That seems intuitively obvious, but I can seem to find a cite with stats to back it up. Can anybody here provide one?
One big determinant is that most peopel feel in fact that it doesn’t matter, Candidate A, Candidate B what difference will it make. Compared to other democracies the U.S. offers little differentiation between candidates.
Too too true. See this thread: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=269169
IMNSHO, there are several things that can be done, some of which have already been mentioned and are repeated here.
-
Move elections to weekends and keep the polls open longer. Have the polls open at noon on Saturday and close at noon on Sunday or some variation thereof. Yes, it will cost more to hold an election. It will be worth it to get more voter turnout.
-
Make it much easier to cast an early ballot.
-
Offer a financial incentive. Perhaps the county clerk could take the list of everyone who voted and mail them a coupon good for $50 off their property taxes or something like that for state/local elections, or $50 off income tax for national. Perhaps address issues 1 and 2 by issuing an extra financial incentive for early voting.
-
This will never happen, but it needs to be said: limit the amount of advertising. Perhaps put in a cap that says you can’t spend more on advertising than you will earn in salary during the course of the office. That way, the voters are not subjected to the barrage of advertising that leaves so many voters so pissed off that they refuse to vote from sheer annoyance factor alone.
People are very quick to conclude that voters are turned off, apathetic, discouraged, etc., etc. Have there been any sort of studies to conclude that these are the reasons for low turnout?
I still contend that cause could also be contentment.
My assertion is affirmed by The Vanishing Voter ( as are my comments and the statistic about barriers to participation in my first post ). Starting on page 45 is the following quote:
“The class gap in American politics is extraordinary. Turnout among those at the bottom of the income and education ladders is only half that of those at the top - a pattern unheard of in Europe but found also in some less-developed democracies, including India.”
Later ( beginning on page 135 ) after dismissing the myth that the Motor Voter Law has helped the Democratic Party at the expense of the GOP the book says the following:
"Simplified registration procedures would not result in a legion of low-income voters. At this moment in American history, many of them do not see much reason to participate. They see the party system as biased toward the moneyed interests. As Curtis Gans of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate notes, “the root of the turnout problem is motivational and not procedural.”
Hopefully that will satisfy BrotherCadfael. I don’t know where Mr Gans got his info but the book “The Vanishing Voter” is based on the work of the Harvard project of the same name ( http://www.vanishingvoter.org/ ). They covered the 2000 presidential election with weekly surveys, over 80,000 in all. As for other hard numbers, here is an excellent breakdown by the National Election Studies covering 1948 to 2002: http://www.umich.edu/~nes/nesguide/2ndtable/t6a_2_2.htm
Clearly those with higher incomes do tend to vote more. As do those with more formal education.
If that’s true, then it seems any party, established or new, that offered the poor and working-poor a real alternative, a political agenda that puts their interests above the “moneyed interests,” could pick up their votes. And that would be a formula for electoral success – wouldn’t it?
The less people who vote, the more your own vote counts (assuming votes were fairly counted in the last election - something I strongly doubt). People who aren’t that interested in voting aren’t going to have a very informed view anyway. Personally, I didn’t vote because I have no faith in the system (although I did register). It was an act of protest.
But the more people who vote the same why I do, the better chance the candidate I support has of winning, or the initiative I support/oppose has of passing/failing. That is the thinking behind all “get-out-the-vote” drives.
Check out the stats when David Duke ran for Governor of LA.* 
*Of course, that was more of an example of a significant voting bloc (Black Americans) voting against someone, perceived as someone who didn’t represent their best interests, but I think the example still applies. Find a positive way to inspire the same in a significant voting bloc and you’ve got it made.
You would think so but it’s not that simple. The problems with getting a third party off the ground have been gone over at length. Even if they energize people enough to vote the major parties could still use the “Don’t Throw Your Vote Away” argument. ( And ballot access problems and the like. )
Now the Democratic Party might try to energize the lower classes. The “little guy” used to be their base, after all. But there is the money problem. Howard Dean has paved the way for the Dems to be able to fund election with small contributions from a large base of support so they can live without the direct campaign money from the interests. But… it’s not just about getting elected. There is also what happens after a congressional career to consider. If a politician serves her time in Congress and doesn’t make waves they can count on a high-paying sinecure from some grateful corporation. The lobbyists have imbedded themselves into not just the government but into the major parties themselves. Many “Democratic” operatives really owe their primary loyalty to various interests. These plutocrats aren’t going to allow the Dems to move to a populist stand without a fight.
That’s why I am happy to see Howard Dean win the Chair of the Democratic Party. Despite Apos’ excellent arguments to the contrary I think this is a good sign. Perhaps he will be able to move the Party to the left on some issues. Dean seems to think he can influence the direction of the party from the Chair and people like you and I would like to see a more consolidated party. And, if not, at least he will inject some much needed backbone into the Democratic Party. Since the Greens have turned out to be such pussies too I am thinking of returning to the fold. If I see some improvement, that is.
Even with DMV, motor voter, et al, I wonder what % aren’t even registered in the first place.
I’m under the impression alot of people don’t vote was because they’re under the old-fashioned belief that in order to avoid jury duty, they shouldn’t register to vote in the first place. Correct me if I’m wrong, but up until just recently, states used to get prospective jurors from the voter registration rolls.
It’s worth pointing out that the “plague on both your houses” option is available in Australia too. In practice, the compulsion in Australia extends only as far as requiring voters to attend a polling place, have their names checked off the electoral roll, take the ballot paper and place it into the ballot box. Since it’s a secret ballot, voters can’t actually be forced to cast a valid vote. They’re completely free to leave the ballot paper blank, draw all over it, scribble obscenities etc.
Yes. It’s a basic civic duty, and far less burdensome than, say, jury duty or paying taxes.
Marginal cost of voting typically exceeds the marginal gain. It’s pretty difficult position to argue that you should vote because…why? An individual vote makes a difference…no. There is anything to gain…no.
I’m reasonably informed to the point where I can hold a conversation regarding the current events of the day, but I have only voted twice (out of an eligible 10 times). It’s not that I am ignorant, it’s that as it stands currently, my vote has zero effect and is essentially meaningless. If I was convinced that my vote actually mattered, then I’d vote. Otherwise, I get more value thinking about my grocery list or just sitting around.
I think that’s the most important question you asked right there, and I don’t think the answer is as simple as the ones typically offered (mass stupidity, mass apathy, candidates are too similar, disillusionement with the system, etc.).
I think the most important reason for such low voter turnout is that in most states, voting is almost an irrational act, in that it actually doesn’t make a difference. In the state-by-state first-past-the-post system we currently use, most citizins live in states that will go in one direction or the other even if there is a mammoth voter swing from the expected polls of something like 5%. If people aren’t voting in states like Indiana, Massachusettes, Wyoming, South Dakota, and New York, than I think it’s fair to say that the reason people aren’t voting is because they’re aware of the inherent futility.
I don’t think the answer to low-voter turn out is as simple as appearing on some crappy GET OUT THE VOTE special on MTV. Most kids and most people are not quite as stupid as we believe. If their vote mattered, really mattered, I think they would come out and vote. I think a relatively mild adjustment to our current system (one mild enough to be palatable to most) would be proportional representation for electors sent to the electoral college. It would put an end to the disgusting phenomenon of “swing states” that decide national elections, and it would make every person’s vote important, regardless of state.
If voting mattered, more people would vote.
That doesn’t go far enough – it would make a difference only in presidential elections. We also need proportional representation (different meaning of the term entirely) for elections to Congress, state legislatures, and every other multi-member policymaking body. See www.fairvote.org
Heh, I agree with you somewhat, but I was limiting myself to the Presidential elections (since that’s likely what the threadmaker was referring to when he/she mentioned the 2004 election).
Regarding new electoral systems, the idea for change I’ve been the most drawn to was suggested in a New Republic article by Hendrick Hertzberg unfortunately entitled Let’s Get Representative, and it’s a great read. The gist of his idea is to reconstitute the Senate in such a way that there is one Senator from each state, and an equal number of Senators elected by the country at-large via single transferable vote. He also suggests that the House add 100 members elected by the country at-large by a party-list method of proportional representation.
I love the idea, but right now they seem to be pipe dreams. After the electoral disaster of 2000 and a relatively near miss in 2004 (imagine if 100,000 or so Ohio residents had voted for Kerry rather than Bush), the system remains. I think the problem there is the deification of the founding fathers and the treatment of the Constitution as a sacred unchangeable parchment, but that’s another discussion entirely I suppose.
Sigh
Ha, I just realized that you are in fact the original threadmaker. Oops.
To help get more people to vote, create a democracy portal so that citizens can contribute ideas and generally provide their input as our lawmakers discuss bills, etc., at all three levels of government.
Most folks don’t have the time to track what is being formally discussed / formally debated by our elected officials, so make it easy to see at a glance what is going on by typing in your zip code into the web portal.
Some parts of the US are already doing this by the way.
What do the rest of you think?