
1
In regard to increasing voter turnout, it is interesting to see so many articles about how some states are introducing early voting, or voting by mail, etc. Yet, I rarely, if ever, see anything about stopping the voting day being on a Tuesday. It is absurd to have it then.
We don't need to allow farmers a day, after the sabbath (Sunday), to travel by horse to get to town to vote on a Tuesday, anymore.
America should vote on a Saturday. Then you would get more people to the voting booth.
8
@michael but you might discriminate against those whose sabbath is Saturday...
1
@michael
And what about the millions of people who work weekends?
What we need is a national weekday holiday or half-day off on election days.
4
@Rebecca - early voting and absentee voting, in addition to moving Election day to a Saturday, would do the trick, no?
3
I still can't believe USA elections are on a Tuesday. Surely the number one change that all could agree upon is moving it to the weekend. As the proclaimed enforcer of democracy around the world, it doesn't seem you guys really believe in it or essential changes at home would have been made by now.
13
@Michael one problem with making it the weekend is then you risk faith-based discrimination - as certain orthodox religious groups would not be able to go on their day of prayer...
@Rebecca Then set aside a national holiday or half-day so people don't struggle to get to the polls during the week.
I don't think it needs to be on the weekend either; many people work on weekends.
3
Voter apathy is born of despair. Every person of my generation, whose fathers fought in WWII, needs to make every vote count, especially this November. We have one more small chance to save what those valiant souls thought for. Get Trump out of our blessed country.
7
@Claire Green I don't understand why getting Trump out of the office will help Liberals? All I hear is that he is 'bad' but no one states as to WHY? Our economy hasn't done this good int the last 50 years. Unemployment is the lowest in 50 years. There are MORE jobs than people. Incomes have risen the highest in the last 25 years. Consumer confidence & spending is on the rise. We have better trade deals than what we had in the last 3 presidents. Regulations slashed to benefit ALL business owners. We have more companies coming back to America which gives the people even more jobs. Everything in America is MORE positive financially & confident than the last 3 presidents. We are getting out of Wars. ISIS is almost non-existent. Tax cuts have helped the middle class & poor. People don't have to pay for NOT having Health Insurance. Filing our tax forms are easier. North Korea is no longer a real threat. Iran is, due to capitulation of pallets of cash by Obama which he never asked Congress to agree with by the way. So exactly what is liberals problem with Trump and Republicans? Seems that everyone has a WIN-WIN in America. Everyone that wanted to vote did so. Even with all of the underhandedness of the Democrats giving Hilly all of the Free press. The DNC colluded with MSM, telling us she would win by 98%. Boy, the guys in the MSM sure have egg on your faces to this day. DEMS lost over 600 elections in 10 years. All under Obama. Why is that? Seems DEMS have poor memories & lost.
Surveys show that something like 36 percent of Americans can’t name all three branches of government.
Absurdly high number of Americans have no idea who is in control of the House and Senate.
Do I really want these people voting? No. And I’m a liberal.
American democracy is in a crisis, exacerbated by the fact that many voters seem to have no idea how government works.
For us to have a chance at recovering, we need better educated citizens, not more ignoramuses at the polls.
6
As a voter for many decades now, I am convinced that voting should be a a legal requirement of every citizen, every election. This works well in Australia, where there is a fine for not voting.
Most of the time in the United States, we really don't get a very clear picture of who we are and what we want, simply because people don't vote. If voting were legally required, we would know from election cycle to cycle the real concerns of our citizenry, and all those politicians that dare to say "the American people want..." would have to either have their facts straight, or shut their mouths. Facts, this administration notwithstanding, are facts. As the Italians say, addition is not a matter of opinion.
7
Why would we assume that higher participation would mean more uninformed voters? As it is, about half the voters seem to get their information exclusively from Fox and negative TV ads. How much worse could it be?
11
I dont buy it. In my opinion, and thats all it is, most folks dont vote because they dont want to. Registering, showing up before or after work, bringing ID, standing in line, etc. is not worth it to them. Thats’s it.
Don’t get me wrong, we should reduce all unfair disincentives to voting. But I don’t think it will move the needle much.
BTW, if Tuesday is such a disincentive, wouldn’t we have higher relative turnouts from unemployed folks? Or maybe college students?
I don’t have any facts to back my opinion on this. But then neither does the hypothetical “if all folks voted” proposition.
3
@KJ - except for the data they used in this very article from "The Turnout Gap" to show that if everyone voted, states like Texas would flip to the Democrats immediately, Mrs. Clinton would have won in 2016, and the Senate would be controlled by the Democrats. You can dismiss the book as simply hypothetical, but they did use data and research to come to a conclusion - they didn't just make up a hypothetical and throw it out there without proof.
2
A right to vote should be approached in the same manner as the right to drive. Inform yourself of the law, immerse yourself in the topics and make an educated decision based on the ballot, proposition, candidate, and personal beliefs. In many ways an uninformed voter is as dangerous as a driver who does not understand the law and has not been taught how to drive. Voting, like driving, is a privilege. You should earn the right to vote.
3
@I Heart
Driving is a privilege. Voting is a right "earned" by being a citizen.
Your comment is disturbing to me. "Earning" the privilege of voting looks a lot like poll taxes or guessing the number of jelly beans in a jar.
I agree that ignorance is dangerous. Start correcting yours by learning the difference between a right and a privilege.
1
We should encourage the early vote by mail process. No time off from work,no lack of id problem at the voting booth, no ride to the polls needed. Sit down with your ballot and your voter info pamphlet. I've never voted any other way. And, to those of us worried about the uninformed voter, read 'the wisdom of crowds' book, the more voters the better the decisions.
4
Not voting is a form of voting. At the U.N., countries may select "In Favour," "Against" or "Abstention." Countries abstain for a variety of reasons like non voters who choose not to vote. Not voting is a form of abstention.
1
In this day and age, one should be able to register and vote via a phone app. Current voting systems are stuck in the past century.
@KM
Sure...if security is of no concern. Apps are hacked.
2
Put aside partisanship a second.
There's a reason "Who wants to be a millionaire"'s best option is to get the crowd's vote. People, regardless of what we think of them, all have some potential, some insight. If they're left alone to their own wits, and vote, any one of them may be wrong, but together they end up making a good decision.
Caplan, the economist in this article, is wrong. Getting those who don't vote to the polls won't produce worse outcomes. Being "informed," in this era, usually means buying into a narrow view. The "uninformed," given basic facts, will vote with no less wisdom. They may even do better, if they think for themselves.
Political parties, and political ads, prevent people from thinking for themselves, even if they still vote.
Patriots should only want to suppress political ads.
4
What I see from the Republicans from this distance is on the one hand a megaphone telling the downtrodden that they are with them against the elites. And on the other an embrace of laws and practices that prevent the downtrodden from voting against the elites. What am I missing?
7
@Michael Race. GOP support depends on the color of the downtrodden.
2
@Michael
Two-thirds of the states are controlled by Republicans and in those states over the last several years, they have been systematically cutting back funding on public education in which even the most basic books and supplies are wanting and teachers are leaving the profession. This has been done for a very precise agenda.
They no longer wish to have a reasonably educated population who have critical thinking skills that make it possible for them to realize the sham their representatives have been imposing on them.
7
@Michael
You're not missing a thing!
Here in the South, we have long known that Republicans will do everything they know they can get away with - and some tactics they doubt they can get away with - to thwart minority voting. They know that when everyone who can vote does vote, Republicans lose. Georgia's most recent episode is an example.
11
I'm sorry, but this is article is presumtivist nonsense that asks hypothetical questions regarding one part of the us voting system while leaving innumerable other assumptions and antidemocracic structures in place. In short, it's asking if throwing a teaspoon of sugar into a sewage pit will make it any sweeter.
If anybody here is interested in fixing US elections, we need to stop and not move forward until we ask ourselves some hard questions about the raison-d'etre - the telos - the essential essence of elections and voting. Do we have elections in order to choose the most objectively capable leaders or do we have elections in order to give everybody a voice? The two are not necessarily the same thing. Or is it some weird hybrid third thing as we now have in the USA, where we have elections to ensure that each bit of dirt called a "state" or "district" that has been created by historical accident or gerrymanderd fiat has some position of privilege for "reasons" that must have been very important at some point to somebody. Score voting (or at least Instant Runoff Voting). Party lists. Proportional representation. All of these are obvious improvements that will bring us closer to democracy. I'm not going to waste my time on some article that assumes a two party system and tinkers at the margins without a real sense of the big issues as that kind of pedantry is exactly what allowed the currently system alone to produce Trump.
3
In truth, the United States and early political theory i.e. the founding documents including most especially the Federalist Papers do not envision the country as a democracy. A democracy, both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton believed, threatened the tyranny of the "majority faction." What could that faction look it? In the twentieth century, totalitarian regimes unchecked by minority rights threatened the survival of the liberal republics and constitutional monarchies premised upon republican institutions.
The popular election of the U.S. president did not occur until the presidency of Andrew Jackson, when universal white male suffrage was election law in all of the states that composed the Union. Today, universal suffrage applies to all adult citizens above the age of 18 unless they have been disqualified some reason i.e. legal incapacity or prior or current criminal record. So the electors of the United States, which began with a couple of hundred in the early republic now includes 235 million people. Should the United States by law require voting and or automatically register all eligible to vote? In either case, the founders I believe would be suspicious. If a cult figure controls a million votes and can determine who is the governor, senator or congressmen of a state, would that be democracy? Yes. But wouldn't it also be a form of tyranny? Yes. Doesn't this once again raise the issues of tyranny and minority rights envisioned by the founders?
2
@Yankelnevich
Today we are dealing with a tyranny of the minority, due to voter suppression and arcane institutions (electoral college) and Citizens United which favor old, white and rural voters.
6
The 14 amendment states in part: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". Why does this not apply to voting?
7
I would remind all that Hillary Clinton ‘won” the New York Democratic Parimary because of arcane rules designed to keep late registrants from voting. That and a purge if voters from the rolls AFTER the registration deadline.
The Sanders campaign went to court to allow for provisional ballots and the Bill Clinton appointee refused immediate relief and scheduled the hearing well after it would be of any use.
It is not just Southern states and Republicans engineering the outcome of elections.
Had everyone been able to vote, Hillary would have lost New York’s Democratic Primary.
Check out the facts of this matter. It was generally underreported by papers that endorsed Ms Clinton.
3
@David Gregory Mr. Gregory is correct. As a resident of New York City, it was clear to me that the Democratic National Committee had its thumb on the scale when it came to the choice of Bernie Sanders versus Hillary Clinton. The DNC favored Hillary from the start. Combined with the undemocratic use of super delegates, Sanders didn't have a chance. Super delegates should be banned from the decision to elect a candidate for the presidency. By the way, I didn't feel that Sanders was the best choice for Democrats to challenge Trump. It's just that the process that selected Clinton was patently unfair.
2
Voting is a right, not a privilege. Look it up. This registration and ID stuff is nonsense, everyone should be allowed to vote. Sign the register, stand up and be counted.
Oh, and about the undemocratic electoral college. Say goodbye to it and bad governance. Hello to majority rule.
3
@Bar1
your argument is both spectacularly ignorant and self-contradictory.
there is no explicit right to vote per se in the US constitution. rather, a series of amendments determine on what basis voting rights cannot be amended or abridged. States may Constitutionally deny the "right to vote" for certain reasons. For example, many states require eligible citizens to register to vote a set number of days prior to the election in order to vote. States can also for example deny voting to those below a given mental capability threshold.
Mind you, I'm not saying whether that's "right" or "wrong." I'm just referencing that same old Constitution that you directed us to "look it up" in.
And, wouldn't you know it, that same constitution which doesn't have an explicit "right to vote" DOES establish the electoral college. Now, I have a ton of issues with the propriety of the electoral college - but you can't on one hand claim that there's a nonexistent right to vote in the us constitution and on the other somehow then claim that it is inviolable but that the electoral college is not.
I agree, let's get rid of the electoral college. But please at least take a moment to read and understand the constitution before you start commenting on it willy nilly.
if that's true why doesn't new York have early voting and same day registration?
It's low on purpose. There's a good reason voting takes place on a non holiday when everyone has to work.
1
Everyone should vote. In France when we have only 60% of people voting, everyone screams in alarm that the voting rate is coming down, and the country is becoming non responsible... ;)
2
If someone is too incompetent at life to secure a government issued ID or to plan ahead and register to vote, perhaps we don’t need their opinion in the voting process. 47% of the population leeching off the rest is enough; we don’t need more dysfunctional people voting for whichever candidate promises them the most stuff paid for by taxes.
If everybody voted, all politicians would get closer to actually repressing the people’s interests, high, medium and low.
1
Correction: “representing”, not “repressing”; because that’s what they do now.
2
Its all about incentives for folks are lazy. Here some ideas: Make election day a federal holiday, Automatic registration upon one's 18th birthday, the ability to vote from your smartphone via a voting app, extend early voting 30 days prior to the actual election day of November 6.
3
What would happen if EVERYONE voted?
1. A living wage for all.
2. A social safety net for all.
3. Universal health care.
4. No Republican Party.
5. The end of bigotry and racism.
6. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
7. True representative government.
8. Lobbying would be against the law.
9. Sane gun laws.
10. Improved longevity and quality of life.
11. Corporate responsibility for the common good.
12. No for profit schools, colleges or prisons.
13. Free education for all, from the cradle to the grave.
14. No regressive taxation like sales tax, fuel tax, etc.
15. A more skilled labor force.
16. Sane immigration regulations.
6
Most amusing to read Mitch McConnell's snide remark about "political couch potatoes," without whom he would never have had a political career.
4
I am deeply dusturbed by the many rotten people, Republicans that is, trying to stop Americans from voting. Here in Vermont, it could not be easier. I walk in, state my name, am handed a ballot, write on a paper ballot, stick it in a box. It is counted and counted again. I see neighbors and sweet volunteers. I feel so good about my town and state. I wish everyone voted in this fashion. I wish everyone was encouraged to vote. I wish we lived in a true democracy with higher ideals about everyone voting and keeping Russia out of our elections.
We have over 92 percent of our great little state registered to vote! As it should be.
Please vote, do it early. Please work to change the rotten unkind undemocratic laws in far too many states.
6
In addition to relatively informed and uninformed voters, there are millions of pathologically misinformed voters. I'd rather have uniformed people--who can at least rely on common sense- voting, than those who traffic in the conspiracy theories, deliberate lies, and vitriol of Fox News, Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh and company. Republican leaders know that voter fraud is not a real problem. Yet, they pedal this myth in a cynical and brazen, and unfortunately successful attempt to limit the franchise to those who will vote them out of power. It's really quite diabolical.
2
How about a $50 refundable tax credit for voting to all citizens.
1
Based on these poll results, Republicans are entirely in favor of restrictive voting laws, presumably out of fear that ignorant or ineligible voters will swarm the polls. Based on all available evidence, this is a completely unfounded fear and there has never been a case of significant voter fraud.
Can we therefore conclude that Republicans themselves are the ignorant voters in this case?
2
If it is compulsory to pay taxes, so it should be compulsory to vote. They don't care about the votes. Your dollar is your vote, everyone stop paying taxes, then they will listen!!!
1
From the article:
"Bryan Caplan, an economist at George Mason University, says that the larger problem is that if more people voted, we’d simply have more uninformed voters, and more populism."
I would say that we blew right past that theoretical downside two years ago. 63 million voters (the vast majority of them both white and middle class or wealthier) pulled the lever for a manifestly unqualified, vulgar, ignorant, bigoted, demagogic and world-class con man to be their president.
The proverbial hundreds of monkeys pounding randomly on typewriters (or voting machines) would have had a better chance of making a sane, rational and "informed" electoral decision than these 63 million Americans did.
"Uninformed" voters are not the problem. Willfully ignorant, bigoted and knee-jerk tribal voters are.
6
Democracy (and voting) is the enemy of the GOP.
For the past 45 years, simple demographics and math have shown the GOP that in order to thrive and enrich themselves they must cheat by gerrymandering, voter suppression, and inciting fear, hatred, and division. Trump is just another loud but empty puppet manipulated in their desperation.
4
What if everyone was allowed to vote?
2
Most importantly the vote must fair. The irony is automatic registration, same day voting, no ID,and such invite cheating with no way to guard against. Might as well start handing out household appliances as they do in banana republics when folks vote the 'proper' way.
@Lane. It is possible that these invite cheating, but there is no evidence of any large, or even non-trivial scale cheating in states where these policies are in place. On the other hand, we know that Republican controlled state legislatures have systematically enacted barriers to voting in order to disenfranchise voters that are likely to not vote Republican. We know that they have gerrymandered districts with the same aim time and again (so have Democrats, but much less so and less brazenly). It would be one thing to require an ID to vote and then make getting an ID easy for all. Those with no access to their birth certificate (for many legitimate reasons) and very limited access to a DMV office, because of distance, lack of transit, and limited hours, have a close to impossible time getting an ID. It would would be one thing to require an ID and then allow state issued university IDs to be used. Not the case in most states with voter ID laws.
1
We may need to dye voters fingers purple, with a dye that lasts for a few days, as we have observed in third world countries.
The shame of not voting, made obvious, could provoke better participation.
2
In a country that has no National ID, the demands to identify oneself by producing one's Driver's License are downright unconstitutional. For voting, there should be a State-issued I'D with a photograph and, perhaps finger prints and retina scan. Everyone should vote, but the vote is one's right and choice, not obligation. If the leftist radical militant Democrats do not like this, let them stay out of the voting system.
My state,Mintana, has good voting laws. You can go to the courthouse now ( when it opens) and register and vote at the same time. We have to work hard against Republican inistives to hurt our voting laws. I was impressed to see that my local library is closed on Election Day. It is that important.
1
It seems counterintuitive but I think Trump’s craziness dissuades people who hate the turmoil from voting. Some people tell me when I am canvassing that they have just had it with politics.
So people who hate Trump’s meanness, cruelty , corrutness and narcissism sometimes just withdraw from the whole thing. I know that doesn’t make sense but I hear people says that they are sick of politics.
1
exactly why i am not voting,
and then you have people like Ted Cruiz "like something out of a
psychological textbook" while campaigning on the ground for
indiana's 27 delegates and holding hands with fiorina of Dell,
all for illusion and reality, power, and control.
ever wonder why he said that what he was alluding to?
MY LIFE.
the illuminati, they are sick.
and the media, what they say. a TRUE reflection of this.
and what is the scary part?
they can care LESS.
htm,
The “Aussie” option with mandatory voting and virtual voting booths.
The Republicans have turned my district into an incomprehensible squiggly snake in order to water down my vote.
In progressive areas and near universities, they make placement of voting sites inconvenient for voters to get to.
When Democrats elected a progressive judge that would have leaned the court left, Republicans worked hard to enlarge the bench and add a couple of extra judges appointed by them.
AND when we voted in a Democrat for governor, the Republicans immediately went to work stripping him of any powers.
Where my son lives they encourage voting - the ballots come to their home, and they are empowered.
Every American should automatically be registered at birth , and what does it say about a party whose policies are so repugnant to the majority of Americans that the only way they can win is by gerrymandering, dirty tricks, and voter disenfranchisement.
I agree that Democrats have also drawn ridiculous districts, but they don't come close to the sleaziness of Republicans. I feel like I have to shower after reading my local paper.
Get rid of these ridiculous districts, and remove archaic rules that allow voters in three tiny states with less than a million people to decide the date of our country.
40
Know what happens if you force a person to do something against their will?
They troll. They would vote for the most absurd candidate. Or leave their ballot blank.
Such is human nature. Easily forseen.
1
As long as they vote; if not, their opinion is worthless and lack of participation an abject personal failure; they have no further right to complaint. "Show up or shut up!"
1
If people are too stupid to vote, why should we encourage or even coerce them into voting? So Democrats can win more elections with the power of the stupid vote?
We know Democrats will say anything to win. The people who don't vote are too usually credulous and easily swayed by emotional arguments.
It's simply an irrational thing to do. Too many Democrats already vote based on one criterion: "What's in it for me?"
@Dougal E
this is why I live in NM
Trump’s “re-election committee” is on the march - and headed this way....... Vote!
Once again a Times writer skips over the Red State voting practices of New York State. No early voting and no vote by mail. Here in Florida, a real Red State, we have had early voting for years and I have voted by mail for over ten years. The Times should be doing more to pull NY into the world which you criticize in other states.
I wish more was better, I do. Until we have higher levels of critical thinking and comprehension in the general population, people in this country will be (are being) led in some very bad directions. Take education from the states, remove private, home and parochial schooling entirely, create true equity for students in terms of funding (no rich kids/poor kids!), remove the majority of admin roles that suck away school funding and give teachers a singularly valuable role in the community as thought leaders with a commensurate salary (think 120k to start). Then let these smart kids grow up and take charge, create true systems of representation and save our planet.
2
Racism, racism, racism. It explains Trump's election. He's unabashed. All this other talk is poppycock. Republicans are a deeply racist political party. Trump is giving them red meat.
2
We've always had compulsory voting in Australia, and from the 1950s till now I don't recall anyone complaining about it in principle, or saying it inconvenienced them in practice. It's just 'part of the furniture'.
Compulsory voting is probably one of the reasons Australia is a better society to live in than the US.
9
Voting should not be a partisanship issue. Every person of age should be required to caste a ballot whether they fill it out or not. To participate in our government through this means will make us more conscious of what we receive by being a citizen. John Donne said no man (or woman) is an island to themselves. And voting only emphasizes this.
4
From a country with mandatory voting where most of us approve of it being compulsory, I am often shocked by some of the things I read about vote supression in the US, attempts to make it difficult for minority groups to vote, like in Georgia recently, and actions that seem to actively disenfranchise, such as native Americans on reservations being told having a po box address isn't good enough to qualify for the right to vote. The gerrymandering in some states also shocks me. It doesn't match with the rhetoric so often heard about "being the greatest democracy on earth." Large democracies ( the US undoubtably is one) might allow such things but great ones don't. The lack of standardisation across states seems problematic as well and also the amount of time and money wasted on litigation around the right to vote, to do it relatively easily and to be able to choose your representatives not them choose you. So much money th
Compulsory voting does involve some quid pro quos for voters like no gerrymandering, independant electoral commissions, no partisan political interference in electoral processes,ease of voting, etc but some other countries also manage these without compulsory voting and also manage quite high turn outs.
9
This is one of the best articles I’ve read on voting. It encapsulates my attitudes on the subject perfectly. I think if more people vote, the more uninformed voters you have determining policies and government direction. That’s a bad thing, right? Well, no. It’s merely an indication that somewhere in the representative body politic some institution isn’t doing their job. Representative democracy depends on all the people–the informed and the uninformed. If the uninformed are indeed uninformed, it is the responsibility of the community to provide the opportunity and resources to become informed. Beyond a responsibility, it’s sort of the purpose of representative democracy to begin with.
9
In Australia we vote national, state and council elections on Saturdays. Only councils elections are voluntary yet we are sent by post voting papers to make it very easy. You can vote many places up until early evening. A healthy working democracy encourages an educated community to vote, have their say in how the country should be run. Democracy also means accepting with grace the result of the election. Annoying at times but way better than other ruling versions.
5
As American citizens, the greatest right and authority we have is our ability to freely vote.
The act of voting encompasses four of the five precepts of the First Amendment: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, and freedom to petition for redress of grievances. Freedom of the press guarantees the legitimacy of the exercise of that right.
The second greatest right we have is the ability to not vote should we so choose.
1
@Steve Crisp I have long considered this alleged “right” not to vote vs the civic “duty” to vote. This right is oft claimed, but where is it in the Constitution? Is this right based in the First Amendment? Do we have a “right” not to register for the draft? Is there a “right” not to be vaccinated? Is there a “right” not to be taxed? If there is a right not to vote, which I suspect there is not, perhaps the nonvoter must register that they are not performing their civic duty based on a stated reason. Perhaps the nonvoter must register annually to demonstrate that the nonvote is being cast intelligently as opposed to laziness or simple unwillingness to go to a voting place.
1
If voting is a right, voting day should be a holiday. Politicians would need to address all types of issues and deal with all the population, not only targetted audiences. Plus, there would be an incentive to actively teach civics in school, teach students how to vote and why. Yes, it would be a different country, no matter if Dems or GOP. Each would need to bridge their beliefs. But, of course, that would mean to disempowerment of the parties, and many do not want that.
9
If the US had wanted to encourage citizens to vote, elections wouldn't be held on a Tuesday primarily during working hours. OR Election Day would be a national holiday.
Plus, give me uninformed "political couch potatoes" any day over radically and willfully misinformed activist voters. Having to reach everyone rather than fanning the flames of hot headed bigots fired up to vote their prejudices would naturally make politicians hew toward the center and make it harder (but not impossible) for billionaires to hold their thumb on the scale as they do now.
I have zero hope for this election because all evidence points to targeted and sophisticated voter suppression on the part of the right--which they will use to finish off democracy while at the same time proclaiming themselves the heroes of the people.
Our system turns people into political couch potatoes because, after an experience like the last election and the one to come next week, how many people throw up their hands and say, why bother?
Who will save us?
13
Let me remind the President that he lost the popular vote ny almost 3,000,000 votes. Let me also remind him that to the best of my knowledge none of the 50 states have an electoral college. Senators, congressmen and women, state representatives all local officials must win the popular vote to be elected. It is difficult to win an election with 42% of the electorate who the polls say support you.
7
The idea that "my vote won't count in my state" is false. If everyone voted we would have local, regional, and national data to better inform our collective democracy. If I know my vote won't change the results on the local and regional level, I know it will still inform the national landscape.
7
I agree with results mentioned in article regarding Dr Fraga's book. National Compulsory voting registration would drastically level the "political playing field" to the extent that Gubernatorial, Congressional and Presidential elections would better-mirror the will of the electorate and provide a "national agenda" for elected officials to operate from.
3
The idea that “political couch potatoes,” would lead to a more uninformed government is totally irrelevant. The very nature of democracy itself demands that everyone has a right to vote. Any effort to undermine that right is an attack on the institution itself.
Here in Holland, my local municipality knows who I am and where I live. They send me a pass that tells me when and where to vote (I actually can vote at any polling place in the area). When I submit this pass, I am given a ballot. The result is that turn out here in Holland for a national election continuously approaches 80%. (Once upon a time, it was a violation of law not to vote. This law is still on the books in Belgium.)
I do complain about the results. But then, whose fault it that!
10
@Ex New Yorker
Oops - you left out a critical step. You have to show a valid photo ID before you are given your ballot, and everyone over the age of 14 is required to carry a valid photo ID at all times.
1
A friend and I were 'debating' voting procedures. I advocated voting anytime anyway. His stance was to make it a national holiday with no exceptions, then force everyone to physically vote at a polling place. His rationale was to create community. That standing in lines would force everyone to at least see their fellow citizens. I think its idealistic to hope everyone sees the good in standing in queues. My experience tells me most people simply get impatient, bored and peevish.
1
If you make it harder for fellow citizens to vote, what does that say about you, Sec. Kemp? I am not talking about fraudulent voters, but everybody else. Citizens who have every right to vote except for
- No valid ID
- Not registered, but can prove residence
- Work conflict
- Long lines in states like mine with 1 day voting
- Physical infirmities
- Serving in the Armed forces elsewhere
- In college out of the area
- The party in power doesn't want them to.
The idea of Democracy is that the people get to choose. We do that by voting. Every qualified voter should be allowed to vote every time they choose to. Anything else is not Equal Justice Under Law per the 14th Amendment.
14
@Old Ben
How does anyone living today have "no valid ID." Were they born on the lonesome prairie in 1846? Is their name simply written in the family bible? I'm tired of this excuse. It is unfathomable that someone could be living in today's society and not have a valid ID. This is a false narrative. Anyone who exists with no valid ID should not be voting, for so many reasons.
2
@Trilby
Many NATIVE Americans have no ID because they have no street address.
2
In Illinois, the congressional district I live in has never presented me with an actual choice to vote for. That is three decades of no real choice. It has been twisted and pruned to make sure we get a Democrat congressman. Districts are gerrymandered making voting not really necessary, the Democratic party just chooses who gets to have this congressional seat. So I vote, but going into it it is a meaningless gesture, every time. I've heard gerrymandering happens in other states. That doesn't make it right to do here, there or anywhere. Just use AI to carve the whole country into little equal square districts each year without regard for incumbents. And then maybe we could also try to have an actual choice in the next Presidential election instead of far left or far right.
5
@Tom in Illinois
I agree with you with one caveat: are suggesting that you are represented by a member of the Communist Party? While I fully believe that your representative doesn't reflect your political views, there is no actual viable "far left" politician in the United States. McCarthyism took care of that and it has never recovered. Believe it or not, other countries do actually have a far left that participates peacefully in elections. No Democrat is far left, it's just that the Right/Republicans won the propaganda war to make moderate Dems unpalatable due to false labeling.
3
Before the 20th century, going to the polls was the only way to collect votes. Here in the 21st century, a small investment in polling by the government would both save money and give us a much more accurate measure of the will of the people than our current, outdated, 18th century approach.
I'm not sure Americans realize how difficult it is to vote in the United States, compared with every other democratic country I know.
When I became a Canadian citizen, my registration to vote in federal elections took place automatically. Registering to vote in my province was much more onerous: I had to go on a website and essentially click a button.
The experience made me realize that this is how it should be. The government should register voters or at least make registering a default option. And if you have to register at all, it should not be work to register. It should not be difficult to vote. How can anyone say otherwise?
24
@Grouch I have lived in many different U.S. states and I have never found it difficult to register or vote anywhere. However, I recently voted in New Jersey where I presented a voter's registration card at the polling station. Apparently, they had never seen one before and had to consult with an official to see if I would be allowed to vote. I was allowed.
1
I'm writing as a poll worker and I know first hand how proud and happy those who vote are. These number families who come with sons and daughters to participate in a civic rite, the steadfast who do not want to miss an election, and those who celebrate voting for the first time. But I am so afraid voter suppersion is prevalent. Not just in Georgia--how many times have I heard people tell me they say I'm not registered here but I've voted here for years? Yes in New York City they can, will I hope, fill out an affidavit ballot. But does this discourage them to vote the next time?
5
Polling of Americans finds big mismatches between most of the citizens and the Republican conservatives who dominate in governance. The Republicans are more dependable voters. This might indicate that Republicans would lose power if all voted.
However, people queried for polls don’t always vote as they indicated during surveys. If all voted the result might not be predictable.
2
Paid day off from work (fine if one does not go and vote and employer would not be required to pay employee for that day off) Many more could volunteer at polling places as there would be a need for more voting places; paper vote to back up electronic tabulations. Many other well qualified suggestions/possibilities here...
However they'll not be enacted due to the politicians in power, the two party system, would not allow the necessary changes needed as the end result would only effect their power and control and they cannot have that. If it were to happen then we would also have Campaign Finance Reforms and would be under the Federal level not a State issue...and then what would corporations, banks ect do for favorably paid legislation and policies.
8
@Kerm: it does not take "all day" to vote and I know very few people who work every day, from 7AM to 7PM….if you did, you could get an absentee ballot and vote by mail.
The timing of our elections is based on an obsolete notion. Tuesday was the day that farmers once went to town to do business; it no longer has any relevance.
We should amend the Constitution to have federal elections over two days, Saturday and Sunday. That frees up many more workers to get to the polls, respects all religious restrictions, and ought to increase participation.
But since Republicans do not want to increase participation, such an idea is doomed. Too many people who are unlike the prototypical Republican might take advantage of the opportunity.
16
Hi from Australia. Voting is compulsory here. If you don't vote you get a fine in the mail. So we have 85-90% voter turnout. It may not be a perfect system, but at least the results are representative of the vast majority of the population. We also vote using paper and pencil. No machines. There is a clear audit trail if there are any queries about the result. Also, preferential voting (no first past the post). It's taught in schools, so it's not that complex. (Oh, and universal healthcare and tight gun control laws, gottagonowbye...)
95
Many U.S. states also vote with paper ballots.
1
Hey Richard, if everyone voted and we had preferential voting, wouldn’t that greatly reduce the advantage of extremist candidates? What fun would that be? And what is the point of democratically electing people if they can’t use elected office to discourage people who I disagree with from voting? I bet you didn’t think about that. It’s a wonder you didn’t also recommend that gerrymandering be abolished, or that campaign finance laws ought to be overhauled to get money out of politics. Thank god we have the wisdom of the Supreme Court who will never let that happen, and who were smart enough to realize that the voting rights act had been so well that it therefore should be abolished. Next you are going to tell me Australia doesn’t even hold elections on week days so that people with less flexible jobs are
discouraged from voting. If you didn’t make it challenge to vote, who’d want to do it? So keep all that in mind before you make any suggestions from Australia to the greatest democracy in the planet.
9
@Baldwin, I am suitably chastened. I had never critically questioned our voting on Saturdays, where voting booths at local schools take on a festive atmosphere and we indulge in a 'democracy sausage' on a piece of bread, sold as a fundraiser by the school Parents & Citizens committee or the local sports club. I guess our single federal electoral commission that oversees elections, free from state and local interference, is over-reach as well. I do apologise.
2
Hmm - I've never understood this hypothetical. It probably doesn't happen for a reason. If everyone voted we'd have a completely different electorate - or rather a completely different electorate would be necessary for 100% political participation. Especially in a market economy where there is a guaranteed stratification of wealth and therefore power, education, and disenfranchisement.
This would require a vastly different national history. Disenfranchisement would not exist but this is likely not a plausible scenario in a multiparty political system. Invariably one or more parties would act to repress the other party's participation as a matter of strategy. This strategy is also probably a positive feedback loop - effectively implementing this type of strategy empowers that side.
I'm certainly not suggesting that I approve of unequal or low participation! I'm just saying is that there are more interesting questions out there.j Like, for example, "why is voter participation so low". ;-)
1
@emkeyser
It works in my country, Australia. It works well and keeps the fanatics on the fringes where they belong.
It is truly representative of the will of the people ie government by the people for the people.
Perfect? No, but no one system is, and it’s as good as it gets.
And if you are sick/injured you get treatment - everyone.
1
In Colorado we have awesome mail in/drop off voting. We get our ballots almost a month before Election Day so we can vote on our own time. This allows me to study the candidates and issues, then gather with friends to discuss and fill out our ballots together. Then I drop it in one of the many permanent drop boxes around town (no postage, and the drop boxes stay put year round so you know where they are). Or, toss two stamps on and mail it in, or go vote in person if you prefer. I read that CO had over 70% turnout in 2016, so obviously making voting easy works!
31
The standards of requiring identification and early voter registration are difficult barriers that impede some citizens from the voting polls. This article implies identity of citizens that are young, nonwhite, and people that would register as democrats to be excluded from voting polls. Such standards seem to undermine the right of citizens to participate in the democratic process. Perhaps it is time to revise federal law on voting issues so that state standards are consistent and make it easy for all citizens to vote.
6
You have been warned
We have all been warned
By President Obama when he mentioned DJT and people began to boo he would say
“Don’t boo- VOTE”
Seldom does one get to make an important decision twice even after getting it wrong the first time.
So here is your chance.
Do the right thing on 11/6,
VOTE!
56
To get more people to vote, you need more attractive candidates
Step 1
Ask the VOTERS whom they like, NOT the campaign donors
Unless you do that, voters that understand the system will stay home.
13
@Gerhard
The opposite is also true. Politicians appeal to those who vote and ignore those who don't. So by voting, the politicians would have to pay attention to a larger voter bloc. Which would mean more candidates they would like.
1
...or more truly viable parties who have bylaws that actually follow a popular vote of registered party members (unlike the current two-party system that ignores or actively undermines favored candidates).
1
@Gerhard
We do, in the primaries. Far less people vote in these than the general.
Republicans realize that changing demographics are not in their favor so a last time effort to ram thru republican issues and judges is essential. In order to stay in power Republicans have to suppress the vote with phony claims of voter fraud led by our liar in chief. Dictators do not like democracy and attacking press the way Trump does is typical and so is suspending and disputing elections where they don't win position Trump holds. He has shown us he wants to be dictator and his rabid base is fine with that as is the compliant GOP most are terrified of the bully Trump and his rabid base. A republic if we can keep it was said by one of our founders Trump is a menace to our democracy.
11
Oh please, you Aussie fans, fans of compulsory voting
Brazil has compulsory voting
Check what that got Brazil in Sunday's election :-(
Better to let only vote those who are interested
4
@Talesofgenji Brazil's election result was from other reasons - not because of compulsory voting. The US is lot more similar to Australia. If everyone voted here the politicians would move to more middle positions.
9
@Talesofgenji Can you cite any examples of Australians electing authoritarian proto-fascists of the Bolsonaro variety?
The Brazilian population are very different from the Australian people. Lower literacy rate, largely Catholic, etc.
@Talesofgenji It is at least a reflection of the population's wishes....
1
If we are all honest with each other we would admit that the republicans really want a country where only white men of property vote. All this talk of non-white people and women voting is just a silly modern construct of the democrats. This next election is an important moment in American history, where those of us who know they are wrong can send every one of them packing. It's simple: Vote all Blue if you believe in facts, justice and democracy.
28
The republicans just want peace. If only white men of property voted there would be a lot more political harmony. The rest of us would still be counted as 3/5ths. So it’s not as if we would be ignored. Is that what making America great again is all about?
1
I wish less people would vote. It would be much easier to right a listing country if only those with a clear stake in her future (and a willingness to sacrifice for it) voted.
2
@Rolf
Then you’ll get extremists and fanatics who are convinced they are right.
@Rolf
So only the elite get to vote. That is what the founders wanted in the 1st place.
However, then only those allowed to vote get any benefits. And who gets to decide who is allowed to vote? It wouldn't be long before such a system was more corrupt than it is these days.
@Rolf Yeah, I don't really understand the premise that we should just set a goal of getting everybody to vote, no matter how ill-informed. I want informed people voting - I don't actually care how they vote, as long as they thought about who they were going to vote for and why for more than five minutes.
1
We would have:
Reliable universal healthcare at lower cost
An immigration system that works
A supreme court that is not bought and paid for
Clean water
Cleaner air
A US foreign policy that is clear and respected
Gun safety policies that respect gun ownership and gun control advocates
VOTE IN NOVEMBER!
And all this can soon be yours (again).
27
If everyone voted, we might end up with more moderate center-leaning candidates rather than the polarized partisanship that we have now. Since only half the population typically votes, it is easier for both parties to rally the hearts of their base of 'dormant' voters than it is to broaden their positions to appeal to the minds of independent voters. If everyone voted, the reservoirs of 'dormant' base voters would depleted and candidates would have no choice but to broaden toward the center to find more votes.
10
Why don't we have a voting app? We have the technology to secure our banking records with our phones, we unlock our phones with a fingerprint and eye scan. Why can't we have a free app that uses this security apparatus to vote in all local and regional elections? We could get a mailed receipt of our vote to keep as a record and guarantee that regardless of where we are in the world, we get to participate in our local elections.
We have the technology already, what's the holdup?
6
@Wellington
It’s not as safe as you think it is.
@Wellington Estimates of fraudulent transactions in the eCommerce sector are 1:67. Estimates of voter fraud using our current system are <1 in 10million. Which do you think would give a more reliable result?
It seems like common sense... if someone is trying to make it harder to vote they must think that lower turnout favors them.
I don't know if suppressing vote helps republicans, but I do believe they think it does.
6
That voter suppression is rampant in many states - especially red ones - is evident to everyone it seems except GOP appointees to the Supreme Court. The court's ruling in Hustad v. A. Philip Randolph Institute demonstrates just how wilfully blind it is to the democratic and constitutional rights of the electorate.
That said, it is also clear that apathy is an even bigger problem than gerrymandering and voter suppression practices. And the great irony of course is that those people who choose not to vote are far more likely to be disadvantaged by the outcomes of the elections they boycotted.
The adage that people get the governments they deserve is well founded. It is even more true for people who choose not to vote.
7
I was up in Syracuse NY (whose economy I study) talking to blue collar workers, asking if they intended to vote
Worker 1: Democrat, M, retired, Union member, former GM employee in the Fisher plant on GM Circle (long gun)
No: I don' like anyone of them
Worker 2: Welder, Democrat M,, Union Member, employed,
No, I don't like any of the candidates
Worker 3: Democrat, M, Working in a hospital
No, they all are the same (implied working for the rich)
Worker 4: Democrat, F, BS, graphic arts, working at minimum wage for a non profit organization (after laid off from once well paying jobs from TV stations to Museums)
Yes
Worker 5 : Republican, M, worker in supplying automotive parts
Yes. Trump is an idiot, but he gets the job done
12
Maybe Democrats need to rethink who they put on the ballot...
This is why a national popular vote system will NEVER work without a constitutional amendment. When the voting is managed by states and counties with differing standards, one vote in one state cannot equal one vote in another state.
10
@JJ The Electoral College system already guarantees that votes in low-population states count more than votes in high-population states. And Voter ID laws have been shown to discourage voting by likely-R elderly whites without drivers licenses almost as much it does to the likely-D license-less poor.
3
$25 debit card for every American that casts a ballot.
2
American federal law prevents any payment, reward, or enticement for voting.
4
@Stephanie
Federal law also prohibits discrimination based on race, creed sex or religion....err, it used to.
Pass new laws or have Right Wing activists on the worst SCOTUS in more than 130 years change them.
How about a punishment for not voting
This article focuses too much on the false choice of “indifferent” or “ignorant” voters and does not take the time (except briefly at the end) to recognize that many working Americans literally cannot vote due to work or home obligations. They want to but can’t get the time off, etc or polling places are inaccessible.
9
Australia has compulsory voting, federal, state and local elections. 95% turnout at last election. Standardised, easy to use ballots forms. Independent electoral commission prevents gerrymandering and voter suppression. Easy to access absentee, pre poll and postal voting.
Voting is generally regarded a civic duty. Party atmosphere at voting stations on election Saturdays: sausage & onion sandwiches (called “democracy sausages”) and school cake stalls.
The USA copied the idea of secret ballots from us( you once called them “Australian ballots”).
Why not copy the rest?
33
@Steve Bright why would you be proud that your government forced you to do something? Do they come check to make sure you took out the trash and made your bed too?
@Infadox If you're American, you already know your government forces you to pay taxes, drive with a license, send your kids to school, etc, and I'm pretty sure they don't "check to make sure you took out the trash and made your bed."
Sometimes adults have to do things they don't want to do for the good of all of us.
I wonder how many in UK wish they had voted on the EU referendum…………...
3
I live in Australia (dual citizen), which has compulsory voting. Sure, you can show up and then not fill in your ballot, but most people do vote.
It’s great. Nobody wastes time and money on gotv. No voter suppression. Elections are on Saturdays, but there are early voting mechanisms for those who can’t make it to the polls that day.
When I became an Australian citizen, one of the questions I was asked was to list the rights, and then the duties, of citizenship; voting was an answer to both. That applies equally to the US, and to any democracy.
21
Mark Twain said that if voting actually made a difference the powers that be wouldn’t permit it.
I cast my first vote in a national election in 1976, when I was 20—the first election in which I was legally permitted to vote. I have voted in all national and state elections since, including “early voting” in this 2018 election. I hate to admit it, but Mr. Twain was correct.
8
I have been a poll worker for the past ten years. I have had people ask me if they should put their name on the ballot. I have had numerous people not knowing what party they were registered in and numerous people not aware that their party was not having a primary this year. I have had numerous people trying to vote in a neighboring district’s election -- because it was more publicized (NYC does send out a voter information book before the elections and polling place postcards before primaries.) These are the people who came to vote. The idea of forcing disinterested people to vote is ludicrous to me.
7
Also, you know how there is supposed to be a Democrat and a Republican at each polling position? Apparently they don’t have enough R workers, because they assign R’s to registered Democrats. (I have been both an R and a D.) Most of the poll workers I’ve worked with have been registered Democrats, some of them quite partisan (especially the state employees who take the day off from their regular jobs to work the polls.) Thankfully, I can’t say I’ve seen any malfeasance, because the workers main interest is to get through the day with as few problems as possible.
3
Really. If you could actually go back twenty years and pay attention, you would no that Democrat means you do not cheat. Republican means you will accept cheating if there is enough money going to the top. You are not very observant if honesty teaches you nothing.
@ObservantOne
You've seen incredible levels of ignorance of voting protocols in your country based on voter disengagement, which leads you to think that compulsory voting is a ridiculous idea.
Growing up in a country like Australia entails learning, from grade school, that everyone (of adult age) is expected to vote.
Thus in Australia, politicians do not have to throw 'red meat to their base' to exite turnout in primaries (or 'pre-selections' as we call them), leading to ever more extremist policies. That is one of the political pathologies Australia doesn't have.
Our citizenry grows up to understand that to be Australian is to vote. Therefore every individual *expects* to have their voice heard (in a small way) through the ballot box. Some are unmotivated, sure. But if they have no voting intention, they can secretly return a blank ballot. A small minority do that.
But the very idea that voting is your civic responsibility tends to create interest and engagement.
What you have in America appears to be a vicious cycle. Alternatives are out there.
1
The Donkeys are user friendly. They support the national safety net. Obamacare, SS, and Medicare. The GOP does not. They are not practical in the need for protecting the best interests of citizens. They would rather reward the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
6
To be "user friendly" a system has to take away the ability of a user to make the "wrong" choice.
@JJ
Matter of opinion I would say.
1
Compulsory voting sounds awful. If people aren't interested in voting and are blithely of how they are affected by the results, it is the responsibility of all of us voters to help them understand.
An uneducated populace voting just because they have to is a recipe for disaster.
11
@Mary A disaster, you say....hmmmm. Wondering what that would look like...
1
@Mary I don't see any disaster happening in Australia.
@Mary Yes, but a wildly misinformed populace voting is at least as bad. Fox viewers and Trump believers are wildly misinformed...
If everyone voted, the Neoliberal war machine would crash & burn. That's why the system is rigged to dissuade voting.
6
Get rid of Columbus Day and make Election Day a national holiday...
12
Would only work if malls were also polling places.
2
Sounds like a great plan. Put the polling places where people already are.
Not voting is your right also. If you are so indifferent, ignorant or uninformed... please stay home. The country will be better off.
10
For the House, change to system where each district is represented by top two vote recipients , a "majority rep" and a "minority rep" . Each rep would be allocated a percentage of the district vote based on election results. A district voting 60% republican and 40% democrat would have representation that recognizes this difference, and maps would not matter. District still has one vote in the House, the Republican in this case would have .6 of the vote and the Dem would have .4 of that vote. Do not recognize any party with less than 10% of vote. More of the voter intent would be captured with this system, and gerrymandering effect would be diminished.
4
At the time of birth when the government issues you a social security number, then you should be registered to vote. A right of citizenship.
Felons can loose their right to vote but can earn it back; unless it's a heinous crime.
I like the purple finger thing they use in Iraq.
7
If voter registration, something NOT required by law, is going to be automatic, then Selective Service registration (required of all 18 year old males) must be as well.
1
Only Republicans want fewer people to vote.
39
The non-voters give the Democrats a great excuse for losing elections. Register and vote is a small thing to do for your country; yet more than one of two do not. All conservatives in every country vote more than liberals. Soo... Liberals need to spend years, not the few days prior to elections, making these non-voters understand they have to vote. Please Vote !
3
Wrong question - why don't we fine those who don't vote for not doing their civic duty? Everyone talks about rights but few talk about responsibilities. Democracies can die from multiple causes including apathy.
3
Look around you. You’ll see people who can’t safely operate a car, navigate a self checkout, name the three branches of government, name at least one local/state/Representative or Senator but know Kim Kardashian’s kids name, make it to work on time, use birth control, calculate a tip or make change without a calculator, speak clearly, read at a high school level, complete college or be bothered to watch even one political debate a year. They need to self-identify and refrain from going anywhere near a polling place.
2
All voting should be compulsory. All elections should be held on Saturday's or Sunday's maybe both days to be sure the very religious who respect the sabbath can get to a pol.
But we definitely need to have mandatory voting for every single adult citizen. Citizenship should be the only requirement. The abuse of voters by falsely questioning their identity to suppress their vote should be a felony with a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years before parole can be considered.
6
Voting is not compulsory in Australia; it is compulsory to turn up to collect your ballot - you can donkey vote if you are not interested. And voting always takes place on a Saturday, when most people are off work. I think “compulsory” voting has the effect of pulling policies and parties to the centre, and forcing parties to address all parts of the population.
7
Coincidentally, on the NY Times Opinion pages today is an excellent article by Tristan Ahtone about Republican attempts to disenfranchise Native votes in North Dakota. It's sickening.
It might be better if everyone voted, but in many states, Republicans are working as hard as they can to make sure that doesn't happen if it's to their benefit.
15
That this article was even written makes me very sad. We're supposed to be a democratic republic, but we have turned, thanks to today's Republican party, into a banana republic. It's shameful.
5
IF everyone voted, the GOP would have moved towards the left, therefore alleviating or even cancelling out such effect.
This kind of "if" is so meaningless that it's an insult to the basic premise of social science -- people/party react to reconcile an adverse situation.
Every citizen over the age of majority should be required to either mail in a ballot ( and receive a return mail receipt) or drop by the polling place and pick up a document to mail in with tax forms.
Nobody would be required to vote. However, to avoid the fine everyone would be required to send in their personalized receipt that they voted or attended the polling place.
That would be a real democracy!
3
True, many countries have mandatory voting, Australia being one. Don't vote, you get a fine.
Public employee unions are salivating at the idea of a huge national bureaucracy to administer such a program.
2
@Olebamadude democracy by way of taxation. What a grand idea! However, it does seem to remind me of this old story. I can’t quite remember how it went but it’s was very similar. I’m 99% sure that story ended with a happy ending.
When I lived in Seattle we voted by mail AND received a thorough voters' guide booklet with bios of local and federal candidates and explanations of ballot measures to be voted on, along with position statements for and against, and fiscal impact when relevant. It made it a pleasure to vote.
9
@Hernan
I remember those voters' guides as well. If I recall correctly they were published by the League of Women Voters, as a public service. (At least the ones I got - it might have been different in Seattle.)
I haven't seen one for years. I suspect that the LWV was primarily composed of women who did not work outside the home, and so had time (and energy) to do that sort of thing.
Everybody who votes should get a $35 tax credit.
10
@Andrew Maltz
How about a $100 tax credit OR a $25 debit card, whichever they prefer.
When dems take the house, maybe the first item of business.
Also (second item, maybe): reduce daylight savings to its pre-Bush schedule. George W. Bush expanded daylight savings time by about one month, a week in autumn and about 2.5 weeks in winter-spring.
A NYT article just today shows how pervasive and damaging the problem of sleep deprivation is today in the U.S. The scientific consensus is daylight savings in its contemporary expanded form bears much blame, damaging physical and mental wel-being, quality of life, and (for those who emphasize economic efficiency) economic productivity. Auto accidents and machine accidents, many of them quite severe, even deadly, have been implicated based on statistical analysis, and even heart attack and stress numbers tend to spike in response to the shortened day (clocks "spring" forward) in spring.
Failure to address the matter comes from laziness, inertia and negligence, not sound reasoning. On any measure, the pre-2003 approach is superior.
When dems prevail this cycle, these two priorities should come first on the agenda, because they're so unquestionably called for, with no downside.
The impact of compulsory voting in Australia is up to a 7% swing to labor, the left leaning party. I am not so sure that it is a good thing that ill informed apathetic people are forced to vote. This tends to lead to higher taxes on those who work for a living and more welfare for those who don't.
3
And which party is in power in Australia? And how long have they held power? These are rhetorical questions.
1
@Joseph B
Can you supply some proof of the conjecture? I’d bet the average Australian is better informed on the issues than the average American not voting now who would be encouraged to participate.
2
The Bernie zombies are proof that there is a large segment of the population that will go for something for nothing every time.
3
1. Voter ID should be required. It should be the responsibility, and expense, of the government to make sure every qualified citizen has one.
2. Voting should be mandatory. Not sure what the carrot and/or stick should be to make it so. The media should be required to provide unbiased summaries of the positions of every candidate; the government should make sure that every citizen, even those not currently registered to vote, should receive these summaries. The summaries should include URLs to the candidates' websites, which should be 100% non-profit. maybe you get a tax credit by registering your viewing of a candidates summary provided online by the media.
3. There should be enough well-placed ballot venues so that everyone can vote with the least inconvenience possible. Those who can prove they helped someone who is mobility challenged to vote should get something back, maybe a federal tax credit for every individual so aided. Something not large enough to encourage fraud in the process, with related steep penalties.
Then: tackle campaign finance reform. No single contributor - PAC, corporation, individual - should be able to contribute more than a few thousand dollars; not enough to buy a candidate's legislative efforts. Any campaign should be limited to a maximum total amount of donations; you shouldn't be able to win merely by drowning out the other candidate(s).
Just throwing stuff out off the top of my head for consideration. Voting has to be better than it is now.
8
@Barry Williams
1) Who pays for the time lost that is required to gather the necessary documents and the IDs ?
2) It is very likely unconstitutional to force Americans to vote. It is not unconstitutional to incentivize them with tax credits of cash payments. Carrots work, sticks hurt.
3) Increase the number of polling locations and expand the timeframes for casting votes. Good for voters, not so much for incumbents.
And anyone not paying federal income taxes should not be able to vote for a candidate who pledges to fund rainbows and unicorns with other peoples federal taxes.
3
@From Where I Sit Ridiculous. Or, allow me to allocate where I want my tax dollars spent, and when. If the government's laws allow someone to be a citizen and not pay federal income taxes (which can only come about because they have no income - which might not be their fault - or the tax code enables them to end up with nothing owed or even a refund), then they get to vote. If they get to vote, they can vote for anyone they please.
Our population's disregard for this most important right we have is appalling. American's not voting will be the downfall of the Republic. And; if that were to occur, all those who chose not to vote, would blame those who did vote, for not voting for the 'right person'. How an American citizen can not find this their most important duty as a citizen, is beyond all rational logic.
8
@Bryan Point taken, but the nonvoters don't typically blame voters for choosing the "wrong" person; they blame the candidate or the party. Wish I had a dollar for every comment written on these boards demanding that Hillary "earn" the writer's vote or whining that Dems just "don't have a message [that resonates with me me me]." The narcissism is breathtaking.
If everyone voted, the modern GOP would no longer exist, and they know it. Thus, their goal, abetted by their corrupt friends on the Supreme Court, are doing everything in their power, legal or otherwise to make sure as few people as possible can vote.
7
The modern GOP has ZERO interest in democracy. Their one and only concern is winning at any cost. Thus, disenfranchising voters with the help of their ideologues on the Supreme Court is their primary objective.
Why try to win the vote with ideas and policies that benefit everyone, when you can steal elections for the 1% instead?
"I'm running for office! (And, I get to count the votes)" - It's pure GOP. It's also a lot of other things, but those sentiments are not appropriate for a family newspaper.
The modern GOP is a wannabe dictatorship in the making. If they aren't crushed in the mid-terms, you can count on Donald Trump to push for an end to term limits for the presidency.
Their endgame is to have a dictatorship, surrounded by the illusion of a democracy.
Why try to win the vote with ideas and policies that benefit everyone, when you can steal elections for the 1% instead?
"I'm running for office! (And, I get to count the votes)" - It's pure GOP. It's also a lot of other things, but those sentiments are not appropriate for a family newspaper.
The modern GOP is a wannabe dictatorship in the making. If they aren't crushed in the mid-terms, you can count on Donald Trump to push for an end to term limits for the presidency.
Their endgame is to have a dictatorship, surrounded by the illusion of a democracy.
34
@Chicago Guy I fear when trump realizes he lost his next election, he will drum up a war and declare a national police state under the guise of national security. He will not leave on his own and will fight every way possible to remain. No one is planning for this scenario.
5
@Chicago Guy do me a favor and stop making wild accusations and assumptions. Your name-calling and grandiose statements do no good to the exact democracy you talk of. All your statements do is drive the right away as well as fuel the left to repeat those statements. While there may be issues with how our system favors the incumbent, it is patently false just about every statement you make.
Sure, if every citizen voted, then our system may look differently, but each and every person who supports the GOP is still a citizen of the US, just as much as each person who supports the Dems, and deserves equal say.
And as @Avi pointed out, if the electorate changed, you'd see a shift in Republican viewpoints, not the obliteration of a party as you say. Do us all a favor and don't inflame divides that are the exact opposite of productive. Read any amount of political theory (which it seems you haven't) and understand that cooperation is fundamental to a successful democracy. Aristotle emphasized moderation in all things, and that's what we should strive for - not exiling anyone who doesn't agree with your specific view.
Sure, we have issues, but working constructively will fix that, not making people feel as if their entire identity is under attack.
"It’s not clear, though, that indifference or ignorance is primarily what’s holding back people from voting."
I suppose this could also raise the debate over whether or not it's a value to society if indifferent and ignorant people start casting ballots. We oft forget that the founders of our Constitution never envisioned "one man one vote" let alone "one person one vote" believing the governed masses were neither educated nor sophisticated enough to truly understand the complexity of governance. There were even more nefarious motives at play in their framing, including race and wealth.
So if more indifferent and ignorant people had voted in 2016 would Hillary Clinton be president or would there be even more people at Trump rallies?
I don't have the answer but if debating the topic I would be in the camp of one person one vote. But we have some heavy lifting to do as a society to rid ourselves of big money in politics and honest public political education to create a world where lying to the people actually has some serious consequences.
1
@Mr. Bantree.....and that’s where we’d be heading if younger people, minorities, and wage workers voted (or were feasibly able to vote) at the same rate as old, white, Christian folks in rural red state America. The fact is that those people are in the minority. They cannot accept the country and world as it is now, and are so adamant about preserving their archaic and deluded ideological version of America that they’ll stomp on basic constitutional rights and shred the constitution—indeed the fundamental tenets and ideals of democracy—to do so. Look at the flagrant constitutional violations perpetuated and supported by the current GOP, as well as their fervent animus toward most of the country: despite wrapping themselves in the flag and proclaiming true patriotism, they don’t seem to actually like their fellow Americans democracy itself.
If the majority in the country do not start voting in every election, we could very well be looking at an American apartheid.
John Jay was of the opinion that the country should be run by those who owned it. Should someone who can’t balance their own checkbook be suggested to make informed decisions about government spending?
@From Where I Sit
The reason why the rich own the country is because they stole it from the rest of us. Then they give the citizens schools good enough to turn children into worker drones but not good enough to do much else...while the rich send their kids to private schools. Count me as unimpressed and yes, even people who cannot balance a checkbook can have a sense of fairness and decency and figure out right and wrong.
Why are voting "machines" that cannot provide a paper hard copy (especially when they're manufactured by the same company that makes ATM machines that do provide receipts) even considered for use, never mind actually used, ANYWHERE???
8
@matty because they are hackable? Do you really believe red states are so red all the time? The pendolum never seems to swing in those states.
@sueinmn Do you believe New York City is all so blue all the time? Soviet Union elections were more balanced than in this city.
2
@matty Voting receipts that show candidate choices facilitate vote-buying; i.e., show me a your receipt with the choices I want to see and I'll give you $10 (give or take).
Don't laugh - it's been standard practice for years in many rural areas.
2
Why don't we make voting a requirement just like jury duty?
2
In one country, as a citizen you are registered to vote when you pay your taxes.
1
@johnw Just about every consumer pays sales taxes. Property owners and renters alike pay property taxes. Everyone that works for income pays Medicare and Social Security taxes.
If enabling more people to vot helped Republicans more than Democrats then registering and voting would be simple as pie.
3
Election Day should be a national holiday.
The last thing the GOP would want, however, is for more people to be voting -- their political fortunes are tethered to as few people voting as possible, which helps them prevail, despite supporting ideas that the majority of Americans oppose.
The last thing the GOP would want, however, is for more people to be voting -- their political fortunes are tethered to as few people voting as possible, which helps them prevail, despite supporting ideas that the majority of Americans oppose.
3
I am in favor of voting day as a national holiday and that voting be mandatory. Voters must be given time off of work to vote.
5
If I recall correctly, that may have been tried in Thessaloniki, way back during the Ancient Greek times. Incidentally, ‘Axios’ was there, too. I’m not 100% sure on the details, but I think it was a disaster.
1
In Brazil's election, everyone voted and their version of Trump won. Note, however, 30% of the votes were blank or invalid, so those 30% might as well have stayed home except they are required by law to vote.
2
Voting should be mandatory to maintain citizenship AND should have a TAX return deduction line. It must be secure and just like BANK accounts there is a way to make internet voting secure. If banks could not be certain about this we would not be enjoying on-line banking or direct deposit or any other e-transaction from and to banks.
4
@STONEZEN Also, voting day should be a paid holiday.
3
Make it a law that one gets a $50 fine for not voting, like a parking ticket. Turnout problem solved.
Ah, but powerful people who have sized the government for themselves don't want active participatory democracy. They want people to think their vote doesn't matter.
I teach my students as clearly and regularly as I can: when you vote, people will notice, then try to get your vote again. If you don't vote, you won't matter to them, and so a sad tale of missed opportunities and unmet needs plays out.
8
Can we please combine election day with veteran's day and make it a national holiday. I mean, this is what our veterans have fought for, democracy and freedom. Sounds like a win-win to me.
50
@Matt586
No. Sunday voting is the only way to do. No "holiday" voting, especially when more than half of the nation doesn't even get that "holiday" off.
No. Sunday voting is the only way to do. No "holiday" voting, especially when more than half of the nation doesn't even get that "holiday" off.
4
The whole “can’t get to a polling station” is nonsense if you really wanted to vote. If you really wanted to do anything, most humans of even the meager means would see through to getting there.
I feel as if most voters aren’t being heard, and if they aren’t being heard, what’s the point after awhile?
2
Get rid of all the political hate ad's. Have non partisan pamphlets sent along to voters. Make voting easy. Lots of voting places. A National day off for voting. Same day registration to vote. And easy by mail voting.
1
The Founding Father's so feared democracy that they only meant to have white Anglo-Saxon Protestant men who owned property to have the right to vote for and directly elect their representatives in the House of Representatives in a divided limited power constitutional republic of united states where the people are sovereign.
3
more people didn't vote than voted for the president
more people voted against the president than voted for him
these facts give me hope
4
More people also voted against Secretary Clinton than voted for her. Her deficit was just smaller than President Trump’s.
1
Get rid of the endless TV ads. All they do is wear people down to a state of absolute apathy; tired of the endless half-truths, cherry-picked data, and outright lies from a bunch of detached, insular, self-serving narcissists who think they know better, but just really want to get rich -- after all, there's a reason they spend so much money trying to get a job.
Get rid of the ludicrous amount of money spent, too. All that does is advertise how corrupt the whole system is.
4
@James Devlin
Make it illegal for everyone except the candidate to produce advertisements. That way we won't be bombarded by lies.
Make it illegal for everyone except the candidate to produce advertisements. That way we won't be bombarded by lies.
2
Ha! It's like saying what if there was not "Electoral College..."
2
and yet you leave out Utah. Claimed as a Red State.
Some Utah counties in 2016 sent mail-in ballots out to all registered voters. A PRIG Study shows aprrox an 7% increase in voting using Mail-in Ballots.
Personally I like mail-in ballots.
Utah, today, has its' last day to register.
2
@RenegadePriest
I like the theory of "mail in" ballots, but I don't like the post office being the middleman in this situation.
I like the theory of "mail in" ballots, but I don't like the post office being the middleman in this situation.
@RenegadePriest No mail-in or online voting. The crooks have enough opportunities for fraud, intimidation and vote-buying as it is.
I live in a Vote-By-Mail state. I really don't care which side benefits more from the change. I never, ever, ever! want to suffer in-person voting again. I miss the excitement. I miss the "I Voted" stickers. I don't miss waking up before dawn to go stand out in the cold for an hour then yawning my way through a 10 hour work day. No thank you.
Nowadays, I sit down with my bagel and my coffee. We go through the ballot line-by-line on the computer and examine each candidate and issue. Discuss opinions and competing points a view. When we're done, the mailman picks up the envelopes and that's it. If you don't think the average American voter could benefit from such a system, you clearly don't know many average Americans.
By all means, make the system automatic and universal. If someone doesn't want to vote, they can opt-out. They simply fail to submit they're ballot. No harm, no foul. For everyone else though, you'll wonder what in the world took so long.
5
As with immigration, those who talk the most about voting reform aren't really serious about solving the problem in this country. There are a number of positive things that could be done:
1) Issue all Americans an identity card (for free) which would show residence, place of birth and citizenship status. Once you turn 18, you are eligible to vote in whatever district you reside. Period. End of story.
2) Election day should be on Sunday.
3) Election day for president should be a national holiday. Also, each state should mandate "easy voting days" for their important elections such as governor, senators, etc.
4) Vote-by-mail (7 States currently have mail-in voting with very good results)
We should at least try some of these measures to improve voting participation.
4
Voting should be required by law and only by filing exemptions can you not vote. You can abstain from casting a vote if you do not like the candidates but first you must cast a vote either in person or by absentee ballot.
2
It's fairly straightforward. You want universal participation in voting? Make it so that campaign solicitation is linked directly to voting status. Once you vote, you don't get any more campaign mail, phone calls, emails... etc.
100% turnout on the first day of early voting.
5
People don't vote due to apathy, long commutes and work schedules, young children, etc. Also standing in long lines is difficult as is playing shell games with voting locations. Voting online or by mail would be better alternatives.
It is also a good idea to keep people engaged through the election process up through election day so they don't become apathetic. During the Obama campaigns, the local organization provided daily updates, responded to questions quickly, provided info on early and absentee voting, where the polling locations were, how to get there, etc. Perhaps an organization not connected to political candidates can take over that sort of voter contact to keep people plugged in.
1
The irony is that most discussions on voting rights, voting laws very easily gravitate on partisan outcomes. Meaning, the discussions invariably imply which steps will favor republicans and which will help democrats.
The fact is that more uniform the voting laws are and more the people vote, healthier will be the democracy in the long run.
1
The bottom line is that more people voting would work to create less extreme and divisive candidates. So would open primaries. Sadly, neither will happen until we remove Republicans form state and federal office. Voting should be easy and should be encouraged as a civic duty. Voter fraud is rare but sadly, voter suppression is common.
5
The Right Would Welcome Easy Online Voting
If the left wanted people to vote, voting would be as easy a making a purchase via Amazon, depositing a mobile check, filing an online tax return, or renewing a vehicle's registration. The fact that computer and smart phone users might statistically lean right precludes the left from supporting the legislation.
It does not matter that tens of millions of voters would welcome not driving to the poles, the leaders of the left would scream about potential fraud in the same way the right often now insists on physical voter ID in old fashioned polling places.
Online voting could also be done in advance of Election Day with the choices stored in the cloud and transmitted to the Board of Elections on Election Day.
Online voting could also make voters more informed by giving candidates the opportunity to email online voters perhaps 10 times during the 60 days before election day. That would enable poorer candidates to get the message out to all and minimise the role of big money donors.
Of course the parties and any interest groups could also host websites that give candidates an opportunity to spread their message or compare candidates. Most modern media just give one side or a very biased view.
More voters would be good. More informed voters would be priceless.
2
@Eugene Patrick Devany
"The fact that computer and smart phone users might statistically lean right precludes the left from supporting the legislation."
That's a fact? The left doesn't support expanding voting rights? Do you have a source for that?
I *can* point to multiple studies and analyses showing that rules and laws making voting easier (see Motor Voter legislation for one example) have been backed more heavily by the left.*
I can also point to the fact that in a number of states, default mail-in ballots are already standard. My state, NJ, just initiated a program for permanent vote-by-email. So more convenient voting is in place in a number of states. And I'm not hearing screaming about it (except in certain quarters).
Re being informed: the League of Women Voters has been providing information for 98 years on elections, candidates, and positions. (They provide this info to all, not just women.) They aren't the only ones out there.
"More voters would be good. More informed voters would be priceless."
Now that I can agree with!
* I want to avoid saying specifically "left" or "right," as I'm sure reality is much more complicated than that. I would also point out that if Congress and the Executive are controlled by the Republicans - which they currently are - then it's up to the Republicans to introduce and pass legislation to make it easier to vote. However, right now we're seeing the opposite happening.
"The fact that computer and smart phone users might statistically lean right precludes the left from supporting the legislation."
That's a fact? The left doesn't support expanding voting rights? Do you have a source for that?
I *can* point to multiple studies and analyses showing that rules and laws making voting easier (see Motor Voter legislation for one example) have been backed more heavily by the left.*
I can also point to the fact that in a number of states, default mail-in ballots are already standard. My state, NJ, just initiated a program for permanent vote-by-email. So more convenient voting is in place in a number of states. And I'm not hearing screaming about it (except in certain quarters).
Re being informed: the League of Women Voters has been providing information for 98 years on elections, candidates, and positions. (They provide this info to all, not just women.) They aren't the only ones out there.
"More voters would be good. More informed voters would be priceless."
Now that I can agree with!
* I want to avoid saying specifically "left" or "right," as I'm sure reality is much more complicated than that. I would also point out that if Congress and the Executive are controlled by the Republicans - which they currently are - then it's up to the Republicans to introduce and pass legislation to make it easier to vote. However, right now we're seeing the opposite happening.
2
As the late great Ronald Reagan would say “There you go again.” There are not one but two blatant falsehoods used as premises for the foundation of your argument.
1. “Underlying that reality is an increasingly partisan split over whether it should be a goal at all in America to get more people to vote.” The centrist majority on both sides would like to see greater voter turn out but one side wants to ensure those that are voting are in fact legitimate legal voters (living US citizens) and that they get ONE vote per person. This is a completely reasonable, rational, fair and responsible position to take. I sincerely doubt anyone who believes requiring obtaining a photo ID to vote would be an unreasonable encumberance would bother to vote if getting a photo ID is too difficult for them.
2. Only one who chooses to be blind to further their personal agenda can deny that there are in fact rampant signs of at a bare minimum attempts at voter fraud. Recent vilified news stories this week alone I have run across found well in excess of 50 registered voters in a California town registered at a non existent address. Another documented a deceased WWII vet who registered this year to vote. Chicago alone is notorious for the number of registered voters who found a way to register after dying and video evidence of low income people being PAID to vote along with provided bus transportation to the polls for the ones on the payroll. Why do Liberals continue to deny voter fraud?
4
@J Scott Bell
"Recent vilified news stories this week alone I have run across found well in excess of 50 registered voters in a California town registered at a non existent address. Another documented a deceased WWII vet who registered this year to vote. Chicago alone is notorious for the number of registered voters who found a way to register after dying and video evidence of low income people being PAID to vote along with provided bus transportation to the polls for the ones on the payroll."
I can't find any of these "news" stories any where. Please provide links to support your assertions.
Also, remember that registration errors do not equal voter fraud. After I moved from New York to Los Angeles, my name wasn't removed from the New York voter rolls for several years. However, I was only voting in Los Angeles, so no fraud was committed.
9
@J: Take heart. Remember how the NYT claimed no one was negatively impacted financially by the ACA?
There were two groups of adults in my Detroit neighborhood. Those who voted and those who didn't. It sounds like those who didn't are now being elevated from lazy status to victim status under the "voter supression" banner.
4
@J Scott Bell There are almost no cases of voter fraud. It is a fictional problem created to make it harder for people to vote.
Next, your argument about a photo ID ignores the realities of photo ID laws. In some states, a state college ID is not acceptable, but a concealed-carry gun permit is. What party do you think made that rule? In another state, you cannot vote if your address is a PO Box. In that state, many native americans rely on a PO Box because the US Postal Service will not deliver to their actual house. Again, a rule meant to disenfranchise specific groups of people.
The idea of a photo ID for voting in and of itself is not bad. However, the implementation is being used as a way to disenfranchise many because it picks winners and losers NOT based on validity of ID, but on the likelihood of what type of ID voters of the party in power will have.
10
If everyone voted, we would see 75% - 80% Democratic results. Yes, there is apathy, but it is far outweighed by voter suppression of all sorts including gerrymander, super delegates, electoral college, Jim Crow voter ID laws, unequal distribution of polling places, "defective" voting machines... It's a wonder any votes count at all. But fear not: The North Shall Rise Again. The rubber band of racism can only stretch so far before it snaps.
9
People in power do not easily surrender it. America’s history has been that power reposes in white males. As a consequence, America has historically had a white male dominated culture. The result is elections that are a conflation of fights for domination in power and culture. Republicans reflect this white male domination more than Democrats, and they will do whatever is possible to maintain that domination. Power is taken; it is not freely relinquished. Democrats must fight harder.
8
We've had all Democratic Party governments and we've had all Republican Party governments but rule by the military industrial Congessional complex continues much as the owners of the USA would like. And that is all benefits accrue to capital and whatever employees they need to continue with the heist.
2
If the United States had mandatory voting like Australia there would never be another Republican President.
6
@Richard Johnston More likely there would be a realignment whereby both parties would tune their platforms to appeal to a broader swath of the electorate. Now, when it comes to policy, Republicans have to rely on trickery and deceit win a majority, since their core policy aims are patently not in the best interest of the majority of the populace. If they really tried to work out saner programs and presented them persuasively, they would have a chance of looking responsible and electable.
2
@Oinophilos
I fully agree. You still have to wonder if the Republicans would be stubborn enough to crash and burn. Most Democrats are pretty moderate, after all.
The phrase - “(G)et more people to vote.” - may be more appropriately rephrased to “Let more people vote.”
The “Get out the Vote” drive was intended to get every eligible voter to vote.
I felt this effort would attract people to vote who were not inclined to vote. Many of those people likely did not understand why societies need government, how a government functions, or how it affects them, i.e., why it was important for them to vote.
Reference, “If you don’t know anything, you’ll believe anything.”
Consider, “Fox and Friends.”
Consider, our President, Donald J. Trump.
I consider the behavior of the G.O.P., at least as recently as President Obama’s inauguration, to be treachery.
Our government should assure voting proceeds smoothly, is easy, and convenient. That is a prime duty of democratic government.
I do not subscribe to inhibiting voting in any way. To paraphrase, “Allow the sleeping voters to remain laying there.”
4
"Bryan Caplan, an economist at George Mason University, argues that the larger problem is that if more people voted, we’d simply have more uninformed voters, and more populism."
There you have it. An excellent summary of the Republican "rationale" for voter suppression.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to NYT readers to learn that the economics department at GMU receives a big chunk of money from the Koch brothers. See Nancy MacLean's 2018 "Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America" for details.
9
@WmC True, true. The Republicans and their leader are in power because of uninformed and misinformed voters. If Republicans really believed Caplan, they would be all for getting out the uneducated vote.
2
I have been boring my friends for years with the argument that, if everyone who can vote, does vote, the Democrats will always win. Thanks for the scientific backup!
6
If your electoral strategy is to keep people from voting that it's just yet more evidence that you are more interested in what your big donors want than the needs of We the People.
If you think that voters are not well informed enough, stop running race baiting attack ads, and run ads about the issues that people actually care about. Increase education funding and pressure news programs to talk about issues instead of polling. That's what Bernie does every time he goes on TV, by refusing to answer weapons about the horse race and only talking about issues.
Republicans know that the more democracy we have the less successful they will be in giving away he national wealth to the global corporations and their global shareholders.
By the way, populism is a scam. Populism is what the right offers when the people start to get angry at being given a choice between a party of the rich and another pay of the rich. Trump made a bunch of vague promises to give us beautiful healthcare and education for everyone, and a trillion dollar infrastructure plan. He hasn't tried to do any of that. Instead we got $5.5 trillion in tax cuts for the owners of capital and money laundering front companies, paid for with tax increases on high-tax-state workers.
Trump ran to the left of Clinton but governs to the right of Genghis Khan.
Bernie didn't call himself a populist. He called himself a socialist. Bernie was going to tax the rich to pay for his plans. They called him a populist to confuse us
6
In Washington state, voting is entirely by mail. You could not make it any easier. Yet there is a low turnout. Is it because there are no candidates that appeal to the struggling masses? I think so.
It would be nice to know whether we have controlled studies that support statements in this article such as the following: “One of the main reasons why politicians are populists is that populist positions appeal to people who participate but don’t know very much,” Mr. Caplan said.
How does Mr. Caplan know that? Is that just his guess? Should a story based on scientific studies be sharing what appear to be the speaker's untested hunches? (If there were a study, I expect that it would have been cited.)
There is a lot in Professor Caplan's statement. I wonder if it is accurate. Is he one of the people who participate but don't know very much?
1
If everybody voted ie making it mandatory, you will tend to end up with something like the old USSR, then there is only one candidate and they get 99% "yes" vote.
If you deny the right to vote, you get countries like Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China etc.
The right not to vote is as important as the right to vote.
If only one person voted in the next election, I would still fight for the right to vote (and also not to vote).
5
@Paul Australia has manadatory voting and is further from the USSR than the USA is.
@Paul This is ridiculous.
1
@Oinophilos-Thank you for your reply. I beg to differ and as mentioned the old USSR and countless dictatorships prove it.
1
Well clearly if everyone voted in America our politics would be much different than they are today. A federal law which would establish uniform voting standards to simplify and encourage greater participation would help achieve that goal. A significant portion of this law should be measures to prevent large anonymous contributions to the process. With the current political makeup of the populace this legislation would strongly favor the Democrats, but who is to say which party would be favored in 10 or 20 years? In my view greater participation will always be a good thing for America. Because it is unlikely that the GOP would support any federal measures to make voting easier, it would probably require a constitutional amendment passed by the people to achieve this goal. Hopefully such actions would be a first step in producing a well informed electorate whose votes would best represent the interests of all Americans.
1
@Kevin Cummins It does seem reasonable that voting laws should be as inclusive as possible and within strict limits set by the federal government. All citizens should have equal voting rights. In many states, that is not the case.
1
@Kevin Cummins A constitutional amendment would be much harder to achieve than a law passed under a Democratic Congress and President. That's what we need.
15 to 20 nations have mandatory voting backed by fines of various sorts. Result: high turnouts AND a better informed citizenry. Face it, one portion of America's two party system is afraid of democracy--the Republicans. The Red state coalition of old line segregationists in southern states and dark money PACs work in harness to suppress the vote. And it works. Minority presidents and gerrymandered House districts payoff big time for the minority Republican Party.
27
Like many articles on the subject, it is almost an unproven assumption that to increase voting turnout all you need to do is remove the barriers to voting like voter ID. Here in NY, voting is easy, the polls are open long hours, the lines are seldom discouragingly long and there are enough polling stations so they are not too far away from anyone.
One would think that turnout would be relatively high, given those conditions, right? Wrong. The mid-term turnout in 2014 was around 28%, in the 2016 presidential elections it was a whopping 57%.
It is not legal barriers that depress turnout, it is apathy.
5
"Many political scientists say that policies that make voting easier would also make American democracy more representative and less likely to favor the interests of wealthier, older and white voters who typically turn out at higher rates"
Precisely why states with Greed Over People party legislative majorities and/or governors will never support making voting easier.
In other words, the old white men who are our "representatives" in DC or state capitals won't willingly give up the power they possess to keep their thumbs on those who cannot compete with campaign contributions from billionaires or listening events with lobbyists. They pay their "supporters" well with tax breaks and corporate welfare.
Michigan has two proposals to overcome the last decade of GOP interference with our democracy: a proposal to overcome gerrymandering with a citizen led redistricting committee, and "no reason" absentee voting.
Voters in other states, take notice and start your own ballot proposals to overcome any disenfranchising voting issues in your state(s). The gerrymandering proposal was started by one woman the day after Trump was elected. Over 400,000 people signed it to get it on the ballot.
We the People can make change, but have to be on alert continuously.
9
I believe that voter apathy is a result of voter suppression, gerrymandering, voting machines with no paper trail, lack of civic education and awareness and foreign interference as well as other roadblocks to participatory democracy erected by those who would lose if access to our constitutional right and responsibility was easier.
Yes, I'm looking at you, Republicans. You have seized power by every means possible, and retain it through questionable legal shenanigans both at election time and within the halls of congress, the contrasting embarrassments of the bottled up Garland and ramrodded Kavanaugh SCOTUS nominations being prime examples of the latter. The end does not justify the means. The means is fair and honest voting by as many citizens as possible exercising their right and responsibility to vote, and I repeat that phrase because it is the essence of our democracy. To all citizens concerned about the survival of our country as a fair and equitable democracy, I beg you to vote all Democratic November 6th. If we regain at least some legal muscle after this election, we can do something positive to restore and reinforce our democracy.
14
@CP
See the response of Mikecody. He is correct. It is we the electorate who bear the full blame.
Even if all manipulation, barriers, suppression, were eliminated, our vote totals would remain abysmally low.
Americans don't vote. Period.
3
@CP Been teaching college for 20 years, most of the time when I mention voting student's eyes glaze over- and it's not because of the Russians, voter suppression, or the evil Republicans.
They tell me they just don't care.
Been true for years- younger voters have low turnout. Blaming everyone BUT the voter, as you do, leaves out the most important factor: The voters themselves!
8
“One of the main reasons why politicians are populists is that populist positions appeal to people who participate but don’t know very much,”
I'd argue that you'd be a very informed voter if you only watched/listened to public broadcasting and read your voter pamphlet cover to cover, dictionary in hand. The uniformed voter is the product of the so-called information that voters get, and the way Americans equate money with speech. It will remain this way until we regulate campaign spending and turn the airwaves back over to the people who own them, requiring networks and cable to fulfill their civic duties. Combine that with automatic voter registration, and we'll start to see citizens truly take responsibility for the government they create.
6
increased participation leads to "... more uninformed government, they warn" - how ironic?
I just moved to Ohio from Washington state. A world of difference in terms of information. In WA, I get a booklet that clarifies the position each representative has and clear descriptions of the initiatives. I can sit down for an hour and discuss at home pro/con without having to refer to stupid and misleading mail ads. In Ohio there was zero official information available. To have more informed government we not only have to let the people vote but also inform them.
291
@In California, candidates have to pay to have information in a voter information booklet. Some can't afford that. All candidates should have an equal chance.
14
@j first so sorry you moved, Im from Ohio now live in Portland and travel up to Port Angeles to take the ferry to Victoria where our daughter attends school, I love the area. In Oregon we have great information but it can be confusing so you do still have to look things up, luckily we have easy online access which some do not. I do remember going to the polls once with my dad growing up and it wasn't easy. Mail in Voting is the way to go and it is also very secure, a few more states have gone that way but we need a lot more.
10
@j Yes, I agree. The Washington system works. The information booklets and mail ballots make voting very easy and allows time for a thoughtful consideration of the issues and candidates. No lines, no restricted hours, no hard to find polling places, and there is a paper record of votes. No voting machines to hack. I don't understand why this is not used all over the country. It would solve so many problems.
23
Republicans win when voting is suppressed. As winning is more important to them than one person one vote, they will do anythinv legal or illegal to hold down voting totals of Democratic voters. They are fraudsters in the mold of their con man President.
13
Everyone votes in Brazil. Look what happened there.
2
@Wende
And your point is?
And your point is?
The concept that democracy benefits when all indifferent, unmotivated and uninformed individuals vote is nonsense.
All individuals with minimal interest and motivation can vote if they are eligible.
2
@jck People are uninformed and unmotivated because the odds are being actively stacked against them. You're criticizing people for not jumping over a bunch of blatantly unnecessary hurdles.
2
It is 100% irrelevant that some people think that if more people voted, there would be more uninformed voters.
100% irrelevant.
You have a Constitutional right to vote if you are 18 and older, AS YOU SHOULD.
If people are so concerned about uniformed voters, the prerogative should be on educating voters so they can make informed decisions, not restricting who can vote.
The biggest way you do this, is through the news. So *someone* needs to stop calling the press the enemy of the people.
76
If I thought any of the candidates was not hopelessly corrupt I would make considerable effort to vote. But in the upcoming election I won't vote. Perhaps if the hundreds of Democratic emails I have received had said something besides 'SEND MONEY" I would feel differently.
3
I fail to see why rational steps taken to protect the integrity of the voting process are deemed to be discriminatory. Is it really improper discrimination to ask a voter to produce some form of identification to prove that he/she is the person doing the voting? We require stringent identification and personal searches for people to travel by airplane. Why is there so much opposition to insuring the integrity of the voting process? Is it simply the political motivation that demanding proof of identity is good for one party and bad for another? Insuring ballot integrity should be non-partisan.
4
@JAM Older people or poor people who don't drive do not have a driver's license which is what polling locations are asking for. My mother no longer drives and therefore does not have a driver's license. We got her an identification card, but she lost it. One could argue that making it difficult for people to vote (especially poor people) benefits the Republicans. What is wrong with making sure everybody in our country is able to vote if they so choose.
6
@JAM must know that this is a "straw man" argument. The well-known Pew study found significant problems with voter registration but only incredibly rare actual voter fraud. What on earth would motivate someone to make such a counter-factual argument?
4
@Edward C Weber
Apparently he's from Florida, so I doubt it.
Public education in that state is abysmal.
Apparently he's from Florida, so I doubt it.
Public education in that state is abysmal.
1
I don't think that the problem is lack of access to the polls, or inability to register. It's apathy, the root cause of which is lack of responsiveness to voter issues by politicians, especially at the federal level. Populism has its roots in voters feeling left out. Congress simply does not address big issues and/or make difficult decisions. Clear examples are health care and second amendment rights. Simply stated, a lot of voters are thinking "why bother"?
4
I don't think having everyone voting needs to be immediate goal, but making sure everyone who wants to vote can do so is. How about changing Election Day from Tuesday to Sunday? That would remove barriers for people who want to vote but are prevented for the reasons you have heard about so many times. Also, voting by mail, as is done in Oregon, Washington, and Colorado increases voter participation.
21
Texas has 2 weeks of early voting, M-Sat, 7AM-7PM. We have typical turn outs for some elections of <5%. Yet we have a parade for champion NBA team in middle of working day and 200,000 adults are there. Enough said. People that do not vote are simply lazy. You could look for a deeper explanation if turnouts were in the 90% and we wanted to bring in last 10%. Not the case here. They are the same people that toss a jury summons in the trash. Voting is a right, but you have to show some personal responsibility for your part in it. Registering ahead of time, checking to see your status (you can check for free at any library and correct errors), making sure you have the right ID and bringing it to the polls are all part of a life pattern of preparing yourself for an important function. It means you are an adult. Just surviving till 18 does not award you that status.
3
What if accountable individuals ran for public office?
Self-goverance is greater than good, better the a mob.
Thanks to the internet, everyone is capable of self-goverance.
2
If everyone voted, that would be a Republican nightmare! What party does everything possible to deny and obstruct voting?
12
ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE. EVERYONE should have a right to vote - free of any barriers of any type. Felons should be given the right to vote because the criminal justice system has put people behind bars to criminalize them making them ineligible to vote. A voting holiday should be installed so that people do not need to have their jobs threatened because of wanting to vote. Eliminate gerrymandering. Eliminate the electoral college. Both were created as voter suppression schemes based on antiquated circumstances. Technology has made both schemes redundant showing them to be racist and sexist.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
9
@H. Haskin
I agree with most of your ideas, but it would take an amendment to the constitution to get rid of the electoral college, something the small
states would never ratify.
If you want to work on an amendment to the Constitution, how about:
Corporations are Not People and Money is Not Speech.
This is popular with citizens in small states and big states and has already been endorsed by hundreds of localities including totems, counties, cities, and states.
Forcing the government to regulate political spending by corporations would let us get rid of the legalized bribery that has corrupted our governments.
It is more likely to actually happen and would do more real good
Instead of worrying about the electoral college, Democrats need to give the 60% of the population that actually works for a living real reasons to vote for them so that people feel like they have a real reason to vote.
Even in the days of Trump, lesser evil is a terrible slogan. Give the vast majority of the population, struggling with medical bills, education debt, and long commutes real reasons to vote for Democrats, and you will make complaining about the electoral college obsolete.
1% of the population owns 75% of the capital that just got massive tax cuts.
60% of the population works for a wage.
Only Democrats could turn odds like that into constant losses.
It is not the job of Democrats to tell workers what they can't have.
It is the job of Democrats to tax the rich to invest in workers.
2
@H. Haskin - I agree with all your points save one. Felons should not have the right to vote while they are in prison. Their conviction costs them that right as a punishment for their crime. However, once they have paid their debt, then their voting rights should automatically be restored.
1
As a 55 year old politically engaged Australian who strongly values democratic principles, I have often reflected on the practice of compulsory voting in my country. In the 1920s Australian business and christian groups that supported the measure because they were fearful of voting power of the progressive labor movement in Australia, which has historically been a stronger political force in Australia than in the US. Funny how history turns - now US conservatives view compulsory voting as a neo-liberal plot!
People might not be fully informed of day to day political events or have a conscious political philosophy - but they want the best for their children and their community and can readily perceive threats to their interests. Depending on how you count the vote - compulsory voting forces major parties to modify policies to address a broad spectrum of interests rather micro targeting of segments of the population.
No one likes being told what to do. People don't like filing tax returns; or being called up for jury service. Yet most understand these to be essential duties of a citizenry to maintain social stability. In this case, what is being asked of US citizens is the duty to turn up at a voting booth, have your name marked off, and cast a ballot. If you are ignorant or annoyed, you can cast a blank ballot. Typically in Australia, the "donkey vote" at national elections runs at about 2-3% of all votes cast.
143
@Elsie: fortunately, unlike AUSTRALIANS…Americans have a BILL OF RIGHTS.
Our government cannot simply "boss us around" or confiscate our guns.
The right to vote is also the right NOT TO VOTE if you don't want to vote.
Your attitude is like saying you are forcing people to attend church every Sunday, but it's OK -- you don't force them to pray or believe -- just show up so you do not get fined.
Mandatory voting would never, ever be upheld by the US Supreme Court. It's a stupid idea. Give it up.
1
@Concerned Citizen And of course the system you have now, and your freedom to own as many guns as you can afford is working so well, isn't it?
It is always better to ignore anything that anyone else might be doing. Americans, in particular, already know everything, have a perfectly functioning society, and so of course there is absolutely nothing they could learn from other people.
Your post is a classic my dear, thank you for your thoughts.
9
Don't you mean, 'What if Everybody Wanted to Vote'? Because, unfortunately, many Americans don't even want to vote. Spoiled beyond recognition, they don't appreciate the honor that it is to be able to participate in their own future. It is easier for them to not vote and then complain about the circumstances imposed on them by others. It is more satisfying for them to sit it out and lament their fate.
6
@Richard Mclaughlin
If both parties support tax cuts for the rich, and the Democrats take it upon themselves to tell the workers that want universal healthcare, subsidized higher education and jobs building modern infrastructure, that what they want is "pie in the sky and unicorn dust," then many workers will see no party to vote for that supports their own interests. Go ask non-voters why they don't vote, eggs they will say, both parties represent the rich, not me.
Yes, apathy is the biggest obstacle to good government. That is why global billionaires are creating as much apathy as possible.
But as long as Democrats keep telling workers that what they need is too expensive, instead of promising to tax corporations and the mega rich to pay for the things they need, then both parties are asking them to vote against their interests.
Promise the 60% of the population the things that they keep telling pollster they want, and try will vote in numbers big enough that Republican voter machinations will not matter.
Let Republicans tell them that what they want is too expensive because corruptions need tax cuts. That's their job.
Workers don't need you to be "fiscally responsible" while Republicans borrow and spend their way to winning elections. They met you to passionately and clearly "promote the general welfare" over the specific welfare of global billionaires.
Fight for workers to win!
1
People who don’t vote generally don’t feel they have a stake in the society and the nation. The less responsive they feel government is to their needs the less likely they are to get involved. “What’s the use?” Is actually a valid reaction if government appears to be ignoring vital interests.
3
Somehow we have always had 100% of Americans that whine and complain (different from actual assembly. That would require actual effort). Maybe if we allocated that right to people that voted, we would make progress.
1
Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
10
If voting were compulsory and donated money spent on persuading who to vote for was limited as was the time candidates could run for election (none of this filing for 2020 in 2016 nonsense) then much more time and money could be allocated to learning about election issues under an equal time and equal money policy. Parties would need to have viable percentages of voters to continue to be involved.
I support one set of federal rules for federal elections. If states want to have special rules for state, county and local elections, that would be their choice, but all federal offices would use the same rules and be administered by federal career employees, not political appointees. The situation in Georgia where a candidate is in charge of the voting is unacceptable.
12
With gerrymandering and paid off politicians thanks to Citizend United, even if EVERYONE voted, I doubt it would much matter. Polls show the majority of Americans favor gun control, for example. Yet, that's not what politicians legislate. We no longer have a representative Democracy, if we ever did.
5
@Anne Hajduk
Perhaps, but part of the problem is that many politicians know to a high degree of certainty that they will be re-elected regardless of their votes on many issues. So long as voters ignore bad votes, corruption, incompetence, etc. and just vote for a candidate for the D or R after their name nothing will change. And Citizens United has absolutely nothing to do with that!
1
@Anne Hajduk If every person who told pollsters they want stricter gun control voted for candidates supporting same, we would have stricter gun control.
Is the problem that registered voters aren't voting, or that eligible voters don't register at all?
A national election holiday would mean a day of lost wages to hourly workers, whether or not they registered to vote.
A solution for today's mobile society is for more states to offer early voting and expanded voting hours so everyone who wants to vote could vote.
If people don't care enough to register, society should not bend over backwards to accommodate them.
7
We are a democracy. We should strive for everybody to vote regardless. Not only should we remove barriers to voting, we should make Election Day a national holiday to enshrine its importance to our democracy.
9
@Bert - Unfortunately, having a national holiday doesn't necessarily help as many people will still have to work because, as we've seen with most holidays, businesses use holidays for sales. Those whose companies close for the day may lose wages as a result of less work hours. This hits the poor hardest. I believe it better to expand election day to an election weekend, say a Friday-Saturday-Sunday to give working people a broader opportunity to vote, as well as establishing early voting and vote-by-mail options.
3
We do exactly that in Texas. No change in horrible participation rates. It is still good process though because it enables us to avoid the crowds and hoopla of actually voting on Election Day. I have lived here for 23 years, voted in every possible election except for one minor referendum and have never voted on Election Day.
1
The assertion that expanding the franchise will lead to an uninformed electorate seems a bit odd given where we are at the moment. One look at Trump's base demonstrates that we are already suffering that fate.
124
@JNR2
Excellent point! Define uninformed . . .
1
@JNR
But the majority voted against Trump-expanding the group of voters seems good to me.
4
Voter turnout is highly skewed by income, so obviously the traditionally low US turnout was engineered by powerful forces that don’t want the have-nots involved in policy making at any level. But the chief mechanism limiting turnout isn’t the registration process - it’s the primary system.
For candidates to be successful in the primaries, they need huge amounts of money, which overwhelmingly comes from the wealthy. The wealthy naturally support candidates who favor policies such as low taxation, weak social support systems and policies that increase upward transfer of wealth.
These policies have no appeal to the poor, and not much more to lower and mid-middle classes (the latter group explains why both parties focus on non economic issues such as abortion, guns, God etc).
Come general election time, the poor have choices between candidates who offer them nothing, economically speaking.
The one exception to this pattern, and one that provides a glimmer of hope for US democracy, was the unusual success of Bernie Sanders during the primary season, achieved by his appeals to, and small donations by, traditionally alienated groups.
17
@Ed Watters You're right that the problems start in the primaries, but your analysis falls apart in blame-the-rich.
The larger problem is that the primaries are rigged by the parties, resulting in activists advancing either doctrinaire ideology or party insiders. Hillary Clinton is literally the example here of party loyalty winning out over electoral appeal.
Voters wind up pursuing vote-against strategies, not participating, and sub-optimal and/or extreme candidates get elected. My own house district has an inexperienced party ideologue, my choices are to support her or vote for her worse Republican challenger who I don't support. I dislike them both and have no other options.
The solution is probably a combination of ranked choice voting *and* making all primaries open, so voters can choose both Republican *and* Democratic candidates in the primary. There's no rational reason I shouldn't influence both parties' final election candidates. If the parties want closed primaries, they should staff and fund their own primary elections instead of doing it at state expense.
If parties don’t get to pick their own leaders by at least forcing voters to self identify temporary exclusive membership for at least the primary, what purpose do they serve? They winnow the field. What do you want? Gigantic nationwide election with numerous, likely rich candidates, eager to try the lottery of being the top 2 vote getters, however every slim their pluralities? If you think it is bad now, see what happens under that voting regime.
I am also a trained economist, and I have an otherwise intelligent colleague who makes the same misguided argument that "if more people voted, we’d simply have more uninformed voters, and more populism." However, his arguments are far tighter. Putting it simply, trump won because everyone didn't vote, but Mr. Kaplin says that we ought to reduce the pool of "legitimate" voters still further? Good, grief, who would be our next president, Charlie Brown?
8
@PJM Doesn't statistics basically imply that the election is a decent sampling of what some larger turnout election would deliver for the same candidates on the ballot?
There's this tempting idea that somehow forces have conspired and that if only more people voted, those that didn't vote would have chosen the other side and tilted the balance.
Even if were true, would it really change the final outcome much, or would we still have deep divisions and major gridlock, at best an Obama-type Presidency (if you think it's Democrats who would benefit from more turnout)?
Worst case it just means more ignorant people voting for whoever makes them feel better and runs the most repellent ads.
@Mobocracy
No, because the sampling isn't random. Voters are self-selecting.
The dates for both mid term and presidential elections should be a National holiday so that everyone has the day off from work and can more easily participate and vote.
Expecting people to vote during a full work day in the middle of the week is just another example of voter suppression.
53
While the idea of making election day a national holiday seems benefical, it would actually make it more difficult for some voters who rely on public transportation to make it to their polling place. In most cities bus lines decrease their service on national holidays.
7
And they couldn't possibly change the schedules on that holiday to address their needs?
3
@Steven
I mailed a ballot for the first time this year. I was able to carefully mark it. Not worrying about the long line of people behind me that wanted me to hurry. Or frustrated about the hour long wait.
I saved gas. This year I would have to drive 4x longer because there are less voting centers now.
I live near Stanford U. There may be a need for far less voting day booths because the option of mail in is far more succinct, convienient and in common use. We need alternatives to single day constrained hours. And the inevitable fewer and farther voting places.
Eventually we will each have a safe digital signature. Most people at all levels have a unique email address, ssi#, and phone number. There should be a week to vote rather than day.
NO tallies or counts before the day after the final election day. Secret ballot till the final post election count.
How arbitrary is Tuesday, November 8, 2016. And this years Tuesday, November 6, 2018. Why Tuesday? Why November? I think that's because their term would begin Jan 1. Roughly 8 weeks to prepare and transition. I would suggest a change to September and double the transitional prep time.
Think about several of the Trump administration scandals...Double the transition time, fully vet and train the new teams.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/opinion/trump-administration-corruption-conflicts.html
1
2016 was a relatively low turnout election, was it not? Thus it shouldn't be used to argue against expanding the vote, but rather for it. We also need more awareness on how the government actually works. I got so peeved at young folks and other groups who complained that Obama didn't accomplish what he promised when they didn't come out to vote in 2010 or 2014 to elect a legislature he could work with.
Election turnout is usually much higher in Taiwan than in the US, partly because elections are always held on a Saturday. Absentee voting is not yet allowed, so everyone has to return to where their household registration is to vote. Young people take their political power very seriously, though. Because public transport is usually packed with working people going home to vote, university students here arrange their own charter bus system to make sure everyone can get home to vote. In 2014 they helped flip city councilships and mayorships, and in 2016, they not only helped flip the national legislature and the presidency, but also got their own new political party into the legislature. I find their civic commitment quite admirable!
33
I tend to agree with those who are skeptical that increased voting equates to better voting, or more representative elections.
Mandatory voting is just as intuitively likely to increase vote-selling and voter fraud as it is to produce better-informed citizens. Hunches are not a good basis for public policy.
6
Even if you believe that "everyone should vote" the corrosive effects of social media, mostly dishonest campaign advertising and the low levels of education and voter information ought to give you pause when considering universal suffrage.
I don't think literacy tests, information quizzes, etc, are at all practical because they will only be used to prevent people from voting for cynical reasons.
3
@Mobocracy
You list a bunch of solveable problems, then instead of suggesting that we solve them, you suggest that we undermine democracy from the bottom up by not following universal suffrage as required by the Constitution.
Fix the real problems.
1
Saying that Bush v. Gore was the big bang misses an important issue. The outcome of that election would have been very different had the groundwork not already been laid. We had a republican in charge of Florida's election. We already had voter suppression taking hold. We had a party that was focused on winning rather than ensuring the process was legitimate. We had a sufficiently republican supreme court willing to cast the single deciding vote. For those of us willing to call this a failure of the democratic process, it is important to note that what mattered was not so much that the vote was close, but that given the close vote, a partisan machine that society had allowed to take over was ready and waiting. Anyone watching Georgia?
167
"what mattered was not so much that the vote was close, but that given the close vote, a partisan machine that society had allowed to take over was ready and waiting."
A partisan machine, or a vast [wrong]-wing conspiracy by another name.
1
If George Bush were a patriot who believed in democracy, he would have said: I lost the national vote and Florida is a tie; my fellow American Al Gore has been chosen by my countrymen to be the next president of these United States.
11
@PJM Don't forget Ralph Nader. I'll never forgive him.
1
I am a contrarian on the issue of voter turnout.
Encouraging or demanding that the entire population participate in an activity, any activity, assures that many of the participants will be incompetent, low information, and really not interested, but doing it because they are forced to, like paying taxes.
Why would you want the opinions of informed and motivated people diluted by the gullible, easily fooled by Facebook hoaxsters or other sources of misinformation? If they care so little about the electoral process, they probably at the low end of the information scale.
While we should not put insurmountable barriers in the way of people legitimately qualified to vote, we should not be shaming people, who may little more than noise to the system, or be easily swayed by misinformation, into the voting booth.
19
@RM
I wouldn't require people to vote by law, as they do in Australia, but the problem in the U.S. is not that too many people are voting, but that Republicans are making it far too difficult for people to vote in certain districts no matter how informed any particular voter in those districts may be.
A person may be well read and know what they need, but also may have to close between being fired for standing on line for three hours because their local polling station was closed, or feeding their family.
By the way if Democrats stopped hiding in the center and actually argued passionately and clearly for the things most people need, voters would be getting far more of the information they need, and wouldn't be so tempted by "populists," who offer popular things to get elected with no intention of actually implementing things.
For example, where's Chuck Schumer? Schumer, as head of the Senate minority party is defacto head of the Democratic Party. He should be in TV every day explaining the issues to voters in clear and passionate language, and explaining why Trump is a danger to or Republic. But he is hiding in his office trying not to offend anyone why Trump tries his offend his way to a permanent presidency.
12
Do you think people who do vote are smarter and not capable of being swayed by false information? That's totally unsubstantiated. What's obvious is that making it easier for more people to vote would also get them more interested in the decision they are making. People are uninformed mainly because they have no intention to vote in the first place. Why spend time researching a decision you're not going to to make?
7
@RM - Perhaps if even 5% of the money being spent by candidates & their PACs were available for use to educate the electorate on the process and importance of voting, as well as the issues with a non-partisan bias, then you wouldn't have the "low information" voter. In AZ, we get a booklet mailed to us well in advance of the election covering the propositions that includes the text as well as for/against arguments. It also includes statements from the candidates. I find it very useful. Also, this country needs to link voting to patriotism. I'm constantly amazed how hyperbolic people get about their patriotism and flag waving, but don't see that having the right to vote and exercising it is an important act of patriotism. Maybe shaming people who don't become informed and vote as being unpatriotic would help, I don't know.
1
Australia has compulsory voting at all levels from local councils to federal elections. No, it is not perfect especially when political parties decide to change leaders half-way through their term. Of course, the Australian public will make their verdict on that next year. Should be pretty simple whoever gets the most votes gets to be the representative. One Person, One Vote. As for the party in power being able to redraw districts what a complete and utter farce that is as is voting rules which favour those already in power. Some democracy you have.
70
@Belinda: we have a Bill of Rights.
You don't.
End of story.
1
One more argument in favor of easy voting: democratic engagement begets democratic engagement.
Voters feel more connected to the political system and more responsibility about being informed. They are invested in election outcomes and the policies promulgated by their government, of which they can claim some small part.
The argument on the right is roughly this: It is democracy *enhancing* to create barriers to voting becomes it ensures that those who participate are truly committed to voting. This is nonsense. Besides being out of touch with the difficult realities of working people voting across the country—long lines, long hours at work, responsibilities at home—it ignores the extent to which voting actually creates informed and engaged citizens.
New voters engage in our democracy, contribute to it over time, and ultimately legitimize our system.
50
Voting should be mandatory, as should public and/or military service. Civic engagement and involvement would improve a lot.
13
@Ed What about my liberty to be left alone? Mandatory civic engagement sounds good for kids in school, but adults?
This goes against my freedom to choose how I want to live, doesn't it?
6
@Ed
Voting is a right, but one should not be compelled to exercise it. Forcing people with no interest and less knowledge into the voting booth will raise participation numbers, but how will that in any way give us better outcomes? It won't!
6
@profwilliams Once you choose to live in or near a community and use the benefits of doing so (roads, clean water, access to markets,information, protection and health care) there is no liberty to be "left alone" without fulfilling your duties to the community in exchange for its benefits.
There are still some places in the US far enough from communities to feel as if you are being left alone. However, moving to a part of the world without any government would be your best bet to be totally left alone and not have any of the advantages of a community. As the country song says "Liberty isn't free."
3
Interesting question.
The real question remains:
What if there was no voter suppression and gerrymandering?
98
@Tim: there is no "voter suppression". Only lazy people who refuse to vote.
There is only gerrymandering in CONGRESSIONAL races.
You cannot gerrymander a Presidential race, nor a Senate race. They are "at large" and not by district.
2
@Tim
Then you blame it on the Russians. Duh!
The reality is that there is one political party in all of the rich industrialized world that works full-time to suppress democracy and representative government: the Russian-Republican Party which is deeply committed to the 1787 idea of one-white-man-one-vote.
This is immoral and unAmerican.
They lie continuously about nonexistent voter fraud when they are the world champions in voter suppression, voter file purges, gerrymandering, Electoral College high jinks, black-box-vote-counting and closing of poll stations for poor people.
In a decent country, the Republican Party would be in federal prison for grossly violating the 1st and 15th Amendments of millions of eligible voters nationwide.
The fact that America lets neo-Confederates like Brian Kemp rig the 2018 Georgia vote the way he has is a crime against American humanity.
Voting rights are federal rights and they currently are administered by partisan right-wing hacks hellbent on Grand Old Pirate theft and grand larceny.
Decent Americans will be voting for democracy on November 6 2018, not for Republican rot that can't stand democracy, free and fair elections or American voters.
D to go forward; R for reverse... and rigged, fake elections.
179
You and I agree. I’m also very over caffeinated and buzzed right now, but you is making perfect sense right now!
5
@Socrates
Americans should ask themselves, why isn’t exercising their right to vote mandatory?
Because one party would not be able to disenfranchise voters who don’t support their candidate. That’s why.
I wish a law could be made which makes it mandatory to vote or else face a financial penalty like a tax.
In Australia voting is legally compulsory; because we believe that in a democracy all citizens have a responsibility to elect their government. This in no way diminishes our freedom to opt out of voting, either by paying a fine for failing to do so, or more frequently by casting an invalid ballot; say, by scrawling 'up yours' across the ballot paper.
What is more voting is preferential: all candidates must be listed in the voter's preferred order. The candidate with the least votes then gets eliminated with their second preferences distributed to other candidates. And so on.
In this way the country gets the government preferred by the majority of citizens.
And incidentally, voter registration is the responsibility of the non-political Electoral Commission, which also determines the boundaries of electorates to ensure there is no gerrymandering.
Why the obvious flaws in American democracy are allowed to persist is hard for Australians to understand.
287
@Martin In Australia you don't even have to cast a ballot. To avoid the fine you just have to get your name crossed off the roll at a polling station. You can then leave.
@Martin Quite right to make voting in a democracy a duty and not just a right. The freedom democracy seeks to protect is not the freedom not to be involved in governance at all.
2
So how do end up with so many awful PMs?
Ms. Badger fails to include the Constitutional issue that largely makes voting a State matter. She details the different State standards for voting with any mention of why they are permitted.
Failing to address why and how our system works in an article about voting requirements doesn't to tell the full story of voting in America.
15
@profwilliams
I agree. The Constitution seems to be silent as to the issue of the federal government establishing an independent Electoral Commission (see Martin from Australia's comment, above). I can envision the Commission establishing not only voter registration regulations for federal elections, but also federal representative districts - ripping the gerrymandering of House districts from the states.
If this ever became law, you could count on the red states to immediately sue. Those states, however, might not have a good case as the federal Electoral Commission would have sway over federal elected offices and elections, not state offices.
California already has ranked voting (as does Australia), an independent redistricting committee headed by retired federal judges, open primaries and the universe has not ended as we know it.
In any event, it would be an interesting experiment.
30
@John Parziale. John makes several important points. I have long wondered why, in federal elections, states get to determine voting policy. In a federal election, all citizens of the nation should abide by the same requirements to be a qualified voter, whether that’s automatic registration or registration requiring some ID. Have there been legal actions based on this view?
4
@profwilliams
Any discussion, even a 1600 page book wouldn’t tell the full story! The state/federal issue has as much history as Americans do. It’s a subject that can not be exhausted, like the sciences.
I believe the up coming mid term elections will be the most expensive in history.Billions of dollars spent on political advertisements etc.Representative democracy was meant to provide the voter with a choice of someone they knew to represent them in Washington,we are so far away from that ideal I am surprised anyone votes.
14
@John
create more house seats would make for more representative government---nothing sacred about present number.
As for senate---needs to be rebalanced by population.
As for supreme court---and federal judgeships---need term limits.
1
The focus should be on making every peron's vote worth the same when it comes to representation. THEN let people decide how to use that vote. That California should have the same amount of power n the senate as wyoming is an abomination. That the popular vote ca be overturned by nominated party officials (the electoral college) is a travesty.
103
@Jay Renaud
Again with the Senate thing. If you knew about American history and civics you might be able to understand the actual reasoning for the difference between the House of Representatives and the Senate, and why one is allocated by population (California has by far the most seats) and the Senate equally amongst the states, for they are EQUAL sovereign entities, each entitled to the same voice in that chamber. The two bodies must then concur on passage of laws, representing a balance of interests.
9
@George S
I disagree with your statement of "balance of interests" A few ranchers in Montana should not be able to overrule the interest of millions in CA or any other state. Montana, SD,ND, and Wyoming since they have similar "interests" should perhaps be combined into 1 state to match their interests against California in a more equal size match. The state system as such is not sustainable going into the future.
13
I agree that these things frustrate democracy, but the Framers of the Constitution didn't TRUST democracy. They set up the electoral college expecting that it would be the group that decides who becomes president -- voters would choose the wisest men in each state and THEY would pick the president.
Also, the original system has senators not elected but chosen by the state legislatures. That was eventually changed by a Constitutional A
amendment, but the number of senators from each state cannot be changed -- the Framers specifically say in the section on amending the Constitution: "no State without its Consent shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
This would seem to mean that you need the consent of all 50 states to change equal representation in the Senate and the small states would never agree to that. So the only way to change that would be to scrap the Constitution and write something else.
3
I lean liberal, but can somewhat identify with the argument that not everyone who CAN vote SHOULD vote. On an ideological level, the thought of some form of voting test (e.g., knowledge of issues) intrigues me, although would understandably be very difficult (if not impossible) to implement.
At the same time, I can't help but agree (as posited by much smarter people than me) that, if everyone were required to vote, it would force politicians to appeal more to the center, thereby limiting the appeal of partisan demagogues. I think that, in this particular situation, the benefits may outweigh the costs.
64
@Greg
I think that everyone should be required to vote though this currently only applies to Australia. What is also essential is to make it possible for people to vote. From what I read in Democratic areas under Republican control lack of polling places makes that near impossible.
30
@Greg
There is an old saying, "You can bring a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink."
Similarly, you can force a person into a voting booth, but you cannot make him/her an informed voter. Forcing everyone to vote merely dilutes the votes of informed and motivated voters, and increases, in my opinion, the likelihood of elections being swayed by outside influences that prey on the gullible and less informed.
9
@RM (&Greg)
Maybe. But, what would you call a society that actively discouraged or actively suppressed, or otherwise disenfranchised segments of its citizenry? Could you call it democratic? Could you call it a legitimate republic? Could you call it equitable, with liberty and justice for all? I do not think that you could. This is the conundrum of voting rights. Voting in a democracy is complex, and you're right to be concerned about voters being informed, but I disagree that the solution to this is to, in some way, depress the numbers of people who can/will vote.
There is no mechanistic fix to this type of problem that would not violate the foundations of the country. Rather, what there could be is a long term strategy to educate, and encourage, people to learn more, think harder, and participate more actively in their society. This could be done in a variety of ways - and may have been partially addressed through civics classes in the past - but there seems to be little will to address these issues today. When I wonder why, I cannot help but come to the conclusion that for many of those in power, an informed populace is not what they want. We cannot let that view prevail and survive.
7