Harvard Hubbub : May 2015

Woohoo, I got an A for behavioral economics. Not expected at all! I think my final paper tipped the balance.

Forget Nudging. It’s Time for a Shove:

Increasing Voter Turnout in the US

Carolyn Anderson

Introduction

In this paper I will analyze the possible reasons for low voter turnout as well as reviewing the many largely ineffective policy and regulatory endeavors used over the years to increase voter participation. Based on this analysis I will make the case for more radical voter reform measures to be implemented in order to make a real step change in voter turnout. Each measure’s efficacy will be assessed through the lens of known behavioral attributes and measurable increases, if any, on voter turnout. A proposal incorporating the most effective of these measures will be suggested. The feasibility of the proposal will then be tested against social, economic and political considerations.

Description of policy problem

Low voter turnout has characterized US elections for decades despite many efforts to increase voter participation. Over the period 1960-1995, the United States averaged a mere 48% turnout.[1] Low voter turnout is generally[2] considered undesirable as a matter of democratic principle. Majority rule, which is at the heart of democracy, is not achieved. Voting provides the foundation for the operation of representative democracy and has great symbolic value. If voting participation declines, the primary link between the citizen and the system is diminished, government actions may be less likely to correspond with the desires of the citizens, and on a larger scale, the legitimacy of the democratic system may be undermined. [3]

Poor voter turnout[4] rates for the 2014 US mid-term elections, has placed one particular solution, compulsory voting, yet again under the spotlight, bringing out fierce division amongst supporters and critics.[5]

President Obama has said of mandatory voting, that “It would be transformative if everybody voted."[6] Obama noted that people who typically don't vote are young, lower-income and come from minority communities. "There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls. We should want to get them into the polls," Obama said.

Over 20 countries, including Australia, have mandatory voting regimes that require their citizens to register to vote, and to show up at their local polling centre.

Discussion of current US policy

There has been a global trend of decreasing voter turnout in most established democracies since the 1960s.[7] Whilst countries that have forms of mandatory voting mostly head the league tables of voter turnout, there are exceptions to the rule such as Malta and Austria. One thing is clear however and that is that the USA trails all other established democracies in voter turnout with just a mere 48% of people turning out to vote at the 2008 Presidential elections (2012 was better at 54.9%).

Reasons as to why voters fail to turn out

Poor voter turnout seems to be a product of behavioural, cultural and institutional factors. In the 2008 Census Bureau Voting Survey[8] more than a quarter of registered non-voters didn't vote because they weren't interested or didn't like their choices. Many reported illness or disability (15%), especially among older registered non-voters. Others were too busy, or had conflicting schedules (17%). Of the remainder, many had some logistical problem with the process: 6% had problems with their voter registration, 3% did not have convenient polling places, and another 3% had some sort of transportation problem. And 0.2% reported that bad weather conditions kept them from the polls on Election Day.[9]

Socio cultural factors play a big part. The more educated a voter is, the more likely he or she is to vote. Wealth also has an impact separate from education levels. Young people are far less likely to vote, however youth whose parents vote are more likely to vote themselves and their voter allegiance is sticky – people tend to vote for the same party as their parents. Elections other than national elections (e.g. primaries) generally have a lower turnout than provincial and municipal elections. The primaries in the US experience lower turnouts than the General Election.

In theory voter turnout should change when it is expected to be a close race. The 2004 election, which polarized the electorate and was expected to be close, saw 60% of the electorate turn out to vote. The 1996 election, which was expected to return Clinton for a second term, had the lowest turnout in modern history. Factors like weather can impact turnout, and where voting is voluntary, elections on weekends experience lower turnouts.[10] Voter turnout varies between countries with Western Europe averaging a 77% turnout[11]. Newer democracies tend to have lower voter turnout.

Institutional factors such as making voting mandatory have a large impact on voter numbers. Institutional factors also include the type of voting[12] and registration systems adopted that can produce manufactured majorities, discourage voter turnout, create high levels of wasted votes and deny fair representation to minorities. Seven states now have unprecedented restrictive voter ID laws. Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin all require citizens to produce specific types of government-issued photo identification before they can cast a vote that will count. Legal precedent requires these states to provide free photo ID to eligible voters who do not have one. Unfortunately, these free IDs are not equally accessible to all voters.[13]

Cultural factors such as trust in government and belief in the efficacy of voting increasingly figure even in advanced democracies like the United Kingdom and the US.

Behavioral factors also effect voter turn-out. Changing voting behavior at least in part requires activating norms and creating habits. Currently for many Americans, abstention is the habit.

Lack of salience is an issue. Although for watchers of television and readers of newspapers it may be hard to miss all the election promotion, for many Americans elections simply are not prominent in their lives. This is proving the case particularly with young people who by virtue of the electronic walled gardens they have created for themselves, need never pay attention to an election let alone decide to vote.

Procrastination is another reason for low turn-out. Modern life is filled with distractions. Taking time off from work to attend at a polling booth requires effort. Voter fatigue caused by multiple elections held in close proximity can lower turnout. Present bias makes people reluctant to incur the “cost” involved in enrolling to vote now and only experience the “benefit” i.e. voting, later leading to procrastination and failure to register. Voters perceive that their individual vote will have little effect on how the country is run[14].

Convenience and ease of voting is a consideration. Polling places themselves can be problematic. Places used for polling are not always appropriate or conducive to the deliberative process of voting include crowded noisy restaurants, churches with prominently displayed religious symbolism (which may impact on ballot initiatives that are morally or socially controversial) and school gyms that are in use at the time. Some polling places lack adequate parking. Long queues to vote is another big issue - on Election Day in 2012, an estimated 750,000 potential voters across the U.S. left their polling places without voting because the lines seemed too long. [15] Voting is attended by complexity, especially if there is a separate registration requirement. The complexity and length of the US ballot forms has also been cited as a disincentive.[16]

Options to be considered

Much experimentation has been undertaken, particularly in the US in relation to addressing the barriers to voter turnout. In this section I will briefly discuss some of the better-known interventions and the behavioral characteristics they seek to address before moving to make a proposal that incorporates some of the more effective intercessions.

Intrinsic motivation:

Notwithstanding that most Americans would agree that voting is an important form of democratic participation (leaving aside arguments regarding its effectiveness), appealing to civic duty does not seem to have been particularly effective in generating turnout at elections.[17]

Social norms

Gerber, Green, and Larimer, conducted a large-scale randomized experiment involving 180,000 Michigan voters which found that messaging via a post card intended to shame people into voting based on the voting behavior of neighbors had an effect of 8.1 percentage points as compared to the control. The intervention was extremely cost effective. Canvassing costs roughly $20 per vote, while these mailers cost roughly $1.93 per vote. It would appear that externally motivated sense of civic duty is activated when people know that others can observe their behavior. However, two potential issues present as barriers to the wide spread adoption of such an intervention. Firstly, not all states make known as a matter of public record whether neighbors have voted or not. Secondly, although it was not experienced in this experiment, there is a danger that there may be “reactance” when heavy-handed tactics are used to enforce norm compliance.

Direct democracy:

Direct democracy initiatives might be assumed to address the behavioral characteristics of salience and motivation by creating greater incentive for citizens to vote in elections where there are issues that they care about. There has been some suggestion that having citizen driven ballot initiatives up for consideration increases voter turnout.[18] However other scholars like Childers and Binder believe that the evidence does not support claims about ballot initiatives causing a permanently more engaged electorate. The initiative process is not itself habit forming.

In 2012, Colorado’s ballot measure about recreational marijuana use may have contributed to a rise in youth voter turnout. Previously, the state’s youth turnout rate mostly followed national trends, but in 2012 Colorado youth had a voter turnout rate of 55.7%, more than 10 percentage points above the national average. It is possible that the marijuana measure played a role.[19]

Grassroots:

There are a number of grass roots organizations[20] that work on voter mobilization. For example, Grassroots Campaigns was founded in December of 2003 with the goal of building support for progressive candidates, parties and causes through engaging everyday people in political action.[21] Campaigns are most effective at mobilizing voter turnout when they are based on issues that voters have a personal stake in.

Canvassing, phone banking, robo-calls:

Political parties, as well as non- partisan organisations use canvassing and phone banking extensively. In a study conducted by Gerber and Green they found that Personal canvassing increased voter turnout by 6 percentage points. A door knock can boost turnout by about 8 points for about $20-25 per additional vote (partisan canvassing is approx. $10.40 per vote). Gerber and Green argue that get-out-the-vote phone calls do not increase turnout based upon field experiments testing nonpartisan professional phone banks. Nickerson on the hand argues that the quality of the phone calls matter and that brief, nonpartisan phone calls can raise voter turnout if they are sufficiently personal. Thus a live phone call can increase turnout by 3-5 points for $20-26 per additional vote. A text message increases turnout by 3-4 points and can be very inexpensive. Multiple contacts from a campaign can increase turnout by 10-14 percentage points.[22] Robo-calls are so ineffective that they cost $275 per new vote.[23]

Advertising:

Advertising in the context of voter turnout takes two forms: paid party political messaging and non-partisan exhortations to get out and vote. Advertising is clearly intended to create attention and salience for voters however there is conflicting evidence as to how effective campaigns are particularly negative ones, at increasing voter participation.[24]

Partisan leaflets cost approximately $14 per additional vote with non-partisan leaflets costing approximately $43.[25] Direct mail, both partisan and non-partisan has been shown to have very little effect on participation at best garnering 1 additional voter per 600 recipients[26]. Consequently the cost per additional vote for direct mail has been estimated at $200 or more.

Party political advertising has been used extensively in election campaigns since the advent of television. Attack ads began to appear in the 1970s. Many countries restrict the use of broadcast media to broadcast political messaging. In the EU, many countries do not permit paid-for TV or radio advertising for fear that wealthy groups will gain control of airtime making fair play impossible and distort the political debate in the process. In both the United Kingdom and Ireland, paid advertisements are forbidden, though political parties are allowed a small number of party political broadcasts in the run up to election time. Canada allows paid-for political broadcasts but requires equitable access to the airwaves.[27] The United States has a very free market for broadcast political messaging. Spending between January 1, 2013 to October 23, 2014 on television ads in federal and gubernatorial races in the 2013-14 election cycle was approximately $1.19 billion with 2.2 million airings.[28]

The other form of advertising is non-partisan and is intended to encourage people to do their civic duty by voting. The UK Electoral Commission in the past has run a nationwide media campaign explaining why people should vote.[29] The UK Electoral Commission has requested that universities and colleges encourage their students to register to vote ahead of the UK General Election on 7 May.[30]

Social media campaigns

Contrary to popular opinion, the rapid rise of social media has not boosted youth voter turnout. Based on the National Exit Polls’[31] demographic data about 21.5 percent of young adults voted in 2014. Since 1994, when comparable exit polls were first conducted, that proportion has never risen above 24 percent, nor fallen below 20 percent.[32] Nickerson (n.d) conducted 13 field experiments on 232,716 subjects to test whether email campaigns are effective for voter registration and mobilization. Both registration and turnout were unaffected, suggesting that email, while inexpensive, is not cost-effective.

Entertainment:

Rock the Vote is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that encourages young people to vote through a variety of activities and events that incorporate the entertainment community and youth culture.

Campaigns like Rock the Vote have been assumed to activate behavioral factors like peer group pressure, social norms and role modeling to address the barriers of salience and procrastination leading to low voter turnout amongst younger people. However research by Donald Green at Yale University[33] has found that media/celebrity-based appeals to young people like Rock the Vote are extremely ineffective, compared with face-to-face appeals from friends and peers. He cites experiments held across 18 states over a span of five election seasons. Those activist campaigns which used personal contacts and telephone calls from peers increased voter turnout in some elections by 8 to 12 percent, while even well-funded campaigns that use the methods favored by Rock the Vote -- viral e-mail campaigns, television advertising, celebrity appeals and other media -- had almost no effect on voter turnout. Green also believes that the actual message of candidates and activist groups is, ironically enough, probably irrelevant as a factor in encouraging young people to vote. What does matter is the presence of a personal contact.[34]

National Holiday:

In their book “Deliberation Day,” Ackerman and Fishkin propose a two-day national holiday before the election, to enable the citizenry to deliberate about the issues and candidates. This initiative attempts to address the barriers of salience, procrastination and opportunity costs and establish social norms and habit formation.

Financial incentives:

The research literature is somewhat ambivalent on the effectiveness of financial incentives in motivating desired behavior or performance. The success of financial incentives is very much context and task specific. It would appear that offering monetary rewards are largely not effective in relation to motivating complex behaviors such as increasing teacher or student performance[35], but studies show that they can be effective in relation to simple binary decisions, for example addressing teacher non-attendance. Applying the same logic, it is possible that a financial incentive may also work to increase voter attendance. Yale Law School Professor Stephen Carter is a proponent of paying citizens to go to the polls. [36] The argument against offering pay for vote is that of the slippery slope: where does nudging end and bribery start? As it is illegal to offer people money to vote there would need to be statutory reform to allow this.

Non-Financial incentives:

Behavioral studies suggest that non- financial incentives can be surprisingly effective but like financial incentives their efficacy is context and task dependent. Suggestions for motivating voters to turn out on Election Day include non-financial incentives like having parties at polling stations and offering free food and drinks for people who vote. However, some states like California make it illegal to offer food or beverages as incentives to vote even if the promotion in no way endorses a candidate. In 2012, Capitol City Brewing Company, a local chain of California brewpubs, was forced to withdraw its offer of a free beer on Election Day to any patron sporting an "I Voted" sticker.[37] Ben & Jerry's ran afoul of this provision in 2008, when it attempted to give away free ice cream to those wearing an "I Voted" sticker.[38] Sausage sizzles are a regular feature of election days in Australia, with local schools and charity groups taking advantage of the election for fundraising purposes.

Inducements:

To make voting more attractive, Thomas Mann of Brookings and Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute have proposed pairing a compulsory vote with a lottery in which voters can win money financed by the fines of non-voters. Lotteries have proven to be a remarkably affective inducement in a number of other contexts such as encouraging saving by playing on the probability weighting in prospect theory. In the one known voter participation example from Bulgaria, funds were appropriated from the budget to run a lottery linked to the 2005 Bulgarian parliamentary elections. Unfortunately the lottery failed to raise voter turnout and was much criticized.[39]

Cost reduction measures:

Clearly if voting is seen as part of one’s civic duty, it is attendant on the “state” to remove as many barriers as possible to participation such as cost and convenience. The cost of transportation to polling booths led to the wide spread practice of providing free buses. There are time costs as well due to queuing. Most standard recommendations for shortening lines revolve around reducing the number of in-person voters, increasing service points, and decreasing transaction times. Budgetary and space constraints weigh heavily in implementing reforms to reduce lines. Siting polling booths in shopping malls could minimize the opportunity costs of voting.

Information:

Many countries have electoral commissions that provide information about enrolment and voting. This type of general impersonal information however is not particularly effective at increasing turnout.

Planning prompts:

Nickerson and Rogers conducted a field experiment for the 208 Presidential Election demonstrating that formulation of a voting plan can increase voter turnout by 4.1 percent whilst a standard encouragement call and self-prediction had no impact. Formation of a voting plan increased turnout by 9.1 percentage points amongst single eligible vote households, whereas there was no impact in multiple eligible voter households, suggesting that these household may have engaged in plan making of their own. Election day reminder calls mobilize one out of every 20 calls for a cost per additional vote of $11.61.[40]

Identification

Bryan, Walters, Rogers and Dweck (2011) undertook a linguistic experiment to measure the effect of invoking an identity “voter” to that of a behavior “voting”. Invoking the identity substantially increased interest in registering to vote by 10 percentage points.

Online Registration

Online registration addresses issues such as convenience, is time efficient and low cost to administer. It still places the onus on the citizen to remember to register and does not take account of citizens who may not hold the necessary identification documentation. Typically, online registration is limited to citizens with a driver's license or other state-issued identification. The website retrieves the citizen’s signature from that form of identification (which is electronically stored) for the voter registration paperwork. In the United States, Arizona was the first to implement online registration in 2002, and eighteen states have since followed suit.[41]

Same day voting Registration

Some states have instigated same day voting registration to address the issue of citizens who are motivated to vote but who might be precluded because of failing to register. It also addresses issues of present bias between the cost of enrolment and the future benefit of voting. Ten states plus the District of Columbia presently offer same-day registration; allowing any qualified resident of the state to go to the polls or an election official's office on Election Day, register that day, and then vote.[42]

Defaults:

The effectiveness of defaults and particularly automatic enrolments in increasing participation are well documented in behavioural science. In particular the issues of salience, inconvenience, procrastination, and time costs are addressed by automating the registration part of the electoral process. Oregon provides an example of an automatic registration process.[43] Instead of opting in, prospective voters must opt out of registering in Oregon. The State automatically registers all eligible Oregonians to vote when they obtain or renew a driver’s license or state identification card.[44] Those who are registered through the new process will be notified by mail and will be given three weeks to take themselves off the voting rolls. If they do not opt out, the secretary of state’s office will mail them a ballot automatically 20 days before any election.

Postal voting:

Three states — Colorado, Oregon, and Washington State — have all-mail voting systems in place also saves a lot of time and money which would otherwise be spent on administering mail, absentee, and in-person voting systems. Data gathered by the United States Elections Project, shows the three states with all-mail systems have a recent history of consistently outperforming the U.S. turnout rate but it is not possible to isolate other reasons for this performance to conclusively determine whether postal voting increases turnout.[45]

Online Voting[46]

Online voting addresses the problems of convenience and cost of attending at a polling station (transportation, parking and work time loss costs) but not the barriers of salience, commitment and lack of access to an Internet connection. Internet voting was first used for binding political elections in 2000 in the U.S. in a pilot across several states targeting overseas voters. Since then, 13 more countries have used Internet voting. Two use Internet voting nationwide (Estonia and the United Arab Emirates); five use Internet voting in some parts of the country or for certain members of the electorate (Australia, Canada, France, Mexico and Switzerland); two have piloted it (India and Norway); three have piloted Internet voting and decided not to continue its use (Finland, the UK and the U.S.); and two adopted Internet voting, but decided to discontinue it (Netherlands and Spain).[47] Legitimate concerns remain about the security of online voting although much effort is being applied to create a robust, trustworthy system that can withstanding hacking and manipulation.

Compulsory enrollment and voting

Studies show that compulsory enrolment is a fairly reliable means for ensuring high turnout.[48] There are two types of compulsory voting: those that enforce it like Australia[49] and those that do not like Belgium. There are 13 countries that enforce compulsory voting[50] and 18 that do not. When Australia was federated voting was voluntary. In 1926 the Federal government adopted compulsory voting and by 1941 all State government elections were mandatory.

Enforced compulsory voting addresses attention, and procrastination and also uses loss aversion as a motivator– you receive a fine if you do not register or do not present at a polling booth. Because everybody votes, there is a high level of awareness of the actual voting day, and the campaigning in the lead up. Over the period 1960-1995 the turnout in lower house elections for Belgium was 91% and 81% in Australia.[51] In the most recent Australian federal election held in 2013 turnout figures were 93%. It is important to recognize these high attendance rates are also attributable to simple, easy and well run systems, which make the failure to vote more burdensome than the act of voting and which lower the opportunity and resource costs on voters.

In Australia and Belgium, voting is reinforced by social norms, and for most people becomes habitual even though the initial penalty for failing to vote in Australia is only $20 and the Electoral Commission is generous in the types of excuses for not voting that it accepts.

Concrete Policy proposal

The US has spent millions, maybe even billions of dollars exhorting its citizens to vote and yet voter turnout remains below 50%. Unfortunately most of the more typical efforts such as canvassing, information and advertising campaigns, phone banks, and robo-calls have had little impact. Even the most effective measures have increased participation by only 10 percentage points. It is time for the US to consider radical voter reform by introducing a mandatory voting scheme similar to that in Australia (see Appendix A). Compulsory voting[52] (necessarily complemented by compulsory voter registration) is the only intervention that can achieve voter participation of 90% and above thus enhancing the democratic values of popular sovereignty, political equality, minimization of elite power, legitimacy and representativeness.[53] Compulsory voting itself has powerful symbolic value because it both conveys to people that the expected social norm is that every adult spends some moment deliberating on the political process and that every vote has value. It addresses the concerning and ever widening socio economic voting gap in the US. Leighley and Nagler note that over the past several decades the demographic and socio cultural differences between voters and non-voters have grown significantly larger in the US. They demonstrate that the rich have consistently voted more than the poor for the past four decades, and that voters are substantially more conservative in their economic views than nonvoters. They find that women are now more likely to vote than men, that the gap in voting rates between blacks and whites has largely disappeared, and that older Americans continue to vote more than younger Americans.[54]

Other advantages to compulsory voting are the stimulation of a broader interest in politics. Also, since campaign funds are not needed to entice voters to the polls, the role of money in politics decreases.

There are some aspects of the Australian system that could be improved on, specifically in relation to registration/enrolment to vote, which currently places the onus on the citizen, even though the Commission goes to considerable lengths to assist with enrolment.[55] In Australia enrolment is not automatic but it is mandated. Arguably the Oregon system is better because it eliminates unintentional non-compliance by those who want to vote, but who forget to register when they turn 18. To ensure that registration is not a barrier to participation, other forms of universally accredited identification should also be considered including social security numbers and the ability to make a sworn statutory declaration of voter eligibility via an online attestation.

I would propose adopting both the Oregon automatic enrolment system as well as providing for same day enrolment. [56]

An additional proposal would be to do away with attendance at polling stations and allow universal postal voting as a matter of convenience. Postal votes would be returned in prepaid envelopes. At this stage my proposal does not currently endorse the use of online voting, until it has been proved to be more resilient against hacking and vote tampering. However online is definitely the preferred future method for voting.

The day of the election should be moved to the weekend. A universal SMS message/telephone message could be sent to all phone subscribers reminding them to vote on that day.[57] Under my proposal people can cast blank votes, spoilt votes and a new category called a “protest vote” thus avoiding creating a compelled speech act that violates freedom of speech[58] because the freedom to speak arguably includes the freedom not to speak. I would also allow more flexibility around early voting.

Another initiative that I would propose is to limit the length of time for campaigning. In Australia the election must be held within 33-58 days of the issuing of the writs on a Saturday. Whilst recognizing that this is more difficult in relation to Presidential campaigns, it should be possible for other elections. The issue of big money and endless campaigns that induce voter fatigue and indifference would thereby lessened.

The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) goes to great lengths to ensure that the burden of high resource and opportunity costs of voting are not experienced by voters; far more so than the US. The US would do well to model the AEC.

More effort is needed around engaging people in democratic participation. If more people are involved with democracy and politics between election cycles, it will lead to more informed voters and combat some of the critics who believe compelled voters means more ignorant voters. Civinomics[59] is a website that allows voters to answer polling questions while reading online news. The idea is that by allowing people to vote on what they see or hear in the news, they are being encouraged to think about politics and public policy.

Discussion of Behavioral Economics Effects of the Proposal

My proposal maximizes the participation of voters by addressing some of the most significant barriers to voting. Automatic registration deals with the issues of salience, time costs, motivation and procrastination. Postal voting addresses procrastination, costs and inconvenience of attending at a polling station. SMS messaging and other voting reminders address salience. Mandatory registration and voting increases voter participation, creates voter habits, and reinforces social norms. Greater focus on political participation between elections increases voter political “literacy”, creates a social norm around political participation and habit formation. Shortening campaigns lessens the influence of big money that has decreased the perception of people around the value of their individual vote. Informal and protest voting allows people to exercise a choice not to register a valid vote eliminating the notion of a compelled act which would be unconstitutional.

Impact of proposal – discussion of practicalities and feasibilities – political, social and economic

Given that the President of the United States is currently considering compulsory voting it is instructive to look at the motivations behind the change in policy in Australia from voluntary to compulsory voting. Interestingly, calls for compulsory voting came from all sides of politics and with broad overall support. In research undertaken by Fowler into the historical record he discerned 4 reasons for the support. Firstly, it was believed that compulsory voting was a natural extension of compulsory registration, which was already in place. Secondly, if everyone voted it was thought to be easier to administer the election. Thirdly (and perhaps a bit optimistically) they believed that fines for nonvoter turnout could defray the costs of the election, fourthly compulsory voting was the only way to ensure a fair election result and finally and most significantly both parties perceived the other to have an advantage – conservative voters were more likely to have cars to get to voting stations but the left wing party was able to mobilize more campaign workers. Thus both parties believed that compulsory voting was beneficial.

There is political division in the US over whether mandatory voting enhances democracy or is an infringement of civil liberties. Mandating voting has a clear effect: it raises participation rates. Before Australia adopted compulsory voting in 1924, for example, it had turnout rates similar to those of the U.S. After voting became mandatory, participation immediately jumped from 59 per cent in the election of 1922 to 91 per cent in the election of 1925. Turnout rates among the voting age population in Australia have remained consistently high and against the trend of steadily declining voting participation in advanced democracies worldwide that do not have compulsory voting.

Libertarians believe mandatory voting is a compelled act[60] that harms democratic participation. Most obviously, they believe that the right to vote[61] implies a right not to vote.

Compulsory voting may infringe other rights. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses and most Christadelphians believe that they should not participate in political events and that compelling them to vote denies them their freedom of religious practice. However many countries with compulsory voting do allow religious objection as a legitimate reason not to vote. [62]

The other effects of compulsory voting are more difficult to assess and tend to divide political scientists. Some proponents, such as Galston at Brookings, argue mandating voting could help reduce political polarization those who don’t vote today tend to be less polarized than those who go to the polls.

Recent work by John Sides of George Washington University and colleagues[63] is consistent with previous research by Raymond Wolfinger in finding “little evidence that increased turnout would systematically transform partisan competition or policy outcomes.” [64]

One concern voiced primarily by Republicans and which seems somewhat anti-democratic, is that compulsory voting would raise participation rates among Democrats, because minority and low-income voters are among those least likely to go to the polls. This is supported by evidence from the Australian experience. Fowler (2013) looked at voter turnout before and after the introduction of compulsory voting. He was able to point to noticeable differences, namely the preponderance of wealthier, conservative voters who turned out under the voluntary regime compared to their working class counterparts. He found that the change in policy increased voter turnout by 24 percentage points which increased the vote share of the Labor (left-wing) party by 7-10 points. He also noticed impacts on the types of public policy that were implemented with more emphasis on policies that benefited the lower socio-economic classes. Because the change in voting policy was not linked explicitly to changes in demographic, economic, political factors, there was little chance of contamination in testing for public policy outcomes of the effects of a near universal voter turnout. Fowler concluded that the Australian results suggest democracies with voluntary voting do not represent the preferences of all citizens: a situation certain US politicians have a vested interest in preserving.

The argument of the critics and they mostly align to the extreme political right, seems to be that any attempts to get more people to vote (noting that their criticism is fiercest in relation to mandatory voting) is that it means people will vote who are ignorant. As the argument goes, a more ignorant electorate could well lead candidates and parties to change their platforms and policies when in office for the worse. It will lead to so-called donkey votes in which people vote for candidates based on the order they appear on the ballot.[65] These voters are said to fail to meet even very minimal criteria of knowledge and open-mindedness. To rebut this I would argue that many current voters register as members of political parties and never change their political allegiance regardless of the platforms. These people can hardly be considered “open-minded”.

Critics like Ilya Somin[66] claim there is no evidence that nations with compulsory voting are, as a result, better governed than those where voting is voluntary. This too seems a fallacious argument as voters control the exercise of their vote, not who necessarily runs for office. Somin further argues that as the outcomes of US elections over the last several decades would not have been significantly different if all eligible non-voters had turned out, the US should not bother with compulsory voting. Somin also believes there is no reason to believe that a President or Congress elected by a majority of all Americans would be somehow more legitimate or otherwise morally preferable to one elected by a majority of those who voluntarily choose to vote. Both of these arguments fail to recognize that the participation of every eligible voter in the democratic process is as important as the outcome.

One of the bigger reasons for not supporting compulsory voting is the cost benefit calculus. If, as it is argued, mandatory voting has little effect on elections (other than participation) then there is limited benefit in incurring the extra administration and compliance costs with enforcing mandatory voting. The bundled cost of the Australian voting system and its enforcement in federal elections is around $AUS5 per vote.[67] In response I would point out that the current US voting system is neither efficient nor cheap to administer – the 2012 election cost $6,285,557,223[68], and resulted in a turn out rate less than a simple majority. This in itself seems to be a costly process for a sub-optimal outcome.

Finally, a significant hurdle to be overcome is constitutional. Any amendment to introduce mandatory voting would require the support of both parties. Looking again to the example of Australia, the move to compulsory voting had the support of both parties. It would take a significant change in mind set from the Republicans for them to support compulsory voting.

Conclusion

In this paper I have described the policy problem of poor voter turnout at US elections. Universal voting participation is important because it allows for popular sovereignty, legitimacy, representativeness and political equality, and limits the exercise of elite power.[69]

Poor voter turnout is a product of behavioral, cultural and institutional factors. I have reviewed the many and varied options employed around the world for addressing voter turnout, focusing on the behavioral barriers to participation which each option seeks to address.

Noting that many of the conventional interventions have failed to significantly activate voter participation, I propose a system of radical reforms including compulsory voting with various measures to address barriers to enrolment and voting including compulsory, automatic and same day enrolment, postal voting, SMS and telephone reminders, limits on length of campaigns and more effort on increasing the political literacy of voters. I recommend that the United States establish an Electoral Commission modeled on that in Australia. I have then examined the arguments both in support and in opposition to compulsory voting from a political, cultural, social and economic perspective.

It is disheartening that in a country that prides itself on its democracy that no President has ever been elected by a majority of Americans eligible to vote. Although there are some significant obstacles to implementing a compulsory voting system in the United States the benefits of a more participative democracy compel its implementation.

References

Nickerson, D., & Rogers, T. (n.d.). Do You Have A Voting Plan? Implementation Intentions, Voter Turnout, And Organic Plan Making. Psychological Science, 194-199.

Bryan, C., Walton, G., Rogers, T., & Dweck, C. (n.d.). Motivating Voter Turnout By Invoking The Self. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 12653-12656.

Fowler, A. (n.d.). Electoral and Policy Consequences of Voter Turnout: Evidence from Compulsory Voting in Australia. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 159-182.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-07/more-voters-more-ignorance-

Alvarez, R. Michael, and Hall, T E. Electronic Elections: The Perils and Promises of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008

Downs, Anthony. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row, 1957

Riker, William H., and Peter C. Ordeshook. \A Theory of the Calculus of Voting."

American Political Science Review. Vol. 62, No. 1 (Mar. 1968): pp. 25-42

Allyson Pellissier, In Line or Online? American Voter Registration in the Digital Era, Caltech, Working Paper, 02/18/2014

Charles Stewart III, MIT Stephen Ansolabehere, Harvard University Waiting in Line to Vote Working Paper http://vote.caltech.edu/content/waiting-line-vote

Brennan, J. (2012). The ethics of voting. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Tolbert, C., Grummel, J., & Smith, D. (n.d.). The Effects Of Ballot Initiatives On Voter Turnout In The American States. American Politics Research, 625-648.

Childers, M., & Binder, M. (n.d.). Engaged by the Initiative? How the Use of Citizen Initiatives Increases Voter Turnout. Political Research Quarterly, 93-103.

Sides, J., Schickler, E., & Citrin, J. (n.d.). If Everyone Had Voted, Would Bubba and Dubya Have Won? Presidential Studies Quarterly, 521-539.

Ackerman, B., & Fishkin, J. (2004). Deliberation Day. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Leighley, J., & Nagler, J. (n.d.). Who votes now? Demographics, issues, inequality and turnout in the United States.

Wolfinger, R. (n.d.). Voter turnout. Society, 23-26.

Fryer, R. (n.d.). Teacher Incentives and Student Achievement: Evidence from New York City Public Schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 373-407.

Abramowitz, A. (2010). The disappearing center: Engaged citizens, polarization, and American democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment (2008) by Alan S. Gerber, Donald P. Green, and Christopher W. Larimer. American Political Science Review 102 (February): 33-48. Y

Gerber, A., & Green, D. (n.d.). The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment. The American Political Science Review, 653-653.

Alan S. Gerber and Donald P. Green Does canvassing increase voter turnout? A field experiment PNAS 1999 96 (19) 10939-10942;

Nickerson, D. W. (2006). Volunteer Phone Calls Can Increase Turnout Evidence From Eight Field Experiments. American Politics Research, 34(3), 271-292.

Nickerson, D. (n.d.). Does Email Boost Turnout? Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 369-379.

Green, D., McGrath, M., & Aronow, P. (n.d.). Field Experiments and the Study of Voter Turnout. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, 27-48.

Hill, Lisa Compulsory voting in Australia: A Basis for a Best Practice Regime [200] FedLawR 22

Hill, Lisa and Louth, Jonathon Compulsory Voting Laws and Turnout: Efficacy and Appropriateness, Refereed Paper submitted to Australasian Political Studies Association Conference, 2004

Karp, J. A., & Banducci, S. A. (2000). Going postal: How all-mail elections influence turnout. Political Behavior, 22(3), 223-239.

Appendix A: A quick primer on the Australian system

Australian political system[70]

The Australian Constitution of 1901 established a federal system of government. Under this system, powers are distributed between a national government (the Commonwealth) and the six States (three Territories - the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, and Norfolk Island have self-government arrangements). The Constitution defines the boundaries of law-making powers between the Commonwealth and the States/Territories.

Description: he Constitution - flowchart

The Commonwealth Parliament consists of the Queen (represented by the Governor-General) and two Houses (the Senate and the House of Representatives). These three elements make Australia a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. Proposed laws (known as Bills) have to be passed by both Houses and be assented to by the Governor-General before they can become Acts of Parliament. With the exception of laws relating to revenue and taxation (which must be introduced in the House of Representatives), a proposed law can be introduced in either House.

The Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister appoints the Governor-General. The Governor-General performs a large number of functions that are defined by the Constitution, but fall roughly into three categories: constitutional and statutory duties, formal ceremonial duties, and non-ceremonial social duties. On virtually all matters, however, the Governor-General acts on the advice of the Ministry. The Senate has 76 Senators. Senators are elected for 6-year terms.

Historically, the Senate has been regarded as a State's House: the States enjoy equal representation in the Senate, regardless of their population. The House of Representatives has 150 Members - each representing a separate electoral division. Members are elected for terms of up to 3 years.

The most distinctive feature of the House is that the party or group with majority support in the House forms the Government. The Governor-General, who by convention under the Constitution, must appoint the parliamentary leader of the party that has a majority of seats in the House of Representatives as the Prime Minister. This majority party becomes the government and provides the ministers, all of who must be members of Parliament. The Prime Minister is chosen as leader, through a vote by members of his or her parliamentary party. The Federal Executive Council, referred to in the Constitution, comprises all ministers, with the Governor-General presiding. Its principal functions are to receive ministerial advice and approve the signing of formal documents such as proclamations, regulations, ordinances and statutory appointments. Australia operates under a Cabinet system of government. The Cabinet, not mentioned in the Constitution, is the key decision-making body of the government and comprises senior Government Ministers. The decisions of Cabinet are given legal effect by their formal ratification by the Federal Executive Council. Australia by and large has been ruled by two parties – the Labor party (left wing) or by a Coalition of the Liberal and National/Country party (conservatives).

Australian electoral system

It is compulsory by law for all eligible Australian citizens to enrol and vote in federal elections, by-elections and referendums.

You are eligible to enrol if you:

Are an Australian citizen,
Aged 18 years and over, and
Have lived at your address for at least one month.

· You can enrol online. You can also enrol, although not yet vote, if you are 16 or 17.

In Australia, the requirement is for the person to enrol, attend a polling station and have their name marked off the electoral roll as attending, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. The legislation generally does not explicitly state that a choice must be made; it only states that the ballot paper be 'marked'. How a person marks the paper is completely up to the individual. If they do not, then they must prove they were ill or incapable of making it to the polling place or face a fine[1].

It should however be noted that many municipal elections are not subject to compulsory voting and voter turnout is significantly less.

Australia has not yet adopted electronic voting but does allow postal and absentee voting.

After each election, the AEC will send a letter to all apparent non-voters requesting that they either provide a valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote or pay a $20 penalty.

If, within the time period specified on the notice, you fail to reply, cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or decline to pay the $20 penalty, then the matter may be referred to a court. If the matter is dealt with in court and you are found guilty, you may be fined up to $170 plus court costs[71] and a criminal conviction may be recorded against you.

Australia uses various forms of preferential voting for almost all elections.

The main elements of the operation of preferential voting for single-member House of Representatives divisions are as follows[72]:

· Voters are required to place the number "1" against the candidate of their choice, known as the "first preference" or "primary vote".

· Voters are then required to place the numbers "2", "3", etc., against all but one of the other candidates listed on the ballot paper, in order of preference.

· The counting of first preference votes takes place first. If no candidate secures an absolute majority of primary votes, then the candidate with the fewest votes is "eliminated".

· The ballot papers of the eliminated candidate are re-allocated to the remaining candidates according to the number "2", or "second preference" votes.

· If no candidate has yet secured an absolute majority of the vote, then the next candidate(s) with the fewest primary votes is eliminated. This preference allocation continues until there is a candidate with an absolute majority. Where a preference is expressed for a candidate who has already been eliminated, the voter’s subsequent preferences are used.

· Following the full allocation of preferences, it is possible to derive a two-party-preferred figure, where the votes are divided between the two main candidates in the election. In Australia, this is usually between the candidates from the two major parties.

[1] Australia with compulsory voting averaged a turnout of 81%. Statistics are from Mark N. Franklin's "Electoral Participation", found in Controversies in Voting Behavior (2001).

[2] Not everybody agrees that it is a failure of democracy. The Cato Institute argues that “lower voter turn out sets the stage for better democracy” http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/thank-you-not-voting

[3] http://www.idea.int/elections/upload/Voter_Turnout_April06%20flyer_AE.pdf

[4] Voter turnout is the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in an election http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout. Of eligible voters in the U.S., fewer than 37 percent cast ballots during the 2014 midterm elections.

[5] Some Republicans are expressing alarm about Obama's remarks. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a potential 2016 contender, “Here's the point [Obama] refuses to point out or that he misses: Not voting is also a legitimate choice that some people make. I wish more people would participate in politics, too, but that is their choice. That is the choice of living in a free society.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/19/president-obama-endorses-mandatory-voting/

[6] http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/236255-president-obama-floats-mandatory-voting

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout

[8] https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2008/tables.html

[9] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-psychology-behind-political-debate/201112/why-dont-people-vote

[10] These however only result in minor differences in turnout

[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout

[12] Simple plurality systems can suppress turnout due to choice restrictions.

[13] http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/challenge-obtaining-voter-identification

[14] For economists, the puzzle is not why voting participation rates are so low in voluntary systems, but why they’re so high, leading to the Voter’s Paradox. Political scientists have long acknowledged that citizens will turn out only if their expected utility exceeds the participation costs they must incur. The so-called paradox of voting, highlighted in An Economic Theory of Democracy (1957 by the political scientist Anthony Downs, occurs because the probability that any individual voter can alter the outcome of an election is effectively zero. So if voting imposes any cost, in terms of time or hassle, a perfectly rational person would conclude it’s not worth doing. Notwithstanding the paradox, voters do turnout albeit not in great numbers, at least in the US.

[15] A Caltech/MIT-led project http://votingtechnologyproject.org/ aims to solve this problem by using Election Day field research to see exactly which parts of the voting process are causing the greatest bottlenecks. They also believe there is very strong evidence that long lines cause people to lose confidence in the electoral process.

[16] Voting for general, state and municipal positions plus petitions are all on a single ballot. In Australia separate elections are held at the state, federal and local level. Voting at municipal elections is not compulsory

[17] See the Gerber, Green and Larimer study which found an appeal to civic duty yielded a turnout rate 1.8 percentage points higher than the control group.

[18] Tolbert, Grummel and Smith

[19] http://www.civicyouth.org/do-controversial-ballot-measures-affect-youth-voter-turnout/

[20] Faking a grassroots movement is known as “astroturfing”.

[21] http://grassrootscampaigns.com/

[22] http://www.866ourvote.org/newsroom/publications/body/0008.pdf

[23] http://www.civicyouth.org/research/areas/pol_partic.htm

[24] According to Dean Michael Mezey of DePaul University, negative advertising galvanizes partisan supporters, but turn off those who are indifferent so that they are less likely to vote. From a political campaigning perspective the ideal, rational goal is to turn out your most committed supporters and make sure nobody else turns out.

[25] Information from Young Voter Mobilization Tactics published by the Graduate School of Political Management at George Washington University

[26] Partisan direct mail does seem to have some effect on voter preference –Green, McGrath and Aronow (2012), p.31

[27] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_advertising

[28] Including other races into the totals—other statewide offices, state representatives, ballot measures and local offices—raises airings to 2.96 million at an estimated cost of $1.67 billion. http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/releases/ad-spending-tops-1-billion/

[29] http://www.idea.int/elections/upload/Voter_Turnout_April06%20flyer_AE.pdf

[30] http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-campaigns/universities-and-colleges-asked-to-support-student-voter-registration-drive

[31] http://www.edisonresearch.com/election-polling/

[32] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/12/01/social-media-hasnt-boosted-young-voter-turnout/

[33] “Assessing the Turnout Effects of Rock the Vote’s 2004 Television Commercials: A Randomized Field Experiment,” Donald Green and Lynn Vavreck.

Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 2006.

Get Out the Vote, by Donald Green and Alan Gerber. Pages 131-132. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 2008

[34] http://www.alternet.org/story/18745/does_%27rock_the_vote%27_miss_the_boat

[35] Fryer, R. (n.d.). Teacher Incentives and Student Achievement: Evidence from New York City Public Schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 373-407.

[36] Interestingly he views this as less problematic than mandating voting.

[37] http://dcist.com/2012/10/cast_your_ballot_and_get_a_free_bee.php

[38] http://dcist.com/2012/11/more_illegal_election_day_food.php

[39] Gouliamos, K. (n.d.). Political marketing: Strategic 'campaign culture'. Among the criticisms was that it was culturally inappropriate.

[40] George Washington University Study, http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/Young_Voters_Guide.pdf

[41] States include Washington (2007), Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Oregon, and Utah (2009),

Maryland and California (2011), Nevada, Delaware, and South Carolina (2012), and Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, New Mexico, Virginia, and West Virginia (legislation passed, but not yet implemented). Another twelve states have legislation pending. (Pellissier, 2013)

[42] http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/same-day-registration.aspx

[43] Seventeen years ago Oregon became the first state to hold all elections with mail-in ballots. On 23 March 2015 Gov. Kate Brown signed a bill that puts the burden of registration on the state instead of voters. The measure is expected to add about 300,000 new voters to the rolls. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/17/oregon-is-first-state-to-adopt-automatic-voter-registration/

[44] http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-oregon-automatic-voter-registration-20150317-story.html

[45] There is a growing body of research that suggests that relaxing administrative requirements

is not likely to be the panacea for low turnout among the disenfranchised. Karp and Banducci (2000)

[46] To be distinguished from electronic voting which uses electronic means to mark a ballot paper

[47] http://www.ifes.org/Content/Publications/Interviews/2013/Internet-Voting-Past-Present-and-Future.aspx

[48] Hill and Louth, p.19

[49] It is important that the penalties do not attenuate political freedoms e.g. depriving people of the right to vote by expunging them from the register for failing to vote as per Singapore and Thailand.

[50] Penalties, other than fines, include ineligibility for elected office (Argentina) or government employment (Venezuela).

[51] Mark N. Franklin's "Electoral Participation", found in Controversies in Voting Behavior (2001)

[52] It is important to understand that the Australian system does not compel voting per se. It compels registration and attendance at a polling place. For the purposes of this paper and because it is commonly denoted as such I will refer to the Australian model as a form of compulsory voting.

[53] Hill, Lisa (2004)

[54] Leighley, J., & Nagler, J. (n.d.). Who votes now? Demographics, issues, inequality and turnout in the United States.

[55] Online registration is the standard and there are options for people with special needs including the homeless or with specific circumstances that may affect their enrolment http://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/index.htm

[56] Currently in addition to normal registration processes, the National Voter Registration Act 1993 also allows citizens to register to vote at the same time that they apply for a driver's license or seek to renew a driver's license, at any State office administering disability programs or by mail. Unfortunately this Act has had little impact on voter participation.

[57] Text message reminders to vote seem to increase turn out – see Green, McGrath and Aronow, p.33

[58] First Amendment to the Constitution

[59] https://civinomics.com/home

[60] Under the Australian model arguably you are not compelled to vote, merely required to attend at the polling booth and mark your ballot in some fashion.

[61] Said to be granted by the 15^th Amendment.

[62] If however they are forced to go to the polling place, they can still use a blank or invalid vote.

[63] Sides, J., Schickler, E., & Citrin, J. (n.d.). If Everyone Had Voted, Would Bubba and Dubya Have Won? Presidential Studies Quarterly, 521-539

[64] As an Australian, I am bemused that people even expect compulsory voting to have this effect.

[65] Notwithstanding this concern, Australia has consistently recorded low levels of informal voting.

[66] http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/10/11/ilya-somin/democracy-political-ignorance. Loss aversion theory suggests that people are more likely to use their vote to avoid the impact of an unfavorable policy rather than supporting a favorable policy. Whether this counts as being “open minded” is up for debate.

[67] Hill (2004), p.2

[68] https://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/index.php?cycle=2012

[69] Hill (2004), p.10

[70]http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Work_of_the_Parliament/Forming_and_Governing_a_Nation/parl

[71] These are about $AUS 650

[72] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Australia

Harvard Hubbub

Sunday, May 31, 2015

Channelling the smokin' baby....

Summer Shack

It's amazing what people are throwing out in my Harvard Housing building.....

Sepp Blatter and the Stink of Corruption

Harvard Kennedy School MC-MPA 2015 Graduation Memories of HKS Mid-career MC-MPA class of 2015

Saturday, May 30, 2015

Salem

Plymouth

Alden and Harlow

Friday, May 29, 2015

The Yard - 364th Commencement Day

Thursday, May 28, 2015

Gratitude

More graduation photos

Harvard HKS Videos

Graduation Day

BBQ at Fresh Pond

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Cruise on the Charles River

Watch the Kennedy School Graduation Online - Thursday 12:15 American Eastern Time!

Saturday, May 23, 2015

Harvard Graduation Gown

Candlepin Bowling at Sacco's Bowlhaven

Thursday, May 21, 2015

Behavioral Economics