Jim Boren wrote in his column this week about the dismal voter turnout expected for the mayoral election on June 3. That's just sad, because it's a crucial decision for our city. (Read Jim's column by clicking here.)
It's dangerous to leave me with a few minutes to think too long. While I was at the DMV recently getting a new driving license, attached to the application was a voter registration form. That’s the famous motor voter form. I like it. It' a good idea to take care of as much bureaucracy as possible all at once.
I started thinking about what if. . .the United States was like Australia, which has compulsory voting? It's actually against the law not to cast a ballot. If you don’t want to vote for anyone, secret ballots prevent them from knowing whether you did or not. But you have to at least show up.
Their voting response, as one might imagine, is huge, about 95%.
Compulsory voting: hmmm. What do you think about that? Would it violate free speech or is it just one more responsibility in a democracy like jury duty, going to school and paying taxes on April 15?
Generally, my thought is that the best way to increase voter turnout is to get exciting candidates and issues people care about. Take the presidential election, for example, where the polling places are actually running out of ballots because so many people want to vote. That tells us something, doesn't it?
If not that, what other ideas might work for increasing voter turnout? Any displaced Australians, Belgians or others out there who have voted in their systems? What do you think?
Meanwhile, about.com lists these pros and cons of compulsory voting distributed by the Australian government:
In 1924, Australian officials felt that compulsory voting would eliminate voter apathy. However, compulsory voting now has its detractors. In their Fact Sheet on Voting, the Australian Electoral Commission provides some arguments in favor and against compulsory voting.Arguments used in favor of compulsory voting:
* Voting is a civic duty comparable to other duties citizens perform (e.g. taxation, compulsory education, or jury duty).
* Parliament reflects more accurately the "will of the electorate."
* Governments must consider the total electorate in policy formulation and management.
* Candidates can concentrate their campaigning energies on issues rather than encouraging voters to attend the poll.
* The voter isn't actually compelled to vote for anyone because voting is by secret ballot.Arguments used against compulsory voting:
* It is undemocratic to force people to vote - an infringement of liberty.
* The "ignorant" and those with little interest in politics are forced to the polls.
* It may increase the number of "donkey votes" (bad votes that don't get counted).
* It may increase the number of informal votes (ballot papers which are not marked according to the rules for voting).
* It increases the number of safe, single-member electorates -- political parties then concentrate on the more marginal electorates.
* Resources must be allocated to determine whether those who failed to vote have "valid and sufficient" reasons.
And here is a list of all the countries with some form of compulsory voting:
Austria Argentina Australia Belgium Bolivia Brazil Chile Costa Rica Cyprus Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt Fiji France (senate only) Gabon Greece Guatemala Honduras Italy LiechtensteinLuxembourg
Mexico
Nauru
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Singapore
Switzerland (Schaffhausen)
Thailand
Turkey
Uruguay
Did you register with the motor voter form?Probably not. Any concerned english speaking CITIZEN has already registered on their own through other means. Who are we targeting with this approach? In your world they should be able to get a liscense, register to vote, pick up their free medical card,food stamps, application for housing assistance, a free education pass plus a lollipop-all in one line.Informed voters should be the goal not numbers. The motor voter deal was created by and for one party only.The party that wants uninformed numbers...legal or not.
There you have it in a nutshell. One party wants to get as many citizens involved in the democratic process as possible. The other party would like to keep the electorate limited to a more select, highly-motivated (i.e. self-interested), preferably like-minded group. This is a debate that's been going on at least since the time of Hamilton and Jefferson.
If they made a law requiring voters to vote they would just break the law like all the others that are broken on a daily basis. Everyone knows that they don't have the resources to uphold the punioshment.