Make voting mandatory. Provide "none of the above" option.

Great Debates
1

Australia requires all citizens to vote. All nations ought to do the same.
Quote: “Mandatory voting would require a system of rewards and/or punishments and another bureaucracy. But if adopted, it would instantaneously reconfigure the political landscape. Gone would be the ages-old excuse of the nonvoter: that his ballot matters not. At some fundamental level, his ballot would matter dearly to himself, because failure to cast it would invoke the wrath of the Mandatory Voting Enforcement Division.”

Russians have the option of voting “none of the above”. Seems like an excellent idea to me.
Quote: “Whatever we call it, the “plague on both your houses” no-vote would have to have some teeth to it. In the event that “none of the above” actually won, the election would have to be restaged within a narrow window of time, and that revote could revive an element that has been almost entirely lost over our American centuries: We could make the politicians afraid of the voters again. Anybody on the ballot when “none of the above” won would be barred from the special second election – and for the next regular election for the same position.”

Quotes from http://www.salon.com/news/sports/col/olbermann/2002/11/05/reform/index1.html

2

The link goes to page 2 of the article. Here is a link to page 1.

http://www.salon.com/news/sports/col/olbermann/2002/11/05/reform/index.html

3

Sorry, can’t resist. “Yes, and it’s working so well for them…”

4

The idea is bad, and adding the “none of the above” option makes it worse. A “none of the above” option that has import deprives the mandatory voter of a vital option - to not care about the result of the election.
You force the voter to vote, even if they don’t want to and/or have no opinion about the result of the election.
Once inside the election booth, they cannot express their will - that they don’t care. They either have to vote for a candidate they aren’t in favor of, or they have to vote against all the candidates by voting “none of the above.” That is not the intent of the forced voter; the system imposes an intent on said voter.

And that is not democracy.

Sua

5

So we could have yet another option: “Don’t care”.

But I think many people who don’t vote are simply lazy, or don’t want to serve on juries. (For those of you who didn’t know, jurors are chosen from lists of registered voters.) Even more potential voters are turned off by the available choices. Being able to vote “none of the above” would give more people a reason to go to the polls.

Quote from http://www.nota.org/ (click on “Why voter consent laws are a good idea”.

“Citizens are increasingly showing their displeasure with the political process by not voting. Including NOTA on the ballot could give citizens a reason to go to the polls even if they aren’t enthusiastic about the choices, and would be far more effective than campaign finance reform in reducing the overwhelming advantages of incumbents. NOTA might even discourage highly negative campaigning, since candidates would be running for the approval of voters, not just to offend fewer people than their opponents.”

6

And what, exactly, would be the advantage of holding this second mandatory election, from which all the original candidates have been barred? In case you’ve forgotten, the candidates currently on the ballot are there because they were elected in the primaries. If you don’t like the candidates who are running, you already had ample opportunity to vote them out. Your suggestion is to have voters select their candidates from each party, then come election time, say “We don’t like any of those guys” and start over from scratch? And where, pray tell, would this new pool of candidates come from? Would there be a new primary election as well?
“Don’t blame me, I voted for Kronos”

7

Good point, Mr. Duality, re attack ads. If NOTA were on the ballot, it would be in everyone’s best interest to eschew such tactics, so as to avoid tipping voters into voting against all the candidates.

As to the OP, I’d say, no, don’t make voting mandatory. But do add NOTA to the ballot.

When people say they don’t vote because they don’t like any of the choices offered them, it’s always suspected that that’s just a glib excuse; it’s always suspected that the real reason is that they are too lazy to bother. If NOTA were on the ballot, anyone who really has been staying home from the polls due to not wanting to vote for any of the available candidates now has the option of going to the polls and saying “none of the above” loud and clear. And if we add the NOTA option, we can, IMO, safely conclude that those who still don’t vote, really don’t care.

Re inducements to voting, how about something minor but nice? Why not serve refreshments? Coffee, tea, cookies, brownies, and the like?

8

But today, we have a very easy “don’t care” vote - you don’t even have to go to the polling place! I mean, what is the purpose of making a law requiring people to go and fill out a ballot to do the same thing that not filling out a ballot does now?

Going back to the OP, Australia also has dingos running about, should other countries import them to match up? You haven’t supported your contention that mandatory voting would be good in the first place; I can’t see any reason to support it, even if you add a ‘none of the above’ to the ballot, and just saying that Australia does it is pretty meaningless.

(I’m talking about the US-only in the rest of my post, I don’t know that much about how other country’s elections work to really comment on them)

First off, what benefit are we supposed to gain by getting people who are too lazy or uninterested to vote now to check boxes on a ballot? If someone is too lazy to vote, they need to seek psychiatric care or they’re really in the uninterested category; voting in the US involves filling out a form once, then showing up sometime on election day (polls are open from 6:30am to 7:30 pm here) to cast a ballot. There’s no gauntlet of armed guards, hidden polling places, or other challenges to prevent someone from voting who wants to. And if people aren’t interested in voting, what are they supposed to contribute by being forced to vote? I can’t see any benefit in getting someone who doesn’t have any interest in politics to contribute to a decision, in much the same way people into football don’t ask me for opinions on which team to bet for. No one is being ‘disenfranchised’ as I’ve often heard argued, it’s their own choice (not influenced by threats like in some countries or times) not to vote.

And while ‘NONE OF THE ABOVE’ sounds amusing, I don’t see the point of it - it’s not like the parties can’t come up with alternates for the runoff elections, so its still easy to get ‘same old, same old’ even with that vote. Also, I doubt that the politically uninterested would research all of the candidates (all parties, not just dems and repubs) enough for NOTA to really mean that no one is anywhere close to what they want. Further, people have options other than the two major parties - there are at least a dozen third parties out there (the Libertarians and Greens are the best known) that get vanishingly small percentages of the vote. If you don’t like what the big guys have to offer, vote for one of the little guys that’s sort of like what you want even though he won’t win. That’s far more effective than ‘none of the above’ since it tells the major parties exactly what you want, and those little third parties would not be so ignorable if the people who don’t like the major parties would vote for them instead of checking ‘none of the above’ or not voting. Finally, our system of government is a representitive democracy - candidates are not expected to match all of your preferences (they couldn’t for anything more than 5 person districts), but to broadly represent what you want. NOTA is counterproductive to getting representatives, and it may not even be possible to end with a successful race if voter opinions are divided - these people vote for A or B, NOTA wins and C&D run, the C & D don’t appeal to them so they vote NOTA so it wins again, now candidates E&F appeal to the A&B crowd but not the C&D crowd so NOTA wins again…

9

  1. So some people are lazy. So what? The punishment for laziness in this context is that those people do not have a say in who is elected. That is a self-imposed punishment. There is no need for an additional punishment, nor is it the job of a liberal democracy to “cure” its citizens’ laziness.

  2. I don’t think the “don’t want to serve on juries” argument gets you very far. Remember that voter turnout measures the percentage of registered voters who vote in an election. So about half the people who make themselves eligible for jury duty by registering don’t vote anyway. Avoidance of jury duty is obviously not a major motivating factor in low turnouts.

  3. I don’t think that having the ability to cast a vote against all of the candidates would motivate many more people to vote. Negative incentives aren’t much of a motivation to take positive action.

  4. Your mandatory system has an inherent disincentive to voters voting for “none of the above” - if “none of the above” wins, these compulsory voters would be obligated to show up for the special election. “Well, I don’t like any of these bastards, but I didn’t want to be here in the first place. I’m not gonna cast a vote that will make me come back here again in a couple of weeks.”

Sua

10

Many places choose jurors from more than just the voter roles.

From http://www.sandiego.courts.ca.gov/superior/public/jury.html#jury6
How Did We Get Your Name ?

  • We get our names from the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Registrar of Voters.

  • If you have spelled your name differently you may receive two summons.

  • If the information at the Department of Motor Vehicles or the Registrar of Voters is not up to date you may receive additional summons.

  • If you have received a summons for a deceased relative please sign the summons and return it in the enclosed envelope. We will attempt to not send further summons. However, if the name of a deceased remains on either of the two source lists you may receive additional summons. The only way to ensure that this does not continue is to contact those agencies and have the name removed from their lists.

11

That’s just absurd. What other important decisions would you want made by people who don’t know and don’t care?

If you want to vote none of the above, vote for a third party candidate, then we will more often have more than two choices!

12

As far as mandatory voting, I disagree strongly for reasons already mentioned.

I like the idea of a NOTA vote, though, as long as it’s just there for the purpose of making a statement, and has no legally binding weight. In this election, there was a race where I disliked all of the candidates, including the third parties. Now, I could vote for a third party I know won’t win, as a protest against the main candidates, but then I’m implying that I want the other candidates to be like the person I voted for. I don’t. I could not vote in that race (which is what I did), but that’s not much of a statement - it’s indistinguishable from not voting due to apathy. NOTA sends a much clearer statement than simple abstinence: “I think you’re all a bunch of hosers. Go away.”

So why not give it legal weight? Mostly convenience. The election process, including campaigning, lasts about a year here. That campaigning and debate is important, as it’s what we voters have to go on. Forcing a re-vote with all new candidates requires that we either wait at least several months before we can vote again, or that we rush through the process half-assed. With those as my choices, I choose - wait for it - none of the above. Yuk yuk yuk.

And realistically speaking, I doubt there would be many situations when NOTA would win. As has been mentioned, that’s what primaries are for - to give the public a chance to select the people they want to see in the race to begin with. And if NOTA does win? Oh well. It sends a message to whoever came in second (and who would thus get the job) that he had damn well better listen to his constituency, or else he’ll be out on his ass in a few years.
Jeff

13

Mandatory voting no longer seems like such a good idea. Sua Sponte’s points 1, 2 and 4 above are right on (#4 gave me a grin, too!).

NOTA is certainly not a cure-all, but it’s still a good idea imho. I am certain it would draw more people to the polls, particularly in elections which involve a lot of mud-slinging.

Here’s (part of) what Ralph Nader says:
“New candidates would have to be nominated (the NOTA-defeated ones could not rerun in the new election) and voting day could be 30 to 45 days later. A NOTA procedure could be enacted by legislation or constitutional amendment at the state level. Because of federal constitutional requirement re the electoral college etc., a state-passed NOTA could not reach Presidential elections. But it could apply to any Congressional or state or local offices that is desired.”
Full text:
http://www.nota.org/nader.html

What should the procedure be if NOTA wins? I say let anyone who pays the filing fee be on the next ballot, and have the next election in 30 days. Make it easy to get on the ballot and all voters should have an acceptable choice. In the meantime let the incumbent continue in office, or let the Governor appoint someone.

Kalashnikov wrote “If you want to vote none of the above, vote for a third party candidate, then we will more often have more than two choices!”

Voting for a third party candidate is fine, if you really support him or her. I’d like to have the NOTA option in order to express my dissatisfaction with all extant candidates. The only third party appearing on my ballot today were the Libertarians, and I certainly don’t agree with some of their views.

14

It’s things like NOTA given serious consideration that make me wonder how anyone who’s not a complete tool can give any credence to the allegation that third-party votes are “wasted”. (I mean, come on, doesn’t a NOTA vote mean, in effect, that that was the point all along?)

And as much as I’d like to see better voter turnouts…for crying out loud, at least three out of four…forcing apathetic or ignorant voters to the polls probably won’t be of much benefit.

I say go, vote for whichever races/initiatives you care about, and don’t worry too much about how the rest of the country thinks. It’s sad that we have so much apathy and defeatism in this country, but whaddya gonna do.

15

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mr. Duality *

And what benefit is there to just drawing people to the polls if they don’t participate in the electoral process? As far as I can see, NOTA would just be an option for whiny people who don’t really care about actually getting someone in office but want a chance to say ‘look, I’m dissatisfied with something, though I don’t want to have to say what and I don’t want to actually commit to voting for anyone because that would take effort’.

What do NOTA votes tell the people running in an election? It could mean anything, from ‘I wanted to cast a ballot so my friends won’t bug me about not voting, so I just voted NOTA’ to ‘I have an extreme set of strongly-held views which don’t allow me to vote for any of the people on the ballot’, and doesn’t give the least indication on direction; are you voting NOTA because none of the candidates support your “Get US out of the UN” position, or because none of them support your “Lets form a world government” position?

I mean, look at who’s pushing for NOTA here - I’d vote for either of the two major-party candidates in any election if an outright socialist like Nader stood a chance of winning without even thinking hard, but apparently he thinks NOTA would help his cronies.

Why not push for easier ballot access instead of NOTA then? One of the main reasons you don’t see multiple third parties is that the D&Rs tend to make it hard to get onto the ballot (how hard varies a lot by state; in NC there are something like a dozen political parties organized but only 3 are on the ballot). I think it makes more sense to give someone more options of who to vote for instead of making a symbolic ‘I don’t like these guys’ vote.

16

It is to laugh. ElJeffe, do you honestly believe that the length of American political campaigns is a benefit?

First of all, the length of campaigns is part of the reason for low voter turnout (at least according to a poly sci professor I heard on the radio the other day). Endless campaigns inspire voter burnout and apathy.
Second, the length of American campaigns is why money (with all its attendant ills) plays such a huge role in American politics. It gets very expensive to run attack ads month after month.
Third, the experience of other democracies demonstrates that voters can make informed decisions after only a 30-60 day campaign.

Sua

17

I believe we already have this. There is nothing forcing you to make a choice on each and every race on a ballot. I, if completely ignorant of the race, just skip that race: why possibly vote for a bum? While it’s not reported anywhere I’ve seen, I’m sure you can, based on the offical returns, compute the actual number of NOTAs per race. This, of course, covers ballots where there the voter positively voted in at least one race. If anyone can provide me a source of District by district voting data for a particular election, I certainly can give it a try.

18

Arrgghh… No on mandatory voting.
Revamp the voting system to encourage interest in the process.
This is very simple. Declare a national holiday for elections; replace ‘Christmas vacation’. Make the voting system completely transparent, so that each voter knows beyond even a shadow of doubt that their vote counts and that system corruption is rendered impossible in terms of double votes. The “none of the above” option is complex - to some degree it already exists in the form of a write-in option; I haven’t figured a way yet to allow for the benefits of this option while eliminating the corruption drawback. Even the slightest room for corruption will force absurd intensity on logical structure as a whole. One of my personal goals is to read papers, watch television and listen to conversation that is not a direct result of superfluous corruption of logic.

-Justhink

19

Oh, maybe I should supply a half-baked reason to the NO vote I submitted. Mandatory voting effectively ‘buries the hatchet’ on the structural problems with the voting system itself, and as such closes a necessary condition with which to veiw the process itself more acutely. The counter-intelligence routines that can be run from a stance of mandatory voting are devastating to motions of and for structural transparency. It also pacifies debate regarding political change as exersises of ‘mental masturbation’, unrelated to the fact of a ‘benevolent’ system of politic. Hmm… to state it plainly; it opens the door for more corruption while sealing off the prior corruptions in the process. This is not a ‘good’ step IMO.
It will be offered in the form of a final solution to a process which is far from having the ability to handle such a demand for forced voting, or even unforced voting. I see it as ‘dangerous’ to apply this.

-Justhink

20

I think the current 12 month election cycle is a bit much, yes. However, I don’t think it’s an order of magnitude too long, as you seem to. In order to have effective primaries, follwed by a realistic amount of campaigning, we need a campaigning period of, IMO, at least 6 months. This covers time for candidates to present themselves, hold primaries, respond to the demands of the electorate, reposition themselves in the issues if necessary, get their message out, and hold an election.

In order to hold run-off campaigns in the obscenely short amount of time necessary in the NOTA re-election scenario is to cut out primaries, and allow pretty much anyone who wants to run to appear on the ballot, which is a collosally bad idea. It virtually guarantees a situation like in France, where the winner receives something like only 15-20% of the vote. Say what you will about our two-party, primary-based electoral process, it at least (usually) provides politicians who were agreed upon by a majority of the public.

Jeff