Mandatory Voting? Automatic Registration? How Un-American!
If you have an election where the winner gets four percent of the eligible electorate, is that a functioning democracy? Having just lost such a runoff contest in New York City,
I congratulated the winner for running a skillful campaign according to the rules. But are there better rules?
When there were similarly pathetic turnouts in local school board races 20 years ago, such elections were ridiculed and then abolished. When there are 70-80 percent turnouts in British, French, Swedish and Israeli elections -- or 60 percent in our own 2008 presidential election -- no one questions whether they broadly represent popular will in a functioning democracy. A seven percent turnout, however, risks choosing city-wide officials more in a private selection than a public election.
Instead, let's expand Instant Runoff Voting and automatic registration, and even consider mandatory voting laws:
Instant Runoff Voting. Under IRV, voters rank their choices for an office, 1 or 2 or 3 depending on how many are running. Then after the first and only round of voting, any candidate with a majority of course wins the election, whether primary or general. But if no one has a majority, second and third and choices are automatically allocated until someone gets 50 percent + 1 of all the votes. With the tabulation occurring electronically, a majority winner is guaranteed on election night.
Besides assuring majority rule, IRV saves taxpayers money and cuts the costs of campaigns since there's only one primary and no runoff; reduces negative campaigning because candidates will want to be an acceptable second choice for their opponents' supporters; increases turnout since the electorate needs only to show up to the polls once; avoids winners only working their narrow geographic, racial, religious or organizational niches; and frees people to vote their consciences without the worry of wasting their vote on an admirable though arguable long-shot (a Ralph Nader, a Libertarian) since their ballots will be re-cast for their next choice.
San Francisco has been using IRV since 2004, and recently Aspen, Burlington -- and Australia, Ireland, Great Britain and New Zealand -- have adopted it. It's now been used in 46 American elections in six counties, cities or towns. Analyzing the first IRV election in San Francisco, FairVote, the Center for Voting and Democracy, concluded (PDF) that "winners received significantly more votes than winners in [past] December runoffs (and especially more than winners in conventional plurality elections), more votes were cast in the decisive election and winners received more votes both in real terms and as a percent of the vote than the old 'delayed' runoff system. And that means more voters had a say in who their supervisor [mayor] is."
Automatic Registration. According to recent U.S. Census data, 30 percent of eligible Americans are not registered vote. So instead of hoping that high school graduates will find their way one by one to Boards of Elections to register as all American jurisdictions do, many countries use their census or tax data bases to create a voter registration list or engage in direct mail or even door-to-door registration drives (Germany, France, Switzerland, Finland, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Belgium). According to the Brennan Center for Legal Justice's report, Voter Registration Modernization, "Although the United States does not have a residence registry or a national health care system [yet] that provides a list of all eligible voters, states have a variety of databases that compile information about their citizens - databases maintained by motor vehicle departments, income tax authorities, and social service agencies. Many of these lists already include all the information necessary to determine voter eligibility..." With everyone registered and then encouraged to vote by mailings and public service ads, turnouts increase.
Mandatory Voting. When I used to routinely ask applying law students in interviews what they thought of this idea simply to test their ability to think on their feet, about 98 percent would object to it as coercive, big-brotherish, un-American! "But if we accept the days it takes to sit on juries as a condition of citizenship, why not the few minutes it takes to vote?" Um, oh. Indeed, Australia (since 1924) regards it as much a part of their civic obligation as we in America (for the most part) do paying taxes.
Other countries which require voting includes Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Ecuador and Switzerland. While rules vary, in nearly all there's a penalty of some $15, which citizens can avoid paying by providing a legitimate excuse for not voting (religious objections, travel, illness). And voters can still write-in a name or vote for none-of-the-above.
So why bother? Because such a system could help create a habit to use the franchise rather than just cite it on July 4 ... help assure that elected officials more truly reflect their constituents ... and encourage candidates to concentrate on convincing 50 percent of the total vote, not just pulling out four percent of the eligible electorate. Or as a store window sign down my block once actually put it, "Democracy is like sex -- it works best when you participate."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Mark,
If America did indeed shift to the left or left-center between 2005 and now. Great idea. If instead they rejected a corrupt and bumbling administration, not accept the progressive platform ( not the same ) you DO realize having a mandatory vote law would basically doom the Democrats to permanent minority status. It will definitely muzzle the Progressive voice pretty much forever. Though it probably would do the same to the hard-line conservative voices too.
Take California in 2000 for example. Parental notification. It failed -50 to +50. In the San Francisco area it failed by 65-35. That means in the rest of the State it passed by 55-45. A mandate through two-thirds of the State over ruled by a very HIGH TURNOUT area in one-third.
But in Calif ( see Meg Whitman`s voting record ) Republicans are so demoralized they just do not vote. They figure Democrats are going to win no matter what they vote. So they do not even bother.
Your law MAKES them vote and thus, good bye Democratic Senators and Congressmen all over the place.
I just happen to agree with this plan, not because it forces the Democrats into the minority, but I suspect in the long run ... all the most partisan people on both sides will be sidelined, muzzled, and ultimately fired.
I like all three ideas, Mark. How about these:
1. Weekend voting or an Election Holiday?
2. Bring back civics classes: K - 12.
3. Make a person's first vote something to celebrate: something on the order of a Naturalization Cerermony.
Great article.
4. Get rid of voting machines!
Automatic Registration is a good idea. Not having it mostly disenfranchises the poor and the sloppy.
I don't really want people voting that don't want to vote.
And the automatic run-off system sounds like a recipe for law-suit HELL. Those systems are highly subject to paradoxes, meaning that one candidate might have won more votes than another, but will lose if the run-off formula is applied. They might work well in other countries, but American voters and elected officials would never accept such a system.
If we really cared about voting, how about having elections on Sundays? Most countries do. Isn't it logical? Why Tuesdays? Dumb...
Most voters are very cynical (me), and getting more so all the time--the last election case in point!
The two parties are quite similar in the way they depend on big $ to get elected which will always result in a country for the super rich, with little hope for meaningful change. Two parties? WTF!
Status quo wont change--what we need is a revolution, not the BS that passes for American democracy these days! This is corruption legalized and stamped by the Supreme Court: as long as "money=free speech" this country stands no chance for any progress and the results are evident.
And no, I personally do not vote-I don't want to encourage the farce that passes for a functioning system! Stll, the time something I care about loses by one vote (mine), next time I may think about voting... "But what if nobody votes?", is a common fool's argument. Well, that'd be great--Then we will finally know that the system is kaput and get to work on a new one!
"I don't want to encourage the farce that passes for a functioning system!" is a common fool's argument as well.
Personally, I favor a law that requires any candidate for any office to gain 50.1% of the votes of the eligible electorate.
To allow anything less is to kill democratic representative government. And that is exactly what has happened to this country.
Rick Perry was elected by barely over 30% of those who did vote, in a 3 way election. He didn’t convince anywhere near half of the eligible voters to want him to keep the governorship.
Reagan was elected by barely over 30% of the eligible electorate in his second run for the Presidency. That's just pathetic. That means 70% of the eligible voters did not want him to keep the office of the Presidency, either because they wanted some one else or because they simply didn’t want him.
Not surprisingly he did not, as Perry does not, serve the best interests of the majority of their electorate.
That's the quality of leadership we have gotten by allowing minority elections. Don't blame the voters if you and your opponent are so unappealing that they will not vote for either of you.
I am sick of having to take a barf bag into the voting booth to try to keep a really offensive candidate from winning by voting for a somewhat less offensive candidate and so are most Americans.
If the two parties had to keep footing the bill for race after race until someone got 50.1% maybe they would put up decent candidates the first time around.
Just to clarify - here in Australia, we don't have compulsory voting. We have compulsory attendance at the polls. We have had it for over 85 years - in that time, the law has shaped the culture in that most of us take it for granted that you have to show up to the polls on election day. You do not, however, have to cast a vote.
I could be mistaken, but I believe that there was a time in U.S history when certain Counties or posssibly even States attempted to introduce compulsory voting (as distinct from compulsory attendance)- these attempts were blocked by a SCOTUS ruling that deemed compulsory voting a violation of the 1st amendment. The logic was that the right to free speech covered the right not to speak - compulsory voting was a form of forced speech and thus violated the 1st amendment. Fair enough. However, this point does not relate to the idea of compulsory attendance at the polls - you are not compelled to cast a vote in this scenario and therefore it cannot be interpreted as forced speech. I think that this is definitely the way to go. In a democracy, we all cherish our rights and will fight tooth and nail to defend them. Is it really too much to ask of citizens that they uphold one responsibility and at least consider (by attending a polling booth) participating in the process that is supposed to keep their democracy alive?
So, just curious, mind you! What do those complying with the law to show up do if not vote? Hold a party? a fair? sloganeer? campaign? what?
I don't think we should tweak our voting system overly much (I very much dislike the concept of mandatory voting)... but I think Automatic Registration is a no-brainer.
If a US citizen wants to vote, they should be allowed to without bureaucracy standing in the way. The ONLY point of registration is to PREVENT people from voting.
I'm undecided about the other 2 ideas, but I am a huge IRV supporter. However, I know that it will never fly because it is too good for 3rd party candidates--& democracy--while it hurts the 2 majors.
Fining people who don't vote sounds like a tax on the poor. I might point out that the fine for not voting in Australia is ridiculously small; you'd get a worse hit from a parking ticket in downtown Sydney. The high turnouts are cultural, not judicial. I might also point out that in most parlimentary countries ballots have just a few places to choose, one for each party. In the US you don't vote for a party but for a person. What this means is that here in Cook County, Illinois, the Nov. 2008 ballot has 98 names on it! We vote for everybody from President down to the traffic court judges. It's hard work!
I'll tell you this Mark after this Obama experience, voter participation is going to be much lower in our future elections...
People will be even more cynical and less inclined to participate in such charades...
We voted for Change, gave him a mandate for change, and what did we get...?
As Emma Goldman said if voting changed anything it would be against the law...
By the way, I have voted for you, every time you've been on a ballot, I could participate in...
HIS FIRST TERM IS NOT OVER YET!!!!!
His first term is not over yet!!
That's true, but as things are going by the last two years of his administration, the wheels will really be coming off..!
Let's hope he has some kind of epiphany, and changes real quick...
We could have implemented all of the above and Mark Green still would have lost by a landslide.
How do you figure? The 2001 mayoral race was one of the closest in NYC history. There was no landslide.
I am absolutely for mandatory voting.
Let it be part of an American citizen's duties as is jury duty.
Because the writer's proposals makes common sense, they would be opposed by the corporations and political machines which seek to maintain political and government spending power.
Make voting a responsiblity to go along with the rights of being a citizen.
When I was vacationing in Belgium a couple years ago I had an interesting discussion with a gentleman about their voting system. They were having their national election the next day. I was very surprised when he told me that voting is mandatory in their country. You will be fined if you don't vote.
He said that the turnouts for votes were getting so ridiculously low that they felt it needed to be instituted.
Then he just rolled his eyes and said "All politicians are the same...it makes no difference who you vote for" It made me laugh because you see such similar attitudes at home (I'm Canadian).
Hold your nose and vote!
If you aren't running any candidates interesting enough to go out and vote for, we're not going to vote for you. If you make voting mandatory, and don't have a "None of the above" option, you'll find a lot of people voting for Mickey Mouse, or handing in blank ballots. As a third-party voter, I'd expect my candidates to get more votes if voting is mandatory, but mostly from people voting against the major-party candidates rather than voting for us on principle. In general, the results of the vote will be _less_ representative of what the people want than if you let them just not show up.
I've probably voted in every election I was eligible for, though it's possible that I've missed an occasional non-November non-primary. But it's not reasonable to insist that people who don't care about the issues pick somebody.
I think you disagree with yourself. How are people who don't show up to vote more representative than voting for Mickey Mouse? If a person chooses not to vote at all, how do you know why they didn't vote? What would that represent? Mandatory voting would at least let us know how many of us actually chose 'none-of-the-above', or who would support Mickey Mouse over Sarah Palin. Well, in that case we wouldn't actually need mandatory voting to see Mickey Mouse winning in a landslide..
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
