I also thought of some more: Besides third parties, this makeup causes very close elections, forcing the three parties to expand their efforts, engage voters and support laws for easing voter registration, same-day registration, etc.
AHC: High Voter Turnout in the US.
- Thread starter Nightingale
- Start date
There must be a candidate on the ballot they think that if they vote for them, their lives will get better.
I find it interesting people say there should be term limits for congress, but keep voting the same people in over and over again.
I think a percentage of the people are either hardcore right or left and get out to vote, but there is also a large portion in the middle who think both sides suck and either way the government really doesn't give a crap about them.
I think a percentage of the people are either hardcore right or left and get out to vote, but there is also a large portion in the middle who think both sides suck and either way the government really doesn't give a crap about them.
Make voting registration automatic.
Turnout in 2012 was something like 54% of the voting-age population, but 65(?)% of voting age citizens/eligible voters and ~84(!)% of registered voters. If you had automatic voter registration, I'd bet that you'd have turnout rates approaching those of the UK, Sweden, and similar countries with such rules.
I am skeptical about creating Election Day holidays because I think that the increased volume of voters going to the polls on one day will just make for longer queues - that will discourage a significant number of people. It is better to spread Election Day out over the weekend, IMO.
Everyone should note that the US once did have turnout regularly exceeding 80% of the voting age population - this is in excess of 90% of eligible voters. That was the Gilded Age, and they didn't have any fancy interstate compacts or Electiom Day holidays. I would say that the polarization we are seeing in politics now is getting pretty close to that of the Gilded Age.
Turnout in 2012 was something like 54% of the voting-age population, but 65(?)% of voting age citizens/eligible voters and ~84(!)% of registered voters. If you had automatic voter registration, I'd bet that you'd have turnout rates approaching those of the UK, Sweden, and similar countries with such rules.
I am skeptical about creating Election Day holidays because I think that the increased volume of voters going to the polls on one day will just make for longer queues - that will discourage a significant number of people. It is better to spread Election Day out over the weekend, IMO.
Everyone should note that the US once did have turnout regularly exceeding 80% of the voting age population - this is in excess of 90% of eligible voters. That was the Gilded Age, and they didn't have any fancy interstate compacts or Electiom Day holidays. I would say that the polarization we are seeing in politics now is getting pretty close to that of the Gilded Age.
First I think we need to reduce the amount of time allowed for campaigning. By the time some campaigns (months or a year) is over the population in general is suffering from political burn-out. (Plus in campaigns, the focus should be on issues not personalities - it seems todays elections are a version of American Idol writ large)
Another option would be to include "None of the Above" option on ballots - that way individuals unhappy with the party choices could register their disapproval
As to ease of voting - voters could use absentee ballots and not take any extra time. Also here in Arkansas there is early voting at polls for at least a week or so before the election day.
Basically the only real solution to increased voter turnout is engaging the people and having them understand the their vote is important (This is especially important in the local elections that determine issues that affect the people in their back yard on a day to day basis)
Just having more people vote doesn't really accomplish anything if the voter isn't informed on the choices and able to make a valid decision. Having more uniformed (and probably interested people vote doesn't really make for a better outcome
Another option would be to include "None of the Above" option on ballots - that way individuals unhappy with the party choices could register their disapproval
As to ease of voting - voters could use absentee ballots and not take any extra time. Also here in Arkansas there is early voting at polls for at least a week or so before the election day.
Basically the only real solution to increased voter turnout is engaging the people and having them understand the their vote is important (This is especially important in the local elections that determine issues that affect the people in their back yard on a day to day basis)
Just having more people vote doesn't really accomplish anything if the voter isn't informed on the choices and able to make a valid decision. Having more uniformed (and probably interested people vote doesn't really make for a better outcome
That is the drawback of the current US voting system, only the rusted on supporters are engaged. With a different voting system those voters would still be engaged but so to would supporters of other parties, and the task of minor parties then becomes supporting a major party on an issue in return for addressing their concerns. This leverage leads to greater engagement because minor parties cannot be ignored.
http://www.sightline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Voter_Turnout_By_Country-060915d-300ppi.png
THE SURPRISING REASON YOU DON’T FEEL LIKE VOTING
Sightline Institute, Kristin Eberhard, June 12, 2015
http://www.sightline.org/2015/06/12/the-surprising-reason-you-dont-feel-like-voting/
This writer is saying, Look at the countries which use proportional representation. They get higher turnout.
But this conflicts with the study on page 1 of this thread which looked at five Ohio towns before, during, and after proportional representation and found it did not lead to greater participation. She concluded the ups and down of local voting were driven much more by the emergence [or I'd say, often the absence!] of local issues and candidates.
Last edited:
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.
There--done!
The EC is provided for in the Constitution, so they can't just get rid of it like that.
The biggest reason I hear from people as to why they don't register is that they are afraid it will mean they get called for Jury Duty (I've only been called once in 40 years). I've been an election judge for early voting and Saturday and Sunday always have the lowest turnout (and when it was on Fathers Day turnout went way down.
That's not really how it's supposed to work in this country. You're supposed to reconcile them if at all possible. Anyways, the Court's power of interpretation is limited to legislation and statutes. They literally don't have the power to rule a part of the Constitution unconstitutional, not least because that's a contradiction in terms. Amendment or legislation altering how the College can be allowed to vote, but otherwise forget it.
CaliGuy
Banned
Why exactly should an "irreconcilable variance" standard be used for this but not for, say, striking down laws as being unconstitutional? After all, if it's OK to put things into the U.S. Constitution which weren't supposed to be put there (for instance, take a look at Baker v. Carr and its successor cases), why not take things out of the U.S. Constitution using the same method of constitutional interpretation?
CaliGuy
Banned
Indeed, if, say, the original U.S. Constitution would have allowed U.S. states to prohibit abortion, do you honestly think that the U.S. Supreme Court would have ruled differently in Roe v. Wade in 1973? I myself certainly don't; after all, they'll simply say that their interpretation of the 14th Amendment is at an irreconcilable variance with that (hypothetical) part of the original part of the U.S. Constitution!
Konrad Sartorius
Banned
All US citizens over the age of 18 are enfranchised, with the exception of convicted felons (unless they've been exonerated or pardoned.)
The amount of Americans who have became convicted felons since the war on drugs has left a large percentage of american adults with out the right to vote. You do something with the war on drugs and i feel our voter rate would be higher.
Konrad Sartorius
Banned
The voting rate only counts enfranchised citizens. Thus they aren't counted among the current "eligible voters that don't vote." If anything, enfranchising criminals to vote (esp. those with drug offenses) will likey suppress voter turnout rates as you'll essentially add a bunch of unmotivated drug junkies to the pool of enfranchised voters.
I'd disagree if they be unmotivated. I was thinking if in the mid to late 90's Clinton did a mash pardon for those convicted of non violent drug crimes what effect that would have. I personally feel being they had lost the right before would cherish the right more the second time around.