Your challenge is to push voter turnout up in the US in all 50 states. Bonus points if you are able to make voting compulsory. Be plausible, of course, that's all
Forcing people to vote by making it compulsory, on the other hand, is a non-solution that doesn't address the bigger issues surrounding the drop in turnout.Bonus points if you are able to make voting compulsory.
One method of achieving that end would be to make Election Day a Federal Holiday..
A Brief History of Proportional Representation in the United States, Douglas Amy, Department of Politics, Mount Holyoke College
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/Brief History of PR.htm
' . . . During the first half of the 20th century, two dozen American cities used for a time the single transferable vote (STV)--a form of proportional representation that is often called "choice voting" today. . . '
' . . . Some Progressives also added proportional representation to this reform agenda. They argued that winner-take-all, single-member district elections served to reinforce the power of urban political machines. It was not unusual for machines to win almost all the seats on city councils, based on only 50%-60% of the vote. PR was seen was a way to break these one-party monopolies and to allow for the fair representation of a variety of political parties. . . '
' . . . Similarly, in the last pre-PR election in New York City, the Democrats won 95.3% of the seats on the Board of Alderman with only 66.5% of the vote. During the use of PR, the Democrats still had a majority of the seats, but it was a much smaller one that reflected more accurately their strength in the electorate. In 1941, proportional representation gave the Democrats 65.5% of the seats on 64% of the vote. Moreover, it also produced representation for the Republicans and three smaller parties in proportion to their voting strength. Similar results occurred in the other PR cities, . . . '
' . . . In reality, however, PR seemed to have little effect on voter turnout. Barber and her colleagues looked at turnout rates before, during, and after the use of PR in five Ohio cities and found little correlation between voting system and the degree of voter participation. She concluded that "the emergence and disappearance of local issues and candidates appear to have had more to do with the act of voting than did the form of the ballot." (1) . . . '
This does not actually match the research. Measures such as vote-by-mail and making Election Day a holiday don't seem to have any significant impact on voting, maybe adding a few points to turnout, which compulsory voting seems to increase turnout quite a bit, in countries where it is present. On the other hand, this may be more of a tail wagging the dog thing; after all, passing a compulsory voting law means that the country culturally considers voting to be a citizen's duty--and cultural views on the importance of voting are an important determinator of turnout.Forcing people to vote by making it compulsory, on the other hand, is a non-solution that doesn't address the bigger issues surrounding the drop in turnout.
Do you think maybe it's increasing because it's compulsory and people don't want to face the penalty?This does not actually match the research. Measures such as vote-by-mail and making Election Day a holiday don't seem to have any significant impact on voting, maybe adding a few points to turnout, which compulsory voting seems to increase turnout quite a bit, in countries where it is present. On the other hand, this may be more of a tail wagging the dog thing; after all, passing a compulsory voting law means that the country culturally considers voting to be a citizen's duty--and cultural views on the importance of voting are an important determinator of turnout.
Have the U.S. Supreme Court get an electoral college case in the 1960s and have it strike down the electoral college on equal protection grounds--replacing it with a nationwide popular vote system.Your challenge is to push voter turnout up in the US in all 50 states. Bonus points if you are able to make voting compulsory. Be plausible, of course, that's all
Not really, because the penalty is usually both nominal and rarely enforced.Do you think maybe it's increasing because it's compulsory and people don't want to face the penalty?
Well, here's our fundamental disagreement: I don't think it's transforming anything. All citizens have an absolute obligation to participate in the formation of their government, which in a modern representative democracy means voting. Making voting compulsory merely adds the sanction of law to this preexisting duty and helps cajole citizens into actually voting. It does not change the underlying ethics or morality.The main issues is that by making voting compulsory, you're turning what should be the right to vote into a duty to vote. Your right to vote, to decide if or if not you wish to participate in the democratic process, has with compulsory voting been taken away from you and you are obligated to exercise your right to vote under the threat of a penalty, which drives up the turnout because people don't want to have to face that penalty, be it simply because they cannot afford to. It's not longer a right to vote, but instead it has been transformed into a duty with the threat of monetary repercussions if the voter doesn't participate.
Nah. At least then they have to choose to spoil their ballot, instead of passing it off out of laziness. Besides, there's no reason you can't have compulsory voting and universal vote-by-mail, hence eliminating lines altogether.There is something perverse in forcing someone to wait in lines all day just so they can spoil their ballot.
Except that none of those things increase turnout (aside possibly from voter engagement, but that's also the hardest lever to pull--how do you make someone interested in politics?). Not systematically. A lot of people just aren't interested in having a say in their government, period, regardless of how easy you make it for them to do so. Even in Australia ten percent or so of voters don't show up at the polls on Election Day.If you want higher turnout, then the electorate needs to be sufficiently engaged, encouraged, and needs to have easier access to registration and voting booths.
All citizens have an absolute obligation to participate in the formation of their government, which in a modern representative democracy means voting.
Pick one. If this principle that everyone has the duty to vote for or against a candidate or party is worth anything, you also have to ban spoiling your ballot - the numbers of spoiled ballots are tallied and then ignored by all and sundry, meaning that there's no difference between staying at home or spoiling your ballot. Apart from an afternoon standing in the rain.Nah. At least then they have to choose to spoil their ballot, instead of passing it off out of laziness.