Tag Archives: mandatory voting

What If We Had Mandatory Voting?

A couple of days ago, a commenter suggested that a shift to mandatory voting might help reinvigorate American democracy.

I once thought the only countries requiring citizens to cast ballots were the ones running phony elections, the countries where autocrats could claim an overwhelming mandate after marching people to the polls, but a few years ago, during a cruise of Croatia, I met a retired professor of public administration from Australia, who disabused me of that belief.

It turns out that countries like Australia, Belgium and Brazil all require citizens to cast ballots. In such countries, including Australia, modest fines for non-voting are typically assessed. In Belgium, non-voters may be fined and they may also face disenfranchisement for repeatedly abstaining. In Brazil: voting is also compulsory, but the rule makes several accommodations for illiterate citizens, the elderly, and those living abroad.

Mandatory voting rules require citizens of voting age to register and participate in elections. Penalties for noncompliance range from small fees to restrictions on public services. (In some countries, like Brazil, proof of compliance is needed for public employment or for obtaining a passport.)

In most systems, the rules contain exemptions for valid reasons for not voting– illness, travel, or  even religious objections may exempt individuals from penalties. And use of mail-in or other absentee ballots are considered to be in compliance. The mandate is not onerous.

Even people who want to show affirmative disdain for all of the candidates can comply with the law by submitting a blank or spoiled ballot–signifying their vote for “none of the above.”

There’s a fairly substantial body of academic literature analyzing the effects of mandatory voting.

Unsurprisingly, turnout increases dramatically (duh!), but research has also suggested other salutary outcomes. Researchers have found  that compulsory voting reduces “socioeconomic biases” in voter turnout. (In countries without required voting, the majority of people who fail to vote are typically poorer.) Vote totals in mandatory systems thus reflect the sentiments of a broader cross-section of the society. As a result, some studies have suggested that governments in countries with mandatory voting are more likely to adopt policies that benefit broader segments of society.

Critics of mandatory voting argue that forcing uninterested or uninformed individuals to vote dilutes the quality of electoral decisions. A 2009 study titled Full Participation: A Comparative Study of Compulsory Voting, for example, highlighted these concerns about uninformed voting. (On the other hand, those of us who live in the U.S. can attest to the fact that making voting mandatory could hardly turn out a higher percentage of uninformed voters that those who routinely go to the polls here. Data shows that Donald Trump’s margin of victory was greatest among those who consume little or no news.”)

When I was doing some superficial research for this post, I also found pundits who argue that making voting mandatory infringes on individual freedom. (Civil libertarian that I am, that was actually my initial reaction during discussion with my fellow passenger.) On reflection, however, I have changed my mind–for a couple of reasons.

I have often said that taxes are the dues we pay for a functioning society, but taxes represent only one part of those “dues.” Other obligations of citizenship include obeying laws and responding to summonses for jury duty. Surely casting a ballot can be considered another such obligation.

Over and above the inclusion of voting as a duty of citizenship, however, is the likely effect of such a mandate on policy.

Poll after poll shows large majorities of citizens supporting or opposing particular policies –preferences that are routinely ignored by America’s lawmakers. Most lawmakers who feel safe ignoring public opinion are the Representatives elected to the House who have been gerrymandered into “safe” districts. As I have often noted, however, gerrymandering is a voter suppression tactic. In a large number of those districts, universal turnout would make purportedly “safe” districts far more competitive–and would send a signal to incumbents that they might actually need to listen to their constituents.

When it comes to the election contests that aren’t subject to gerrymandering–Governors, Senators, President–universal turnout could not possibly give us worse results than those of the 2024 elections.

Will the United States ever impose mandatory voting? Doubtful, in a country where millions of people resist the most modest measures to protect the health and well-being of their neighbors.

But it’s certainly worth putting on our wish list….

Comments

Getting Out The Vote

Several years ago,  my husband and I took a week-long cruise on a small boat that accommodated only eleven passengers. One of those eleven, as it happened, was a retired professor of public administration from Australia, and we had several fascinating exchanges about policy differences between our two countries.

One of those differences involved elections.

In Australia, the law requires  that every citizen vote. I initially recoiled at that suggestion; surely, people too disinterested to go to the polls  unless required to do so would cast uninformed ballots…but the more I thought about  it, the more Australia’s system appealed to me.

Many democratic countries evidently require people to vote, and fine those who don’t.  (Actually, as I understand it, what is mandatory is appearance at the polls. In many systems, there is apparently something akin to a “none of the above” option that will fulfill the legal obligation.)

Requiring citizens to vote would help ensure that election results mirror the preferences of the entire population, not just those sufficiently motivated to express those preferences at the polls. At least some percentage of the currently disengaged would take more interest in government and politics–knowing that they would have to cast a ballot, at least some Americans might make an effort to know something about the people on that ballot and (gasp!) even the system within which they aspire to operate.

Arguably, universal turnout would require candidates to craft more inclusive messages, since targeting an ideological sliver would no longer be the path to victory. (Targeting one’s base is one reason for our currently polarized politics.) Candidates and parties would also save a lot of money and effort currently spent on get out the vote efforts.

So what are the cons, the arguments against mandatory voting?

Requiring people to vote would assure the participation of low-interest, arguably uninformed people, “alphabet voters” who would simply check a box in order to avoid a fine. (You can lead a voter to the polls, but you can’t force him to think.) Even a token fine would fall most heavily on the poor and disadvantaged–the very people who have difficulty getting to the polls in our current system.

At least one scholar has suggested that–rather than making voting mandatory (which America will do when pigs fly)–we should work to make elections more competitive, because turnout increases when voters have meaningful choices. Gerrymandering currently makes that solution untenable.

Gerrymandering is also a huge disincentive to voting; when you are convinced your vote won’t count, you are understandably less likely to make the effort. And because Republicans have been far more successful in gerrymandering (not that Democrats don’t try–they just aren’t nearly as good at it), the people who are least likely to vote are the people most likely to vote Democratic.

A recent study of turnout should be filed under “read it and weep.”

A new study from BYU and the University of Virginia analyzed 400 million voter records from elections in 2014 and 2016 and found that minority citizens, young people, and those who support the Democratic Party are much less likely to vote than whites, older citizens, and Republican Party supporters. Moreover, those in the former groups were also more likely to live in areas where their neighbors are less likely to vote.

“We’re finding that the circumstances of other citizens who live around you plays an important role in voter turnout,” said Dr. Michael Barber, BYU professor of political science and co-author of the study. “Much of the country is segregated—especially by race and partisanship. Minorities are more likely to live around other minorities who are also less likely to vote. The same is true of voters of both parties. These patterns can create a situation that results in persistent patterns of lower turnout in certain communities for a variety of reasons.”

The study found that, in 2016, White citizens voted at a rate of between 9 and 15 percentage points higher than Black citizens, Asian citizens, and Hispanic citizens. In 2014, the gaps were even higher, with Whites voting at a rate 9 to 18 percentage points higher than minority groups. There were similar gaps in political party turnout, with Republicans  more likely to vote than Democrats.

Unsurprising but depressing, the data also confirmed that the voting rate of citizens 60 years old or older was roughly 40 percentage points higher than that of citizens 30 years old or younger.

If those demographic gaps in turnout narrowed–or, with mandatory voting, disappeared– a significant number of districts that have been gerrymandered by partisans would no longer be safe–after all, the people drawing district lines must depend upon previous turnout data. They have no way of knowing the political preferences of the people who didn’t bother to vote.

Increased turnout could save American democracy.

Comments

Suppress the Vote? Or Require It?

An interesting response to recent, transparent efforts in several states to suppress the votes of “those people” has been the suggestion that America make voting mandatory. Many other democratic countries–notably Australia–require people to vote and fine those who don’t.  (Actually, as I understand it, what is mandatory is appearance at the polls. There is apparently something akin to a “none of the above” option that will fulfill the legal obligation.)

If America ever did go to a “vote or pay a fine” system–something that we might do at about the same time pigs fly over a frozen hell–I’d lobby for a vote-by-mail system like the one in Washington State.

Be that as it may, what are the pros and cons–real and theoretical– of a mandatory voting law?

Arguments for such a system generally include the following: increased participation would ensure that election results mirror the preferences of the entire population, not just those sufficiently motivated to express those preferences at the polls. At least some percentage of the currently disengaged would take more interest in government and politics–knowing that they would have to cast a ballot, at least some Americans would make an effort to know something about the people on that ballot.

Arguably, universal turnout would require candidates to craft more inclusive messages, since targeting an ideological sliver would no longer be the path to victory. (That targeting is one reason for our currently polarized politics.) Candidates and parties would also save a lot of money and effort currently spent on GOTV (get out the vote) efforts. The role of money in politics would thus abate somewhat.

So what are the cons, the arguments against mandatory voting?

Requiring people to vote would assure the participation of low-interest, arguably uninformed people, “alphabet voters” who would simply pull a lever in order to avoid a fine. (You can lead a voter to the polls, but you can’t force him to think.) A fine would fall most heavily on the poor and disadvantaged–the very people who have difficulty getting to the polls in our current system.

The most compelling argument against mandating voting is a First Amendment one: the Supreme Court has recognized that, just as government cannot censor what Americans say, the government cannot compel Americans to speak. If voting is compelled speech, if it is tantamount to an endorsement our electoral system, then requiring people to cast a ballot would be unconstitutional. (Proponents respond to this argument by pointing out that jury duty is mandatory, and that participation on a jury can be seen as an endorsement of the justice system.)

At least one scholar has suggested that–rather than making voting mandatory (which we are highly unlikely to do)–we should work to make elections more competitive, because turnout increases when voters have meaningful choices.

Gerrymandering/redistricting reform anyone?

Comments