The Roots of Reform
Joel Hirschhorn is a passionate and intriguing political writer.
Several months ago, I picked up a copy of his latest book, Delusional Democracy: Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government — a field guide to eight essential reforms for advancing Independent politics.
Mandatory voting is one of those reforms and the subject of Joel’s latest commentary at Op-Ed News. An excerpt …
This is not a crazy, radical idea. Hold your reaction on what probably is a new idea for you. Over 30 countries have compulsory voting. Violating the law usually merits something akin to a parking fine, but it still works. When Australia adopted it in 1924 turnouts increased from under 50 percent to a consistent 90-plus percent. Conversely, when the Netherlands eliminated compulsory voting in 1970 voting turnouts plunged from 90 percent to less than 50 percent. Polls regularly show 70 percent to 80 percent of Australians support mandatory voting. Research found that people living in countries with compulsory voting are roughly twice as likely to believe that their government is responsive to the public’s needs and 2.8 times as likely to vote as compared to citizens in countries without compulsory voting. Is compulsory voting inconsistent with personal freedom? No! We have compulsory education, jury duty, and taxes that are more onerous than voting periodically. And all people have to do is turn out to vote. What they do with their secret ballot is up to them.
I suppose Joel is right in at least one respect. Mandatory voting is probably not “a crazy, radical idea.” But it does strike me as a thoroughly un-American idea.
Sure, I’d like to see more people vote and otherwise get engaged in politics. But I also believe if someone doesn’t want to do those things, no one should make them. What greater freedom is there than the freedom of saying “no”?
Besides, there’s a critical difference between mandatory voting and the other mandatories that Joel lists: education, jury duty, and taxes. If those three facets of our national life are left incomplete, the larger system starts to break down and noticeably so. If there are too few jurists, the courts gum up. Too few taxes and critical government services are left unfunded. Insufficient education leads to an insufficient workforce. But you can’t say the same about voting, at least, not to the same degree. Elections function just as well with 10 thousand voters as they do with 10 million. Candidates still win or lose. Ballot initiatives are still passed or failed. Granted, we may not always like the results, but the system still works; life still goes on.
The same might be said for the other seven reforms that Joel considers (in Delusional Democracy) as foundational to Independent politics — from publicly funded elections to changing how primaries are conducted; from reforming the electoral college to instant runoff voting. Hell, the same might be said for the teeth-gnashing many of us experience over the current duopoly of major political parties. We may not always like our two-party system, but our government still functions, and (heresy alert!) it functions amazingly well, all things considered.
Bottom line: For everyday people — those who are largely focused on taking care of their families, treating others fairly, remaining dutifully employed, and so on — there are things far more important in life than whether or not we have two major parties, whether or not we can make incremental improvements in the functioning of a democracy that, despite its stumbles, still gets the job done, still finds a way to right the ship when it starts to lean too far to the port or starboard.
For those who have followed my writing here and at Central Sanity, the thoughts expressed in this post may very well confuse you. Have I not claimed to be — despite occasional skews to the left or right — ultimately and fiercely non-partisan in my allegiances? Have I not advocated for moderate politics and its close cousin, independent politics? Have I not suggested that reforms like public campaign financing are a good idea? Yes, I have, to all of the above.
Well then, how can I now summarily dismiss reforms that could conceivably benefit independent, non-partisan interests?
Simple: Hirschhorn and his ilk are focused on procedural reforms, whereas I increasingly believe the answer to our myriad dilemmas lies not in protocol, but in people — in real politicians who are aligned with the real concerns of real voters. And we can today, in the current system with no changes whatsoever, get those politicians elected. And we can do that the old fashioned way: By sharing our opinions openly with friends and family and neighbors. By volunteering to work on an election or re-election campaign. And so on.
In other words: Reform starts in the dirt, not in the clouds.
21 Responses to “The Roots of Reform”
I like the idea depending on what the penalty is for not voting.
It might inspire much more attention by us voters to the campaigns.
Perhaps it could be paired with extensive public campaign finance and debates.
I hate it. People who don’t care about the issues at all would throw their votes away for no good reason. Voting should remain what it always has been- a civic duty. We should concentrate our efforts in avoiding voter fraud on both sides and other types of electoral abuses.
Many people consistently excuse themselves from voting because they have to work. Making election day a national holiday might help alleviate low turnout. Though I doubt corporate America would be willing to close down business for one day, they are already starting to treat Christmas day as a regular business day.
Also, countries with more than a two party system typically have higher turnout. Only problem is this leads to a high government turnover, so we would be getting a more democratic but less stable government.
It may not be a bad idea, but I have practical doubts.
-In my personal experience, immigrants from countries with repressive regimes (Russia, etc.) equate voting with repression.
They see not voting as an expression of freedom.
-Good or bad, the fights would be huge over the civil liberties issue.
Perhaps it could be coupled with some incentive, rather than punishment.
If anything, I wish the suffrage (vote) were qualified and even weighted, and that there were conflict-of-interest exclusions such as receiving public assistance.
My God, is this a horrible idea.
Forcing people to vote is the flip side to forcibly preventing people from voting. In a true free society, people should neither be DENIED the right to vote nor FORCED to vote against their will.
Low voter turnout cannot be attributed solely to apathy. Many people do not vote simply because they either abhor the choices we are given or because they have trouble taking time off from work in order to vote. If we, as a country, truly wanted to improve voter turnout, we would
1) Enact ballot access reform that would repeal Democrat & Republican enacted laws that make it extremely difficult for third parties and Independents from getting on the ballot, and
2) Move Election Day to a weekend, when more people would be able to vote.
Believe it or not, not all people in this country care about or are as up to date on politics as the people on this blog. Some adults out there wouldn’t even be able to tell you who the Secretary of State or the Speaker of the House is or which party supports which political platforms.
Granted, there are a lot of ignorant people out there that already do vote. But I hardly see the virtue of encouraging those ignorant people how don’t vote. And I definitely reject the idea of forcing these people to vote.
Casting a vote is an extremely important decision that should be taken seriously. Important decisions should be made because you WANT to make them–not because the government FORCES you to.
At my local precinct, you get a sticker for voting!
On a more serious note I agree that compulsory voting, whatever its merits, is very un-American. Getting constituents fired up enough to go to the polls and get out the vote is part of what makes politics vibrant.
Over at F&V we had quite a good discussion of compulsory voting almost a year ago.
(As is often the case, the best stuff is in my readers’ comments, not what I had to say!)
If anything, I wish the suffrage (vote) were qualified and even weighted, and that there were conflict-of-interest exclusions such as receiving public assistance.
DLS- This is not only undemocratic, it would be impossible to enforce. Who would determine the qualifications or whose vote should be weighted. Conflict of interest exclusion laws would vary with each major party trying to exclude members of the other side from voting. As far as I’m concerned everyone should be encouraged to vote, excluding only felons and illegal immigrants.
It was said:
> Enact ballot access reform that would repeal Democrat
> & Republican enacted laws that make it extremely
> difficult for third parties and Independents from getting
> on the ballot
Such laws should be struck down as unconstitutionally discriminatory.
Incidentally, I waver right of center when I waver, as a rule, but I have no problem at all with proportional representation and 5-6+ political parties in this country, even if the GOP, the Dems, the Beltway crowd, and publications like the Wall Street Journal have contempt for the idea.
> Believe it or not, not all people in this country care about
> or are as up to date on politics as the people on this blog.
My radical friend in DC has reminded me when I gripe about ignorant voters that voting often tends to be self-selecting, anyway. The ignorant and lazy are among those who neglect voting.
Hirschhorn and his ilk are focused on procedural reforms, whereas I increasingly believe the answer to our myriad dilemmas lies not in protocol, but in people — in real politicians who are aligned with the real concerns of real voters.
I could not disagree more. As Madison knew, you can’t expect good people in politics without good institutions. (His famous, “if all men were angels…” quote.)
Yes, of course, we want “real politicians who are aligned with the real concerns of real voters” but how do you align those interests? With good institutions that make it in their interest for politicians to court and be responsive “real” voters.
Maybe every couple of centuries or so we ought to reconsider whether our existing institutions (“procedures” and “protocol”) are still working. Especially since what we have is not even what Madison devised, but rather a product of a logroll among the various interests represented in state legislatures of the late 18th century. The country and world have changed just a bit since the compromises were struck.
Anyway, this sort of thing is an ongoing theme at F&V.
There are a lot of ignorant people on both sides of the aisle. Whether you are a welfare mother or live in areas where there isn’t much access to current events, it really balances out. Yes there are poor minorities who always vote Democratic , just as there are evangelicals who vote for Conservative Republicans as dictated by voter guides passed out by the Christian Coalition.
I think we can all agree on the basic goal of “see[ing] more people vote and otherwise get engaged in politics.” but forcing people to vote simply fixes the first problem without addressing the second, more important issue. It would be only a superficial band-aid for a deep seated problem.
K. Ritter stabbed:
> If anything, I wish the suffrage (vote)
> were qualified and even weighted, and
> that there were conflict-of-interest
> exclusions such as receiving public
> assistance.
> DLS- This is not only undemocratic,
Technically, not so, as long as all were subject to the same rules.
Undemocratic as in anti-egalitarian, without a doubt.
Ideally the vote should be weighted by voter quality (knowledge, etc.) and taxes paid (the product of the two). Just weighting the vote by taxes paid is a welcome reform (won’t happen, but would be welcome). The evil nature of progressive taxation [insert ominous music] requires a sensible counter-balancing.
> it would be impossible to enforce. Who would
> determine the qualifications or whose vote
> should be weighted.
The government, which also would subject the citizens to testing (such as the citizenship test immigrants need to make, and basic questions, such as “Who is the Vice President of the United States?”). Or, if you want to feel worse, having a private contractor like Halliburton administer the tests, using Diebold electronic no-paper-trail testing equipment. (That’s the ticket — pun intended)
> Conflict of interest exclusion laws would vary
> with each major party trying to exclude members
> of the other side from voting. As far as I’m concerned
> everyone should be encouraged to vote, excluding
> only felons and illegal immigrants.
The most outrageous claims (by the Dems, of course [tm]) for conflicts of interest should not be honored.
Don’t worry. Qualification and more so, weighting, never will happen. If anything, the Dems will increase their base by demanding illegal immigrants, felons, and children vote. (The far left already wants children to vote; Ralph Nader is among those who have wanted voting extended down to age sixteen.)
http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=28
How about compulsory voting, provided that every slate of candidates also comes with a “none of the above” option?
1. Proportional representation. Get rid of the winner takes all system.
2. Either move election day to a weekend or make it a holiday while leaving it on Tuesday or maybe even moving it to Wednesday to make it less likely that people will take advantage of a long weekend to travel.
3. Make people like DLS pass history so they might remember that we had a poll tax and why it was outlawed.
Exactamundo, Jim S!
DLS I didn’t realize that in this day and age there were still people who wanted to discriminate against the poor or the uneducated in this country. Any kind of test or weighting of some votes against others would be inherently discriminatory. This is what the civil rights act and voting rights act passed in the 1960′s ended.
As long as you are going for conflict-of-interest democracy, you should be in favor of ending the revolving door that allows Congressional staffers and representatives to become lobbyists for the very industries that they used to regulate.
I am always amazed at people who are pretty content with the current political system and believe that contrary to previous experience sticking with the two-party system works. All my ideas for political, government and economic reforms stem from a viewpoint that our system is terribly broken. We need many deep reforms to restore American democracy. They will not happen as long as the two corrupt major parties control the system (and block third parties from being competitive). As to mandatory voting, I find it absolutely amazing that so many people do not think that they have as much as a legal obligation to get out and vote as they do to pay taxes, go to school and serve on juries. It really is a horrible testament to a failed REPRESENTATIVE democracy when so few citizens think it is worth voting. A politically disengaged public is a profound cause of corrupt, inefficient and morally deficient government. I urge you to check out the website of a new group that I have formed to obtain the single most important thing that could lead to major reforms — an Article V convention: http://www.foavc.org. Virtually every politically powerful group has opposed a convention and congress has violated the constitution by not granting over 500 state requests for one.
> Make people like DLS pass history
> so they might remember that we
> had a poll tax and why it was outlawed.
I know history and many other things you do not.
Qualification and weighting according to true quality and knowledge of subject matter is hardly the same as race. Ahem.
K. Ritter said:
> DLS I didn’t realize that in this day
> and age there were still people who
> wanted to discriminate against the
> poor or the uneducated in this
> country.
I would support at least a minimal level of competence in decision making. It has nothing to do with what you suspect.
> Any kind of test or weighting of some votes against others
> would be inherently discriminatory. This is what the civil
> rights act and voting rights act passed in the 1960’s ended.
Actually, no. Insisting on minimal competence is not the same at all.
Otherwise, by your logic, we shouldn’t have driver testing, either…
> As long as you are going for conflict-of-interest
> democracy, you should be in favor of ending the
> revolving door that allows Congressional staffers
> and representatives to become lobbyists for the
> very industries that they used to regulate.
They shouldn’t be lobbyists at all.
“Industries … used to regulate”: The ironic thing, you probably realize, is that those in the industry are most competent to make decisions about it. (That’s not the same as lawmakers enriching themselves through gifts and campaign contributions.) You’ll never get an ideal regulation solution.
But as for the revolving door — during the 1992 riots I told people that the rioters should get off Main Street and go trash K Street in Washington.
This is a horrible idea. People choose not to vote because they feel they have better things to do with their limited time. Plus, the impact of a single vote on the outcome of an election is extremely slight so some folks choose not to vote for this reason as well. The point is, it’s a choice. People are forced to vote in totalitarian socieities, they should not be forced to vote in democracies.