The most troubling aspect of our democracy today isn’t gerrymandering, outside political spending or partisan gridlock. It is the troubling voting participation rates, at just 58.2 percent of eligible voters in the 2012 presidential election and just 41 percent of eligible voters in the 2010 midterm elections. The best way to transform voting from a relatively infrequently exercised right to a civic duty is to institute mandatory voting for all eligible voters in the United States.
The right to a trial by jury is constitutionally guaranteed for all persons in America. In order to have enough jurors to provide everyone with a trial by jury, jury duty isn’t optional — it is a civic duty. Similarly, Americans have the right to competent and representative government; by this same principle, the right to vote should be considered a mandatory civic duty.
First, a mandatory vote would produce a more representative democracy, because frequently the people who care enough to vote are those who are over-representative of the extreme ends of the political spectrum. Those who have middle-of-the-road views aren’t usually passionate enough to make the effort to vote, as shown by the significant difference between the percentage of non voters who identify as independent — 44 percent — and the number of likely voters who identify as independent — 27 percent.
A mandatory vote would result in a more representative democracy in which the government isn’t representative of the views of those who would vote anyway, but rather the entire citizenry. A corollary to this is that the central campaigning issues would shift away from those issues important to passionate fringe groups (environmentalism, gay rights and abortion), to the issues more important to the average citizen, such as economic policy.
Politicians would be forced to move to the middle by mandatory voting because the ideological spectrum would become totally balanced. The median voter theorem predicts that if the voters in political spectrum were spread out more evenly, the candidates would be forced to move to the center, which is what happens after primaries as the voting base expands and becomes more balanced. However, with mandatory voting, this redistribution of voters would be more pronounced and would result in a greater push to the middle by candidates.
On a more abstract level, a compulsory vote would increase awareness of the issues because people would feel the need to educate themselves before voting. This increased participation would result in a more involved citizenry because everyone would feel more a part of the system and nation. This is not a radical idea; the Athenians had a form of a compulsory voting and today 10 countries have mandatory voting, including Australia, Argentina and Brazil. Mandatory voting can be enforced through a fine large enough to draw in almost all citizens, and those who do not show up to vote can fund the mandatory voting program through payment of the fine.
One can argue that the right not to vote is just as important as the right to vote. It shows satisfaction with the status quo and a desire not to change it. This option would still be available with a mandatory vote through the simple introduction of another option on the ballot, namely, a vote for no one. A blank ballot would signal satisfaction with the current system or that no candidate adequately reflects the voters views and would be the equivalent of not voting for these same reasons, negating that argument. Even if all 44 percent of non-voters chose to cast a blank ballot, it would still have an important effect because it signals that either they don’t think anyone represents their views or that they are satisfied with the status quo and don’t want change.
Most people don’t vote because of difficulties involving time, money and other personal obligations. This would have to be addressed in any constitutional amendment regarding mandatory voting through a fine or penalty directed toward those who restrict their employees’ voting obligations, as well as through a program to provide free identification for all in order for them to vote.
The elimination of both of these structural barriers would be necessary for any mandatory voting system to be functional. While other things that drive potential voters away from the booth — long lines, inconvenient hours, etc. — would still exist, voters would simply have to adjust. The costs associated with not voting have always been substantial, but enacting this policy adds a more visible, concrete cost in the form of a fine.
This policy, which would prove difficult to get a constitutional amendment for, is one of a select few that simultaneously addresses all of these key issues; a mandatory vote would not be simply beneficial, but rather a game changer for American politics.
Sawan Patel is a Viewpoint Writer.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | 6 hours agoRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | 20 hours agoMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | YesterdayMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
