Compulsory Voting as a Solution to Low Voter Turnout - Report Example

Voter Turnout Introduction A representative democracy, a republic, demands voter participation to operate as intended, to work on behalf of the people. The more engaged a general public is with the political process, the more equitable the governmental system. Apathy among the voters and restricting certain segments of the population from voting is a recipe for political corruption. When a particular segment of the population votes in larger numbers than others, it is represented to a greater degree than others. A democracy is flawed when government officials act in their self interest rather than the publics and when a portion of the populace is served more than others. We cannot be of the people if we are not by the people. Any reason for low voter turnout whether internally, from apathy or external sources such as intentional acts of voter suppression degrades and makes a mockery of a democracy, an ongoing experiment, a system that works only as well as people make it. By strengthening instead of weakening the Voting Rights Act of 1965, changing the voting day (Tuesday) and instituting mandatory voting among other techniques, voter turnout will be increased which is a victory in and of itself, a victory for the democratic process and we the people. Low voter turn out Pandering Political leaders usually show little interest in catering to segments of the population that historically vote in smaller numbers than the norm. They use their limited campaign resources, time and money, where it will do the most good. The 2012 presidential election is a good example. Republican candidate Mitt Romney courted the far-right of his party to win the primary because this was the most emotionally motivated group meaning they would vote in high numbers. Romney is credited for instituting the model for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) as Governor of Massachusetts, a law that covers abortion and illegal immigrants. He did what all politicians do, pandered to the people going to the polls. The far-right Tea Party does not represent mainstream Republicans. Their voice is over-represented. Even after the presidential loss Republicans have not showed interest in attract minority voters. Voting blocks such as the Tea Party have a larger voice in government, a circumstance that does not accurately represent the population. Bad outcomes occur when a highly motivated minority carries a disproportionate voice such as when the House of Representatives shutdown the federal government, have voted to repeal Obamacare more than 40 times and is not allowing a vote on the immigration bill. Apathy A democratic government is designed to reflect the will of the majority and protect the civil liberties of all. Apathy, the lack of interest in the democratic process, acts to distort the ideal of democracy and not in a positive way. When half of those registered to vote choose not to exercise that right it results in a government that does not represent all people equally. People don’t vote for a variety of reasons including, ‘too busy,’ ‘don’t like either candidate,’ ‘have a disability’ and ‘just don’t care about politics.’ Voting apathy is getting worse. In 1960 nearly two-thirds of eligible voters made it to the polls, a number smaller than many other democracies but the largest turnout in the 50 years previous as well. In 2008 that relatively low number dropped to just over 50 percent. Those figures are for presidential elections. Off-year elections are much worse when voter apathy reaches two-thirds, a dismal number especially when compared to other democracies. Several countries consistently surpass more than 90 percent voter turnout including Australia, Belgium, Austria and Italy. (Ghosh, 2011). Voters who are more educated and of a higher socio-economic class vote in larger numbers than poor and less educated voters. In the 2008 election, according to the U.S Census Bureau, “76 percent of voters earning a median income of $50,000 or more voted, while only 59 percent of Americans earning less than that cast their ballots.” (Bogle, 2013). The more educated voter is generally more informed and feels they are more affected by an election outcome than those less educated. Political realities shape personal situations. White voters have a historic social, economic and educational advantage over Hispanics and blacks and are accustomed to having control of the political system which gives whites great incentive to vote. It’s little surprise they do so in greater numbers than minority voters, including Asians. Voter suppression Suppressing the vote, as intended, directly affects voter turnout. Suppression tactics have a long, infamous tradition but most sensationally in the Southern states. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was necessary to end Jim Crow laws of the South designed to discourage blacks from voting. The law targeted nine states that had particularly egregious examples of voter suppression. These states had to seek special permission from the Justice Department prior to changing its voting laws. That provision of the law, section four, was nullified this year when the Supreme Court ruled it was not needed anymore, that it is a relic of times past and no longer relevant. Specifically, the Court by a 5-4 decision ruled the method used by the government when determining which counties and states would receive a higher level of scrutiny than normal was now nullified. This method, formulated in 1972, had been reaffirmed by Congress as recently as 2006 but Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority said “our country has changed for the better.” In an effort to clarify how institutional racism was a thing of a distant, regrettable past, Justice Roberts explained that the wretched voting conditions that motivated Congress to monitor certain areas of the country many years ago “no longer characterized voting in the covered jurisdictions.” Roberts went on to say “the formula that Congress enacted as recently as 2006, to determine which areas are covered by the act, has no logical relation to the present day.” (Mears, 2013). If Roberts is right, that the law was an artifact of a distant past no more useful than a law requiring cameras installed in buses to ensure blacks aren’t being made to ride in the back then little should change following the ruling. If those wrongly singled-out states have evolved beyond bigotry induced voter suppression tactics of the past, as Roberts suggests, then the uproar over the ruling should die down and soon forgotten after nothing dramatic changes. Less than 24 hours past after the ruling when legislators from the usual suspects including Texas, Mississippi, Alabama and North Carolina announced strict voter ID laws. “That (ruling) basically gives a green light to these nine Southern states and a handful of other jurisdictions to change the law any way they want and basically say to the Justice Department, ‘Catch me if you can,’” said CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. In addition, early voting is being scaled back in these deep red Republican controlled states because blacks and Democrats traditionally vote early in greater numbers than Republicans. These laws had been written for years but could not pass federal inspection due to their discriminatory outcomes. (Cooper, 2013). Institutional racism is unashamedly alive and well in the South. Who could have guessed? - Possibly not an insulated white conservative Chief Justice. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented saying the latest version of Voting Rights Act was overwhelming passed in Congress and enjoyed bi-partisan support. Ginsburg argued that the law was deemed perfectly constitutional for 40 years and remained so. “The sad irony of today’s decision,” Ginsberg wrote “lies in (the court’s) utter failure to grasp why the (law) has proven effective.” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo called the ruling “deeply troubling” while NY Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said it was a “devastating blow to voting rights.” NAACP President Ben Jealous sees it as a direct attack on minority voting rights acting to further marginalize black citizens. (Mears, 2013). It’s as if the Republican Party, particularly in the South, isn’t completely sold on the value of the democratic process. The State of Texas, in an effort to lead the way on suppressing the vote for political gain, acted within hours of the Court’s decision. State Attorney General Greg Abbott announced the voter ID law, which was already passed and waiting for the High Court’s decision, would go into effect at once along with a new redrawn congressional district map whether or not approved by the federal government. (Meyerson, 2013). Texas politicians assured the public that no citizen would be denied their right to vote, that the law was designed to ensure integrity of the voting process. Later in the year when polls opened for statewide elections a few prominent Texas citizens were, at least initially, denied their right to vote. Nueces County (Texas) Judge Sandra Watts was stopped when attempting to early vote. The name on her state issued photo ID card was slightly different than the one on the voter rolls. She was denied due to a missing initial. Days later Former US House Speaker Jim Wright and State Senator Wendy Davis, who is running for Governor next year, experienced the same problem as Judge Watts. In a delicious twist of irony, Davis’ likely opponent for the Governor’s seat, Attorney General Greg Abbott, was initially denied as well. (Lyman, 2013). The embarrassing incident did not change his mind regarding the hastily enacted laws however. Voter turnout was reduced in Republican controlled Texas and other, mostly Southern, states by design. This was an off-election year so little political ground was lost or gained. Next year Texans will choose their state representatives meaning voter turnout will be greater therefore many more people will be told they can’t vote such as students whose school photo ID isn’t sufficient proof to vote and the poor who are more inclined not to have a driver’s license. Women whose married name doesn’t match other documents will have difficulty in greater numbers as well. Hispanics are less likely to have proper documentation than whites. Students, the poor, Hispanics and women are all demographics which are more inclined to vote for Democrats. Controlling voter turnout by suppressing the vote has become the predominant Republican political strategy since the 2012 presidential election loss. Following Romney’s defeat Republican leaders’ spoke of reaching out to traditionally Democratic voters and expanding their appeal by, for example, not only passing but championing immigration reform. It was a good strategy, to help build the Party’s base and strengthen chances to take back the White House in 2016. It did not happen. If fact, behind the public rhetoric the party was quickly working on ways to legally suppress the votes of traditionally non-Republicans. The GOP “doubled down on its opposition to immigration reform and its support for cultural conservatism positions tantamount to electoral suicide unless the youth and minority vote can be suppressed.” (Meyerson, 2013). This multi-state phenomenon is confined to republican dominated legislatures only. The justification for new regulations regarding voting rituals is generally and vaguely based on reducing voter fraud, to keep the democracy pure by ensuring only legal citizens vote and only once. It seems like an honorable endeavor but their argument is missing an essential element. The premise does not exist. “Republicans have justified this crackdown as a way to keep non-citizens from infiltrating the electorate, not that there’s evidence such a thing is happening.” (Meyerson, 2013). The GOP has invented a call to action against an imaginary foe. Voter fraud is a non-issue, or should be. Texas does have a relatively high rate of voter fraud. According to Texas AG Greg Abbott’s office the State has documented 51 cases over the past 10 years, only four of those for impersonating a voter. Voter ID laws were pushed through hurriedly following the Court ruling. The reason was to prevent another four impersonators over the next ten years apparently. Maybe there was another motive. Elections matter and voter turnout decides elections. Again, Texas has a relatively high rate of voter fraud. The Department of Justice reports that of the nearly 200 million votes cast in the U.S. from 2002 to 2005, 26 people were convicted of voter fraud. That is about a .00000013 percent problem. (Bingham, 2012). The threat to democracy imposed to non-citizens voting has been deemed of utmost importance but if a non-citizen wants to contribute secretly to a Political Action Committee (PAC) it’s Republicans who defend that right. Another controversial Supreme Court ruling, Citizen’s United, allows for corporate and foreign money to be surreptitiously funneled into American political campaigns under the guise of free speech. Corporations actually are people, legally speaking anyway. “If you want to vote in the Republicans’ America, remember to bring your birth certificate. But if you want to buy an election and stay under wraps, your secret is safe with them.” (Meyerson, 2013). Solutions A strong voter turnout means citizens are participating in the system which is essential in assuring that system remains equitable, that one group does not have disproportionate authority over others. Apathy in conjunction with voter suppression techniques lowers voter turnout which works against that ideal. There are several methods by which to increase turnout such as changing the traditional day to vote, making voting compulsory and eliminating the Electoral College. Why Tuesday? It seems so random yet a date set in stone for voting. The first Tuesday in November was chosen by Congress in 1845 when most Americans were farmers, many lived great distances from a polling location. “The fall harvest was over in November and Tuesday gave most of the country enough time to travel to the polls. Tuesday was reasonable because voters could leave their homes after Sunday church services and have enough time to get to the polls by Tuesday.” (Ghosh, 2011). Interestingly, voter turnout was in the 80 percent range in the 19th Century when do so was much more difficult. Today, however, voting on Tuesday is a burden for many people. Moving voting day to the weekends and expanding early voting will instantly improve voter participation. Another suppression tactic by Republican legislators has been to lessen the number of days to vote, most famously depicted by the long lines in Florida last year. Compulsory voting is a concept embraced by 23 countries though at first glance it seems like a ‘big government’ overreach by denying peoples right to not vote. In some cases, participation in a society should be and is mandatory. We all pay taxes are required to be educated and receive jury duty notices. Compulsory voting assures the people are represented proportionately. “Compulsory voting would help Americans get past their toxic debate over laws that make it harder to vote.” (Bogle, 2013). Australia, the first country to institute mandatory voting, concentrates on making it easier for its citizens to vote, not harder. The practice enjoys an approval rate of 75 percent. Compulsory voting will combat voter apathy when the reason to not vote is an expected landslide. Interest is always higher in a close race. Just as in a sporting event, more interest is generated by a LSU/Alabama game than an LSU/University of Alabama at Birmingham game. Voter apathy is not simply due to laziness or lack of patriotism. Conservatives living in New York State and liberals in Mississippi have little incentive to vote in national elections. The race is over before it starts, at least for their state. Conversely, the dominant group of a state has little incentive either. ‘Blue person living in a red state’ apathy is especially apparent in Southern states where voter turnout is consistently lower than average. Conclusion Voter turnout is important in moving the political and social direction of the country. The faction that understands just how important are the ones trying to suppress it. Two sensible steps, trashing Tuesday and compulsory voting, can be quickly taken to increase voter participation. Unfortunately when half of the country wants to restrict democracy instead of making it increasingly equitable the odds of improving the system anytime in the near future seems a long-shot at best. Works Cited Bingham, Amy. “Voter Fraud: Non-Existent Problem or Election-Threatening Epidemic?” ABC News Web. September 12, 2012. Bogle, Ariel. “Compulsory voting is a solution to low voter turnout.” Los Angeles Daily News Web. September 6, 2013. Ghosh, Palash. “Why is There so Much Voter Apathy in U.S. Elections?” International Business Times Web. September 19, 2011. Cooper, Michael. “After Ruling, States Rush to Enact Voting Laws.” New York Times Web. July 5, 2013 Lyman, Rick. “Texas’ Stringent Voter ID Law Makes a Dent at Polls.” New York Times Web. November 6, 2013. Mears, Bill; Botelho, Greg. “Outrageous or overdue?: Court strikes down part of historic voting rights law.” CNN Web. June 25, 2013 Meyerson, Harold. “Voter suppression the new GOP strategy.” Washington Post Web. November 19, 2013. Tures, John. “Does Electoral College deter voter turnout?” Columbus Ledger-Enquirer Web. December 3, 2011. Read More