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.
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.
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
[9]
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-psychology-behind-political-debate/201112/why-dont-people-vote
[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
[35] Fryer, R. (n.d.).
Teacher Incentives and Student Achievement: Evidence from New York City Public
Schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 373-407.
[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.
[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
is not likely to be the panacea for low turnout among
the disenfranchised. Karp and Banducci (2000)
[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).
[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 15th 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
[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
[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
Super sweet! Proud of you
ReplyDelete