What is an Officer of Election, and what power do you have to actually effect the outcome of elections? If you’re hoping to effect the outcome of elections, you’re probably not the person
Currently, people vote because they want to vote.
Why do they chose to vote?
Because there is an issue that they are interested in.
Because there is a candidate that they really don’t like.
Because there is a candidate that they really like.
Because it’s their civic duty.
Because they don’t have anything better to do.
Offering incentives to vote is probably illegal.
People who are FORCED to vote, may chose to vote against the incumbents, regardless of the incumbent’s political party. Incumbents won’t like that.
Most of the legal ideas in this thread have been tried and shown to not increase voter turnout. Early voting, for instance, does not lead to more voting.
Here’s one thing that would at least be worth trying. In the past election there were many people who were enthusiastic for neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton. There were other candidates: Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Evan McMullen. They should have been allowed to participate in the presidential debates. If the objection is that this would have lead to less time for questions to the big-party candidates, that could be fixed by increasing the number of debates. It’s really ridiculous that each party has 10+ primary debates, but there are only three debates in the main campaign.
If voters got to see options other than Democrat and Republican, they might realize that they agree with those alternative viewpoints and might be motivated to vote.
That the quality of a democracy is related to the proportion of voters who have some understanding of the policy issues at stake and actually understand what they’re voting for. Having low turnout in which half the voters are grossly misinformed is not much different than having high turnout in which half the voters are grossly misinformed.
That many countries in which voter turnout is relatively high are also countries in which surveys reveal a relatively informed and politically engaged populace. I hypothesize a causative correlation here.
So the question is, if (1) and (2) are true, what can be done about the real problem? And how are things like the increasing dominance of fake news, the increasing consolidation of commercial media, the deregulation of campaign laws along the lines of Citizens United, and the perennial conservative push to cut funding for public broadcasting going to affect the future of democracy?
Compulsive voting could (and should) still include an option to abstain.
I used to be opposed to mandatory voting, but the more that I see how much political action is focused on discouraging the voters on the other side, or simply making it harder for them to vote in the hopes that at the margin they will not, the more I’m in favor of it.
How much better would our politics be if politicians were trying to convince people to vote for them instead of trying to convince or inconvenience them into not voting at all.
And turning in a piece of paper saying “I abstain” would allow us to clearly differentiate the people who truly chose not to cast a vote from the people who perhaps wanted to but were unable to.
I mentioned upthread about high turnout in Maine. Maybe this is a factor here as well. We have been very good to independents. Our Senator, Angus King, is an independent, and also served two terms as governor. Debates for a governor’s race here usually include a Green, and at least one independent.
An Officer of Election is just the official term for a poll worker, who, as you point out, doesn’t have power to affect an election unless they are doing something illegal or inadvertently wrong. I was asking more generally of what could be done outside of any official position.
All good questions. Unfortunately, I don’t really have any answers. An informed populace is definitely a must as our Founding Fathers understood. They gave us “a republic, if we can keep it.” It doesn’t appear like we are keeping it particularly well.
Something every citizen is simply required to do as part of being one. Of course there is a ‘none of the above’ on every ballot.
Real substantive campaign reform (repeal of Citizens United, all candidates get the same amount free media time/space and can’t buy more, no war chests needed because government regulates and dispenses all the campaign monies equally . . .) would make many people feel less like the whole system is rigged and why bother. A very common impression which isn’t exactly wrong.
I can’t speak for the US but here in the UK I would like to see:
The election taking place on a Friday, not a Thursday. Or Friday to be a holiday.
Polling stations open for 24 hours to cater for workers with long or night shifts or long or delayed commutes or long travel times. If 24 hours is not possible then polling stations should close at midnight, not 22:00.
Thinking more about it, I’m favouring a 25-50% premium on every state or federal levied fee, if you haven’t voted.
So, the cost of your driver’s lic, building permits, business lic, park entry, marriage lic, etc, etc, on endlessly. If you vote you pay the lower fee. If you don’t, you pay a premium, because you’re not participating in your democracy, at even a minimal level. Leaving responsibility for things to everyone else.
So, if you’d rather pay the premium, than vote, it’s your choice. Seems like state and federal government could both see profits and most people might actually vote! Of course you’d have to address barriers to registration like lack of ID, but that could get sorted with a little effort and lead time, I expect.
I’ve thought about the publically funded campaign option, and would really be glad if it could work, but how would we limit the number of candidates that applies to? I don’t think we’d be able to fund every candidate that wanted to run or have enough free media space to give them.