Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Low voter turnout is often purported to be a problem, but I think it's exaggerated. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but every time we have an election here in Canada the whining starts on election night about how this election sets a new "record low" for turnout, no matter how many votes are cast. The main reason we keep having these supposed record low voter turnouts is that the media measures election night results (a number that excludes absentee and rejected ballots) against former elections that include all votes cast. In addition, the media often reports voter turnout based on total votes cast divided by the number of eligible voters, as opposed to the number of registered voters, which can further skew the results.
Don't get me wrong, higher voter turnout is a good thing and low voter turnout is a concern, but trying to get people out to vote first or foremost is wrong-headed. Instead of asking the question, "how can we boost voter turnout,"we should be asking the question, "how can we boost civic knowledge and engagement?"
Focusing on voter turnout leads to crazy solutions such as “mandatory voting,” which is wrong on so many levels.
First of all, voting is a civil right, not a civic duty. Second, it has the potential to discriminate against religious groups (namely JWs). Third, mandatory voting appeals to the lowest common denominator, in that advertising becomes more important than substance. ie. You're trying to appeal to a large group of disinterested voters who will likely vote for the guy with the flashiest ads. Fourth, most of us live in a liberal democracy where we should have the freedom to not vote. That's kind of the point of the freedoms our ancestors fought and died for - the freedom to, not only take part choosing our elected officials, but also the freedom to not do so. The last thing democracy needs is another tyrannical government forcing us to take part in a supposed choice.
Here's a question for you voters, why would you complain about low voter turnout? Think about it, your vote loses value as the voter turnout goes up,therefore, it's in your best interest to have a lower voter turnout. Yes, I'm being factious here, but I still contend that we would be better off developing strategies that get people interested in politics and knowledgeable about the issues, than simply guilting them into getting out to vote for something they don't a clue about.
What's more important than voter turnout is citizen engagement. A smaller number of informed voters are far more desirable than a large group of lackluster voters, in my opinion.
The reason we have "low voter" turnout is because people either feel disenfranchised with the system or apathetic toward the issues. These are excuses that stem from a lack of knowledge and understanding. We need to get people informed and engaged first - well before the election is on the horizon. A person who understands the issues, the process, and the historical context of such a privilege will be much more likely vote.
There's also a lot of hysteria out there over the lack of young people voting as well. Well, so what. People take longer to mature than they did in previous generations (we don't get married at 14 anymore), so as long as they are voting by say age 30, who cares. Anyway, even with all the "low voterturn outs", we still have far more people voting now than we did a 100 years ago (as a percentage of the population). This is thanks to minorities and women getting the right to vote, but still, it shows progress.
One more thing, I've done a little research and have noticed that the smaller the community, the higher the voter turnout. Therefore, as we become more and more urbanized, voter turnout will drop even if voter apathy has not. When I say that voter apathy has not dropped, I'm talking apples to apples (ie. tracking voter trends within the same community type).
There are less and less people living in the smaller communities relative to the large cities, so as the chart below shows, voter participation has to drop if all else stays the same. Social isolation is major problem in big cities. A recent study found that postpartum depression was much worse in urban areas than rural areas because women are more likely to feel socially isolated in the large cities. The social interactions you have with people around you, the more likely you are to vote, in my view.
The following chart takes a look at every single municipality within BC that had an election in 2011, and compares voter turnout to the size of the municipality. One thing that the governments on both sides of the isle have done over the past 25 years is to centralize and encourage movement from the rural areas into the cities. I believe that implementing policies that would reverse this trend would not only increase voter turnout, but also reducing the income gap between the rich and poor. ie. The income gap is larger in bigger cities.
I live in the USA. For me it's an issue because of what you mentioned: not voting is often a sign of lacking "civic knowledge and engagement."
If you're some young apathetic, white, middle-class guy who went to college and decided he would rather complain on internet forums then go to the voting booth, fine. There are plenty people within that demographic who do go to the polls, and so he's more or less represented. The issue is in the demographics with the lowest voter turnout whose voices and concerns are therefore not being considered by the public at all, namely people who are low-income (especially minorities). The majority of what we see on the news, read in the paper, and hear discussed by politicians are the current events and issues that mainstream society has shown an interest in. Problem is that there is a large but silent population of people who have very real opinions and perspectives that the news, media, and politicians won't discuss and the mainstream can't consider because there's no record of it.
As things are now the demographics that don't vote are having decisions made for them by people who may not entirely understand their situation. That's a travesty.
I agree with everything said so far, so I'll just add this. Here in the USA, I'm concerned about what would happen if voter turnout were higher than it already is. Many polling places have to stay open late for the number of voters who do "turn out", and some even close before everyone who shows up has voted. Election boards don't seem equipped or concerned to accommodate an engaged public, and the long lines discourage pools of voters whose voices are most underrepresented in/by government. If its like this now, what would it be like if more eligible voters did come out to vote? It would take only one surge of significantly increased participation to cause a total train wreck that could screw up an election. In recent years we've had enough controversy around elections as it is.
Low voter turnout is often purported to be a problem, but I think it's exaggerated.
Voting is not optional in 23 countries and I think every serious democracy should consider making voting mandatory. A true democracy is one in which 100% of the electorate participates. After-all, what is the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy? The right to vote!
Mandatory voting would make elections truly valid.
Quote:
Focusing on voter turnout leads to crazy solutions such as “mandatory voting,” which is wrong on so many levels.
Why is it wrong? If it is mandatory to pay taxes, it should be mandatory to vote.
Mandatory voting is GOOD on so many levels:
First, it would temper the polarization of our politics: left vs right, black vs white, red vs blue is just sickening.
In today’s electorate, moderates and sane voices are under-represented while hardcore partisan believers are over-represented. If the full range of voices were heard via votes, political leaders would be more attuned to their followers. The groups like the young, poor, oppressed minorities, etc that generally do not vote would finally be heard.
Quote:
First of all, voting is a civil right, not a civic duty. Second, it has the potential to discriminate against religious groups (namely JWs). Third, mandatory voting appeals to the lowest common denominator, in that advertising becomes more important than substance. ie. You're trying to appeal to a large group of disinterested voters who will likely vote for the guy with the flashiest ads. Fourth, most of us live in a liberal democracy where we should have the freedom to not vote. That's kind of the point of the freedoms our ancestors fought and died for - the freedom to, not only take part choosing our elected officials, but also the freedom to not do so. The last thing democracy needs is another tyrannical government forcing us to take part in a supposed choice.
It should be a civic duty. The rest of the points you make are ridiculous.
Sadly your arguments against mandatory voting reflects a lack of faith in democracy itself.
I do not remember our ancestors fighting for the RIGHT to NOT VOTE! Look at the world around you. Tyrannical regimes go out of their way and gas people to prevent them from voting. Sure, in a democracy you should have the right to not vote - but that could mean going to the polling station and selecting - none of the above. Not sure how that takes any rights away ....
Voting is about redeeming the central promise of citizenship. Like you said, many before us have died for the right to vote. The least we can do now is treat that right like a responsibility.
Furthermore, mandatory voting would prompt more people to pay attention to the choices and would increase Civic knowledge.
Quote:
Here's a question for you voters, why would you complain about low voter turnout? Think about it, your vote loses value as the voter turnout goes up,therefore, it's in your best interest to have a lower voter turnout.
This is an issue that was brought up in Australia when voting became compulsory in 1924. Ask an Aussie and they will laugh at your statement. In Australia, the existence of a mandatory voting has made voting a meaningful shared national experience and driven civic knowledge!
Sandman, it is about freedom. I do not believe the government should force people into things against their will. My ancestors fought for freedom. Freedom to speak my mind. Freedom to not speak my mind. Freedom to belong to a religion. Freedom to not belong to any religion. Freedom to choose my government. Freedom to not choose my government. etc.
Don't get me wrong, I think everyone should vote, and should be encouraged to do so. I just don't think it should be forced on them.
I do not lack faith in democracy at all. As Churchill once said, "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Things get messy at times, but I always respect the will of the people.
You make a very good point about the none of the above option. If moderate and sane voices are underrepresented, then why don't they vote without being forced to do so? What is it that causes people not to vote? I think that is the question that needs to be addressed. Remember that the top three nations with the highest voter turnout do not have mandatory voting.
As for the last part of your post, surely you understand that I was writing in jest at that point? A little humour always makes things go down a little easier.
Sandman, it is about freedom. I do not believe the government should force people into things against their will. My ancestors fought for freedom. Freedom to speak my mind. Freedom to not speak my mind. Freedom to belong to a religion. Freedom to not belong to any religion. Freedom to choose my government. Freedom to not choose my government. etc.
Glacierx, I applaud you for making this point passionately and repeatedly, but I am sorry to say that this cannot be taken as a serious critique of mandatory voting. Like I said in my previous post, I remember our ancestors (and even people today) fighting for the right to vote, and the struggles of the past have nothing to do with the right to not vote.
You talk about freedom as if freedom were unlimited in a democracy. I fail to understand how, go to the polling station takes away your freedom(s). Does paying taxes take away your freedom? Does participating in the census take away your freedom? No. They are all civic duties!
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I think everyone should vote, and should be encouraged to do so. I just don't think it should be forced on them.
It's like saying - everyone should be encouraged to pay taxes or follow the law. No-one should be forced to pay taxes or follow the law of the land. Why? "Forced" is a very strong word when used in this fashion. I think everyone should be required to vote as a duty of their citizenship to their country, state, province, etc.
When you dont pay taxes you pay a penalty. Similarly, when you dont vote, you should pay a penalty.
Quote:
I do not lack faith in democracy at all. As Churchill once said, "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." Things get messy at times, but I always respect the will of the people.
Will of the people, NOT will of the corporations and extreme RIGHT and LEFT wing groups. When a few people vote, the voices of the fringe elements are louder. If everyone votes, you hear the voices of the people. Mandatory voting strengthens democracy.
Quote:
You make a very good point about the none of the above option. If moderate and sane voices are underrepresented, then why don't they vote without being forced to do so? What is it that causes people not to vote? I think that is the question that needs to be addressed. Remember that the top three nations with the highest voter turnout do not have mandatory voting.
Yes, options like "none of the above" and "negative voting" can make the electoral process more fair. Even when voting is mandatory, you can still choose to not go to the polls - just be prepared to pay the fine. In Australia they charge $20 for first time no-shows and around $140 for repeats.
Quote:
As for the last part of your post, surely you understand that I was writing in jest at that point? A little humour always makes things go down a little easier.
Oh yes. I get that. But many use that as a REAL critique of mandatory voting.
i wish for better informed voters. far too many voters can't name the 3 branches of our government and their job/purpose. some have no idea what is in the US Constitution and are completely ignorant of our nation's history (founding fathers, government history, and the wars our nation fought). it's sad that high school graduates who are now college students cant even give a general decade WW2, Korea, and Vietnam were fought. some cant name our enemies and allies of WW2. ask them to name the last 5 US Presidents. ask them to name our current President, Vice President, Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, and Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. ask them "if the president dies, who becomes president"? if they answer correctly, ask them who becomes Vice President? i knew these things when i graduated in 1987 but i did not vote because i didnt feel i knew enough about the candidates & issues to make an informed decision. if you want young people to vote, threaten to raise the minimum age to vote to 25 or 30.
Apathy is not good for any country.
Ignorance is not good for any country
As US citizens we should understand and realize how lucky we are to have this right to vote.
What other countries would give to have that right. This is also true for women where
they are not allowed to vote such as Brunei, Lebanon (need an elementary education),
United Arab Emirates and Vatican City.
"Have you ever stopped to ponder the amount of blood spilt, the volume of tears shed,
the degree of pain and anguish endured, the number of noble men and women lost in
battle so that we as individuals might have a say in governing our country? Honor the
lives sacrificed for your freedoms. Vote."
by R.E. Goodrich
I think we're having the wrong conversation. We shouldn't be worrying about voter turnout. We should be worrying about informed voters. If someone hasn't read or seen a news story in months, doesn't pick up a book, magazine or newspaper, and just parrots whatever the ward heel tells them to think, then I don't want them voting regardless of their political persuasion.
Democracy is a great idea. But it needs an informed, objective citizenry to function. That's why we all took those civics classes in eighth grade and memorized the preamble to the Constitution, right? So those of us who actually retained what we learned in junior high school should be accorded the privilege of deciding the country's fate rather than the nimrods who couldn't be bothered with it.
So here's my solution.
1) One month before every national election, every single household gets a card in the mail. The card has twenty simple questions about our country's government and current events on one side. Questions that a fifth-grader could answer. Basic government, geography, and history. And the answers are printed on the back. Heck, we'll even provide a 800 number and a web site where people can go for further discussion of the answers.
2) On Election Day, when you enter the booth, you are asked ten of those twenty questions in multiple choice. Answer 60% of those questions and your vote counts. If you need help understanding the questions, a poll worker will be delighted to help.
Mind you, this is a far cry from the literacy tests of the Civil Rights Era which were typically so difficult and convoluted that a Ph.D. would have had a hard time completing them. No, this is a basic knowledge test, the stuff you should have learned and school, knowledge that only the completely lazy would have forgotten. Because, despite whatever conceit you harbor, idiots abound on both sides of the political aisle. And I really don't think a person who cannot find the Pacific Ocean on a map (25% of all Americans according to National Geographic) should be choosing the President to conduct this nation's foreign policy.
Yeah, I know it's controversial. You'll have the kneejerk accusations from the left and right. And there's the hoary old label of 'elitist' that would be bandied about. But truly, this kind of test would actually affirm a long-forgotten principle: You as a citizen have an obligation to participate in ways beyond simply pulling a lever on the first Tuesday of every second year. And while I can have a respectful, civilized discussion with an informed fellow citizens whose political views differ from my own, I really can't abide a know nothing who hasn't cracked a book in decades, knowing that person's vote will cancel out my own.
I think we're having the wrong conversation. We shouldn't be worrying about voter turnout. We should be worrying about informed voters. If someone hasn't read or seen a news story in months, doesn't pick up a book, magazine or newspaper, and just parrots whatever the ward heel tells them to think, then I don't want them voting regardless of their political persuasion.
We are not having the wrong conversation, I think that you are having a totally different conversation. Voter turnout and voter awareness/ education are two different issues.
That said, most of what you have stated is un-constitutional. You cannot screen voters based on their knowledge and understanding of the political process. It is perfectly acceptable to vote for a candidate or party because you agree with their overall principles and policies. If candidate A is promising to lower taxes and candidate B is promising to build more schools - you can vote for either based on what is important to you - lower taxes or more schools.
I think you are also underestimating general voter awareness. You need not watch hours of debates on CNN or read newspapers to become an informed voter.
Quote:
Democracy is a great idea. But it needs an informed, objective citizenry to function. That's why we all took those civics classes in eighth grade and memorized the preamble to the Constitution, right? So those of us who actually retained what we learned in junior high school should be accorded the privilege of deciding the country's fate rather than the nimrods who couldn't be bothered with it.
I agree with everything you are saying. Democracy would work even better if all voters had graduate degrees in history, civics and political science. But that is not the issue. The issue being discussed here is voter turnout.
Furthermore, many studies have shown that mandatory voting has a direct correlation with increase in knowledge of politics and civics. When voting became mandatory in Australia, people made a conscious effort to become more aware of the entire political process.
Quote:
So here's my solution.
Great solutions. But how about we start with educating the elected representatives first. Many US Congressman still think that evolution is "only a theory", believe in intelligent design, think that the earth is 5000 years old and that global warming is a liberal hoax.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
