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 
AHC: High Voter Turnout in the US.
- Thread starter Nightingale
- Start date
Shadow Master
Banned
Make voting a right and responsibility. How? Tax incentives may be a path forward, if we were to see something like an increase in taxes for everyone that cannot prove that they voted. Say you get a receipt from the voting machine of the future, that spits out a slip of paper confirming your vote, with the votes you cast and your name on the ballot, so you can file your receipt with your taxes, and get the rebate. This would help also with voter fraud, but it wouldn't do a thing for improving voter awareness and knowledge, so not really all that helpful in and of itself.
shiftygiant
Gone Fishin'
Give the people the incentive to vote, and they will. And this means candidates who inspire people to come out in droves, or for there to be a major issue on the table (See 2008 and 1876, respectively).
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.
Ratmancampidori
Banned
Have a tax break for people who prove they have voted. Also make voting day a federal holiday so people are forced to take time off work, which then can then use to vote.
This is really hard-because you'd need a political cross-party consensus that higher turnout is desireable enough to pursue. It's far from clear that that is the case.
For higher turnout you don't necessarily need punative measures-but you may need to make voting easier and more convenient.
One method of achieving that end would be to make Election Day a Federal Holiday.
If such a thing were possible I'd consider altering the timing of elections.
The fact that elections are held on Tuesdays is a holdover from the social and infrastructure restraints of the 19th century-precisely none of which need apply in the modern era.
If elections were held on Saturday rather than Tuesday I suspect you'd see higher turnout.
Barring those changes you could increase the funding for state commissions such that many more venues are available-such that long lines on election day do not happen.
Or you could encourage voting by mail and radically extend the window for early voting.
You could also simplify the process of registering to vote somehow. Make same day registeration universal?
If you want higher turnout you need to make voting easier. Punitive measures or tax incentives don't achieve that end.
For higher turnout you don't necessarily need punative measures-but you may need to make voting easier and more convenient.
One method of achieving that end would be to make Election Day a Federal Holiday.
If such a thing were possible I'd consider altering the timing of elections.
The fact that elections are held on Tuesdays is a holdover from the social and infrastructure restraints of the 19th century-precisely none of which need apply in the modern era.
If elections were held on Saturday rather than Tuesday I suspect you'd see higher turnout.
Barring those changes you could increase the funding for state commissions such that many more venues are available-such that long lines on election day do not happen.
Or you could encourage voting by mail and radically extend the window for early voting.
You could also simplify the process of registering to vote somehow. Make same day registeration universal?
If you want higher turnout you need to make voting easier. Punitive measures or tax incentives don't achieve that end.
Piggybacking on that. Not only make it a holiday, but also make it against the law for any establishment (outside of hospitals, police, EMS, etc.) to open before 3 pm on voting day. That way, folks will be off and have nothing better to do than vote.
An Oklahoman
Banned
1.) Make Election day a day off of work. (Either by est. a national holiday or by moving the voting date to the weekend.
2.) Proportional Electoral Colledges or direct election of the President. This encourages people from one party dominant states to show up to vote (i.e. think of the millions of Democrats in Texas or the millions of Republicans in NY or California who don't vote because of FTPT).
3.) Have significant 3rd parties. This gives people not satisfied with the Dems. or GOP a chance to vote for other options. In Germany if you don't like the CDU but are still on the right, you can vote for the CSU, FDP, or AfD, without essentially wasting your vote. Or if you are on the left but don't like the SPD, then you can vote for Die Linke or the Greens.
4.) Auto-register all eligible voters and automatically give them voter ID cards for free. This eliminates the hassle that deters many Americans from voting.
5.) Increase mail-in ballots. This allows the disabled and senior citizens a greater chance to participate in elections.
2.) Proportional Electoral Colledges or direct election of the President. This encourages people from one party dominant states to show up to vote (i.e. think of the millions of Democrats in Texas or the millions of Republicans in NY or California who don't vote because of FTPT).
3.) Have significant 3rd parties. This gives people not satisfied with the Dems. or GOP a chance to vote for other options. In Germany if you don't like the CDU but are still on the right, you can vote for the CSU, FDP, or AfD, without essentially wasting your vote. Or if you are on the left but don't like the SPD, then you can vote for Die Linke or the Greens.
4.) Auto-register all eligible voters and automatically give them voter ID cards for free. This eliminates the hassle that deters many Americans from voting.
5.) Increase mail-in ballots. This allows the disabled and senior citizens a greater chance to participate in elections.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
There is at least some info that proportional voting increases turnout (but not according to my other post below!)
For example, some New England towns used to have multiple-winner districts, where each winner pasted some kind of (?) threshold.
For example, some New England towns used to have multiple-winner districts, where each winner pasted some kind of (?) threshold.
Last edited:
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
But . . .
So, close but no cigar. The single transferable vote method of PR did other good things, but it didn't increase turnover.
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.
shiftygiant
Gone Fishin'
Do you think maybe it's increasing because it's compulsory and people don't want to face the penalty?
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.
The propensity of donkey votes in countries with compulsory voting, like Australia (where voters just vote for whoever if first on the ballot/rank candidates by the order they appear on the ballot), would suggest that the root issue surrounding low turnout, a lack of engagement with politics by the electorate, is not being addressed. If you are engaged and want to vote, you should be allowed to exercise, but if you are not engaged and do not wish to exercise what is your right, you shouldn't have to. There is something perverse in forcing someone to wait in lines all day just so they can spoil their ballot.
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. Making it compulsory isn't a solution because it misses the forest for the trees. All it's focusing on is that 'there is low turnout', and ignores the bigger issues as to why there is a low turnout and what's caused this low turnout.
CaliGuy
Banned
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
There--done!
Pay people to vote in some format. To reiterate my basic proposal on this, half of the money now spent on campaigns would be paid into a fund that is given one share to the local voter when they show up. In this way, money which would have gone to convince people to either vote X or Y or not at all will be used to pay people directly to vote X or Y or Z.
Ranked voting with multi-member districts. Nobody needs to vote for a candidate they disagree with less if this were in place. Even if they're the only ones voting for candidate 'omega', they can at least vote affirmatively for policies they want, rather than forced into voting for policies that are less bad for them. For America, maybe some at-large representatives for states, and some three or four member districts. This could also reduce the impact of gerrymandering.
Ranked voting with multi-member districts. Nobody needs to vote for a candidate they disagree with less if this were in place. Even if they're the only ones voting for candidate 'omega', they can at least vote affirmatively for policies they want, rather than forced into voting for policies that are less bad for them. For America, maybe some at-large representatives for states, and some three or four member districts. This could also reduce the impact of gerrymandering.
Not really, because the penalty is usually both nominal and rarely enforced.
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.
But our opinions of the merits of compulsory voting are all quite beside the point, because the question asked was how to increase turnout in the United States. The only known method of doing so that is actually a government policy and doesn't require vast changes to every other part of the American government is compulsory voting. So it's the only reasonable answer to the challenge. Make voting compulsory, and turnout will probably increase (significantly). Don't, and all the tinkering around the edges you can do won't do very much to increase turnout.
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.
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.
Right now, making it easier to vote is one possible solution. Also making voting a habit - letting concerned citizens vote on issues at all levels of government may help. Perhaps a national ID that's free would help - eliminating the need for pesky voter ID law hindrances, anyway.
Riain
Banned
I don't think there is any panacea for voter turnout, even in Australia where voting is compulsory ($20 fine for first offence) we still hold elections on a Saturday and have preferential voting that gives small parties a voice.
IIUC US elections aren't just for President/Congress/Senate, there are also a bunch of other stuff, various proposals for various things. Could it be that your average voter is being asked to do too much at the ballot box and voting is such a big job that they avoid it as too hard?
IIUC US elections aren't just for President/Congress/Senate, there are also a bunch of other stuff, various proposals for various things. Could it be that your average voter is being asked to do too much at the ballot box and voting is such a big job that they avoid it as too hard?
Uhura's Mazda
Banned
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.
Shifty's right in that access to voting booths and voter engagement are clear factors in increasing turnout. Access to voting booths obviously helps - if it takes a full day to go to the nearest town, as it did in 19th-century NZ, a lot of people would just not bother (and this was exacerbated in 1908 and 1911, when we briefly had a two-round system and turnout declined markedly between the two voting days because while some people would leave their cows unmilked and their chickens unfed for a day to go and vote, asking them to do it all again two weeks later was taking the piss) so you can't write that off as a factor. Australia could do better in this regard: we've all seen them queuing round the block.
Voter engagement is not only the main thing that shifts turnout up or down, it's also the core problem that people who want to increase turnout are trying to solve. Turnout being high isn't Good in itself, it only serves to add some legitimacy to the ruling party, so turnout being allegedly high in North Korea is not actually a good thing. So yes, voter engagement and awareness are the core issues at play, and as you say, that's a hard lever to pull - which is why people ignore the big fucking lever that will take things like Talent and Dedication and Effort to pull, and just go "yh we should pay people to vote". Another NZ example: in 1984, we had a couple of truly inspiring candidates and a brilliant narrative that shaped it as the fight that all the parties needed to win, and we got 93.7% turnout, which was the highest we've ever had. In 1993, both parties were in the doldrums and the only reason turnout was as high as 85.2% was because there were a couple of minor parties who were inspiring different sections of the population.
So what's needed to increase turnout in the USA?
1) Voter education and voter engagement - you solve this by making Politics accessible and presenting inspiring candidates like Obama '08.
2) Removing voter fatigue - make voting an event by making the Congressional term four years and discontinuing the election of County Dogcatchers and all of that.
3) Make voting fair - change the electoral system and introduce stringent campaign finance laws.
4) Make it easy to register and easy to vote - that means no ID requirements and no butterfly ballots.