The Right Not to Vote
If you accept the premise that partisanship, political polarization, and gridlock are all bad things —and count me among those who, like Jeffrey Bell, don't accept that particular premise—what solutions might you propose to curb political extremism?
In an op-ed in the Washington Post today adapted from their recent book, It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein list a few ideas that they argue won't do a thing to remedy the political dysfunction in Washington (which, by the way, they blame entirely on Republicans). And then they enumerate a few solutions that they think will, in fact, work. Among these proposed solutions:
Expand the electorate
Consider the Australian system of mandatory attendance at the polls, where not showing up results in a fine of $15 or so. This modest penalty has spurred participation of more than 90 percent since the 1925 reform. Australian politicians can count on their bases turning out, so they focus on persuadable voters in the middle. Instead of campaigning on marginal wedge issues, they talk about the economy, jobs, education — and they seek to attract a majority from the entire citizenry.
In the United States, such near-universal voting could eliminate the parties’ incentive to diminish the turnout of their opponents’ supporters and to mobilize the ideological extremes. Boosting overall turnout would help tilt the balance back toward where most Americans actually are: closer to the middle of the playing field.
Other promising avenues to expand the electorate include automating the registration process (so voters can register online and carry their documentation with them when they move from one state to another) and to open up the primaries, as California has done, to all voters. Over time, open primaries could produce more moderate elected officials.
Finally, if we can’t persuade more Americans to vote with the threat of a fine, how about the promise of untold riches? Millions lined up — sometimes wasting all night — for a shot at the Mega Millions lottery in March. How about another lottery, where your vote stub is a ticket, and where the prize is the money collected from the fines of those who didn’t vote? The odds of the mega-jackpot were about 1 in 176 million — we’d like to believe that the chances of fixing American politics are a bit better than that.
A mandate to vote in political elections is to me an idea so viscerally distasteful that it's hard to know where to begin except to reaffirm that basic American precept that holds that ordinary individuals have the capacity and responsibility to make their own decisions. This may include a decision not to vote, for any number of reasons —whether due to the self-awareness that the individual is not well enough informed, or because the individual does not approve of any of his options on the ballot, or something else.
The right not to vote aside, it seems as though far too many people vote without taking the time to inform themselves about the issues at hand. You can expand the electorate with carrots and sticks, but you cannot so easily expand the informed electorate.
- Comment (68)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: The Right Not to Vote
See my previous post.
I think it would make the buying of votes with the treasury even worse. At least in our current system the libs will eventually coddle their constituency into an apathy and lethargy no political promise can shake.
Jul '10
Re: The Right Not to Vote
And yet, it is the law in Australia.
Mar '11
Re: The Right Not to Vote
How very interesting that Australian should be singled out as the mandatory voting nation which should be emulated.What about the other one? What was it?Oh, that's right: Greece!Meanwhile, here in Australia our system has lumbered as with a government that appears intent on impoverishing us all.Ornstein's participation in this Blame The Republicans travesty is, meanwhile, being trumpeted by Government media here in Australia.
Edited on May 19, 2012 at 1:32amMar '11
Re: The Right Not to Vote
So how evil is compulsory voting? At my very first election as an eighteen year old the (relatively) conservative party did not run a candidate in my electorate.So I was forced by law to vote for one of either the then quite left-wing Australian Labor Party or the Socialist Workers' Alliance.This is seriously being proposed for the United States? Incredible.
Dec '10
Re: The Right Not to Vote
Liberals want to swell the voting ranks with "low information"/apathetic voters because they are the easiest to lie to and manipulate.
Their entire sales pitch requires that people be ignorant or dim or just apathetic, because it all collapses under too much scrutiny.
And they call us the party of stupid . . .
May '11
Re: The Right Not to Vote
I strongly agree with your last point Diane, there are certainly many people who do not vote who do not need to be interjected into the process. Case in point: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/what-people-dont-know-about-the-supreme-court--in-one-chart/2012/04/18/gIQA5w6gQT_blog.html
Re: The Right Not to Vote
CoolHand: Liberals want to swell the voting ranks with "low information"/apathetic voters because they are the easiest to lie to and manipulate.
Their entire sales pitch requires that people be ignorant or dim or just apathetic, because it all collapses under too much scrutiny.
And they call us the party of stupid . . . · 3 minutes ago
I think that liberal politicians would certainly be fond of the idea for the reasons you state, but that a self-professed centrist like Norman Ornstein, who is a Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, should propose such a thing is befuddling to me. It leads me to believe that there must be some merits to the idea. But I'm having trouble identifying them.
May '10
Re: The Right Not to Vote
I have a counter-proposal: a. only federal taxpayers can vote for federal offices. b. those who work in DC can't vote in federal elections. especially pundits who make a living slandering those paying said taxes who work outside the Beltway.
Jul '10
Re: The Right Not to Vote
Just the other day, I was talking with a friend who isn't sure about voting for O - but is absolutely dead set against voting for Romney. My suggestion? How 'bout not voting at all. Seem the reasonable thing to do, and if any other Ricochetians encounter a similar situation, perhaps that same suggestion could be passed along...
Motor Voter was bad enough, but ye gods, compulsory voting. Do they think that will automatically make people good citizens, ones who will actually take the time to become informed?
Mar '12
Re: The Right Not to Vote
I remember talking about this idea years ago, probably in college. The idea I recall is that those who choose not to vote would have to show up an vote none of the above. With the rise of voting by mail, presumably they could mail in their balotts signed, but blank.
I can see a reasonable argument for this. The duty to vote is, from this perspective, similar to the duty to participate in the militia, an act demanded of all citizens.
Jun '10
Re: The Right Not to Vote
An old saying goes: "Don't just stand there, do something." As a lover of freedom, when it comes to voting, any person has the right to just stand there and do nothing. Better that than a completely uninformed vote.
Isn't mandatory voting eerily similar to the individual mandate?
Edited on May 19, 2012 at 2:41amOct '10
Re: The Right Not to Vote
If we'd retained just two of the qualifications for voting in place at the founding, that of being male and that of owning property, how many Democrats would there be in government? Precious few.
Sorry to disenfranchise you Diane, but not owning property in the States I'd have to sit out the election too. Happily.
May '11
Re: The Right Not to Vote
I think Ornstein and Mann are assuming a bit too much to think that compulsory voting will simply shore up Democrats' and Republicans' left and right flanks, respectively; I think it's probably more likely politicians will find themselves under attack by third parties from the extremes if staying at home is no longer an option for those who don't support either candidate. (Of course, as Scarlet Pimpernel pointed out above, you can simply leave portions of the ballot blank; thy have the ability to make you take the thing, but not do anything with it. Assuming they propose to keep the secret ballot. If they don't we have bigger problems).
Jul '10
Re: The Right Not to Vote
It leads me to believe that the self-professed centrist is actually a thinly-disguised leftist ideologue. But then, maybe I've been spending too much time with Jonah Goldberg's new book.
Jan '11
Re: The Right Not to Vote
Stephen, you could also vote informal, which I've done on a number of occasions when confronted with a similar choice - not a great outcome, but an option nonetheless. It's a "compulsory turnout" system, rather than true compulsory voting.
I'm a bit agnostic on compulsory voting - it offends against my basically libertarian ideals, but there seem to be some positives generated by it (the current Australian government notwithstanding, which I think will be taken care of at the next election...). And, dammit, I LIKE seeing my fellow citizens going to exercise their franchise! There is a very good piece in the current Quadrant on this - James Allan is always worth reading, and comes at this issue as a convert.
But am I keen enough on the idea to be selling it as a panacea to other nations with perfectly adequate electoral systems? Not really!
Aug '10
Re: The Right Not to Vote
There is some libertarian thought on mandatory voting which I find compelling. It boils down to a problem of the state forcing its own legitimacy on a populace; mandatory voting becomes a structural vulnerability to authoritarianism along the lines of disarming the citizens.
The long form goes something like this:
A state which manufactures its own legitimacy is dangerous, for obvious reasons.
Edited on May 19, 2012 at 5:06amNov '11
Re: The Right Not to Vote
"Viscerally distasteful" is the perfect way to describe it, Diane.
Oct '10
Re: The Right Not to Vote
It seems to me that Ornstein and Mann are proposing a solution for a problem that is not agreed on based on an assumption that is faulty. The unproven assumption is that there are not enough “moderate” voters to facilitate additional federal legislation, which to them is a “bad” thing. Personally, I think we already have too much federal legislation that would be better decided by individuals, a lower level of government, or the market.
In addition, we have already had many attempts by many disparate groups to encourage registration and voting which have not succeeded either in raising the percentage of people who vote or lifting the quality of the voting decision. Encouraging more participation by uninformed voters will not result in better legislation that benefits all citizens.
Perhaps the eligible non-voters simply need more education in civics, history, and the responsibilities of a citizen who is fortunate to live in a country where voting is a right, a privilege and a duty.
Re: The Right Not to Vote
Well said, Diane. If voting is a right, it is a right that people can choose not to exercise.
Apr '12
Re: The Right Not to Vote
What reason is there for why the great uninformed middle that Mann and Ornstein want deciding the election should even be allowed to vote? I'm coming closer to the conclusion with each passing year that only people who know something about the issues and the candidates should be allowed to vote, and those who know more should get more votes. I live in a state that has judicial elections. Often I walk into the booth with no information about the candidates. When that happens I don't vote for those offices. Mann and Ornstein want the campaigns to focus on the middle. That would force the parties to obfuscate the real differences between them, more than they already do. M&O have it exactly backwards. Better to limit the vote to people who care enough to know what's what, and then let the candidates prove themselves to the true believers. As Jonah says, you can build a bridge across a chasm, or not build it, but don't build it halfway across. The truth is not always in the middle.