On the morning the al-Qaeda terrorists struck the World Trade Center, New Yorkers had been heading to the polls to begin selecting a new mayor. The voting that day was halted and postponed. But eight weeks later, in arguably New York City's most important general election ever, voter turnout was a disappointing 41%. The percentage is expected to be similarly anemic across the nation for the Nov. 5 midterm elections. Even in presidential years, barely half of eligible voters will bother to cast ballots — sometimes, even less.
As a tribute to 9/11, we should consider an election reform that would send a powerful symbolic message and have a positive, concrete impact on the nation: compulsory voting.
The government does not ask much in the way of service of its citizens. Younger men are required to register for the military draft, and all citizens periodically are told to report for jury duty. That's because while it might be possible to fill juries with retirees, Americans have decided that defendants deserve to be judged by a broader universe of their peers.
Similarly, an argument can — and should — be made that the act of voting is an important part of citizenship responsibilities that bolsters our system's strength.
The current situation works for those, like myself, who vote regularly. Not only are there rarely lines at polling places, but our voices gain more influence. Yet, at a time when citizens need to be more aware of their surroundings to thwart terrorism, it could be viewed as a national-security imperative to have an informed and involved populace.
Australia, Belgium and Greece are among the countries that require citizens to vote. Penalties usually are small (about 11 U.S. dollars in Australia) but enough to make it worthwhile for even the apathetic to go pull a lever.
Canada's top election officer suggested that his country consider compulsory voting if turnout fell below the 60% of eligible voters who showed up for the most recent federal election. "Sometimes, in order to save democracy," said Jean-Pierre Kingsley, "you have to do things that might seem to run a little bit against it."
Everyone should go to the polls, but no one should be forced to vote. There should always be an opportunity to abstain. But usually the objection is not philosophy but priority. "Too busy" is the top reason given by registered voters for not showing up at polling stations. That probably also would be the top excuse if the government made jury duty optional.
Opponents of compulsory voting say it makes little sense to force uninformed people to make important electoral choices. But making those choices may lead them to become more informed. And, remember, those same "uninformed" citizens are compelled to serve on juries, with much more serious consequences.
Even if mandatory voting makes sense in theory, it has not received serious consideration in practice. That's largely because Republicans, believing Democrats would draw more votes from "non-voting" demographics, have opposed the idea. Yet recent electoral changes that expanded the voter base don't seem to have helped either major party. The "Motor Voter" bill that President George H.W. Bush refused to sign — but that President Clinton later did — hasn't hurt Republicans, as it was feared it might. Nor has Washington state's new mail-in voting process.
If that isn't enough for the Republicans to reconsider, they could look at the experience of Australia, where the turnout increased from 47% before mandatory voting to 95% more recently. Further, a study found that Australian politicians whose names start with a letter near the beginning of the alphabet have won a slightly disproportionate amount of races. That just might make compulsory voting a little more appealing to our sitting president.
|
