Comparisons of the United States to other major democratic countries show clearly that Americans are far less likely to vote than citizens in other countries. This is problematic, since one major symptom of a poorly functioning democracy is when a large percentage of citizens chooses to not vote.
So what are the factors influencing voting turnout that may be causing Americans to be less likely to vote? There are many. For example: demographics (older citizens are more likely to vote), convenience of voting, absence of trust in government, the degree of partisanship among the population, lack of general interest in politics and a failure of faith in the true effect of voting. In this blog, I am focusing on convenience of voting.
Many Americans are unaware of the fact that their system of voting is far less convenient than that found in other major democracies. In the United States, in all but one state, voters must go through a separate registration process before voting, and the vast majority of states do not allow Election Day registration. This two-step process -- register, then vote -- is more complicated than the process in many other countries and discourages some Americans from voting. In Austria, Germany, France and Belgium, voter lists are generated from larger population databases or by other government agencies, thus simplifying the voting process. For example, Germans who are eighteen or older on voting day automatically receive a notification card before any election in which they are eligible to vote. In Canada, the income tax returns are used for voter registration. In the United Kingdom, every residence receives a notice of those registered within the household, and additional voters can be registered by mail.
These countries are enabling the voting process. They are leveraging readily accessible, government-tracked information to make it easier for citizens to vote. It is not surprising to know that those countries all have far higher voter turnout rates than the United States. While these countries are busy simplifying the process of voting, it is rather conspicuous that many American states are even more busy developing new hurdles for voters, adding requirements such as government issued photo identification to their state's (already more complicated) two-step process.
Defenders of these added barriers to voting insist that these measures are designed to head off voter fraud and ensure the integrity of the voting process. Critics point out that voter fraud is generally very low, that these barriers are a modern "poll tax" that will disproportionately impact the poor and minorities, and that systematic, electronic fraud, like the cleaning of the voter rolls in Florida's 2000 election, is a far greater risk than individual identity fraud. Those critics cite Pennsylvania's House of Representatives legislative leader Mike Turzai's quote that "voter ID . . . is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania" as evidence that the added requirements are specifically meant to disenfranchise voters who are more likely to be Democratic.
While our political parties are battling back and forth about how to raise or to not raise the barriers to voting, few people are talking about how the government can facilitate the voting process. We can learn from other countries how to leverage government-run databases to create voter lists and simplify the process of voting to one-step. We can learn how to have a population that is more engaged in its government. We can learn from other countries how to enable, rather than disable voting.
This article is based on excerpts from the recently released book The Measure of a Nation: How to Regain America's Competitive Edge and Boost Our Global Standing
A key goal in 'Measure of a Nation' is to compare the United States to other wealthy countries, with the idea being to identify which countries are performing the best in each area of interest: health, safety, democracy, education and equality. In each of those areas, the countries that are performing the best are examined to determine which best practices might be applied here in America.
Follow Howard Steven Friedman's Facebook Fan Page
Follow Howard Steven Friedman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/howardsfriedman
I lived in France as a student for 1974-1975. One day my French friends sat me down for a friendly chat. They taught me more about myself in 60 minutes than my 25 years had. After our conversations, I realized that I had been frequently insulting my hosts with my unrealistic views of America's perfection. These folks remain my dearest friends today - and I'm much more likely to question American positions on any issues than I was before. I'm a better person and a better American.
A simple solution to this is to use Score Voting or Approval Voting. Score Voting means you rate the candidates on a scale like 0-5, whereas Approval Voting uses an ordinary ballot but simply lets you vote for as many candidates as you "approve". The candidate with the most votes still wins. Either system ensures you can support any candidate(s) you prefer to the perceived frontrunners, and always safely support your favorite regardless of perceived electability. This has the potential to create a contentious race between 3 or more options, thus giving more voters a reason to show up and vote.
And until such time, the US changes these systems, the country will continue to slide to the right and with nothing really being done, resulting in worse living conditions, increase in crime, a wider gap between the top 1% and the rest of the population.
If or when something happens, it will be a blood massacre seen nowhere else thanks to the fact the US has almost as many guns as citizens and they will be used, liberally!
That is why not that many people vote. A solid 30% get it. Those people are not evenly distributed either. Most are on the coasts in large cities. So the electoral impact is muted.
We'd Vote.
On Saturdays.
Plenty more People,
Would Vote.
That's a Promise.
The attempt to muddy the waters of convenience is purely tactical. Republicans know that their policies are not favored by a significant majority of voters, so they'll do whatever they can ti inhibit voting. It's just another cynical play for more political power, something the GOP is able to do easily.
I exempt where they get their drivers license because obviously those places have the equipment to make an instant photo ID card, so it would just take making a printing template for voter ID cards, which would be exceptionally simple - just use the template for drivers and non-drivers cards, and make whatever adjustments necessary so they cannot be mistaken for anything but a voter ID card.
Would it cost taxpayer money? Yeah, some, but realistically how much? A quarter a voter? Now, that would also simplify things when you go to vote, as well, for those precincts that introduce card readers thus eliminating the errors of a person signing the wrong line, etc.
BTW, I need an ID to drive, to fly, to buy things with a credit card (at some stores) etc etc etc, but I don't need one to perform the most sacred function (that many have died for) as a free citizen of the US....I agree, lets clean the ID system, not avoid it because it seems like too big of a problem. We should also retire terms such as "poll tax" unless we really mean what is came to mean years ago.
Trust me, I have great concerns about citizens not being able to vote due to some of the laws...I agree with their intent, but the implementation is what concerns me...