# Idea: Politician Deduction For Not Voting **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 24, 2014, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-politician-deduction-for-not-voting/689192 "2014-05-24T17:53:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2014, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-politician-deduction-for-not-voting/689192/1 "2014-05-24T17:53:37Z")
I came late to **Honesty** ’s thread and what needs to be said has already been said. But it did spawn an idea that I didn’t want to hijack her thread for. I think the problem is not that people don’t have enough incentive to vote but that the politicians don’t have enough disincentive when people don’t vote. As **marshmallow** points out, what’s the difference if an extra 20% of the population turns out in 2012 so long as Obama still wins? For the politicians it only matters if they get elected or not. My idea is to give them some skin in the game. I would do so by calculating representation not on population but on turnout. Every ten years the Census continues to collect data as usual but in the meantime they also monitor elections and calculate the total number of votes cast in each state and it is that number that seats in the House of Representatives are calculated from. Right now there is no disincentive for a state to restrict voting rights. The same number of local politicians get into Congress no matter what. But if representation were turnout based then having fewer voters would mean fewer politicians the state gets to send to Washington. If it meant potentially losing influence then votes become valuable to politicians. All votes, even if they are more likely to go to their opponents. ---
**Author:** ![Silophant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a698b9/32.png) [@Silophant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Silophant)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2014, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-politician-deduction-for-not-voting/689192/2 "2014-05-25T15:49:03Z")
As someone from [Minnesota](http://www.state.sc.us/scsec/sta02.htm), that suits me just fine. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2014, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-politician-deduction-for-not-voting/689192/3 "2014-05-25T22:24:32Z")
Non-voting in the current system is almost entirely dependent on factors other than voter suppression, which was orders of magnitude more important back in the Jim Crow days. Some of the differential in Silophant’s chart between Minnesota at 79% and Mississippi at 37% may be a legacy of that. That can’t possibly be the full explanation today, though. Alabama is 14th at 59%, e.g. Non-voters are disproportionately poor and poorly educated. They have personal disincentives against voting: time, difficulty, limited information, limited transportation, the feeling that the system doesn’t work for them. Rewarding overall participation may be some incentive for states to increase efforts toward bringing these people back into the system, but it’s hard to make a good cause and effect argument for that. ---
**Author:** ![Drum\_God](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drum_god/32/44_2.png) [@Drum\_God](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drum_God)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2014, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-politician-deduction-for-not-voting/689192/4 "2014-05-25T23:01:29Z")
> [@Silophant](#): > > As someone from [Minnesota](http://www.state.sc.us/scsec/sta02.htm), that suits me just fine. From that chart, how does Alaska have 102.2 percent of its voting age population registered to vote? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2014, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-politician-deduction-for-not-voting/689192/5 "2014-05-26T00:57:05Z")
> [@Drum\_God](#): > > From that chart, how does Alaska have 102.2 percent of its voting age population registered to vote? Did you read the definitions, at the bottom? I never understood the idea that we had reward or punish people for voting habits. Voting in the US is pretty damn easy. If you can’t be arsed to make the effort to vote, then it’s probably better you didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2014, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-politician-deduction-for-not-voting/689192/6 "2014-05-26T02:48:02Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Did you read the definitions, at the bottom? I did. Here they are. > [@](#): > > ``` > VAP refers to the total Voting Age Population of the State as reported by the Bureau of Census. Please note that the VAP includes all persons over the age of 18 -- including a significant number of people not able to vote in U.S. elections. > > REG refers to the total number of registered voters as reported by the States. > > ``` That would imply that Registration could never possibly equal 100%, not that it could go higher. ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2014, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-politician-deduction-for-not-voting/689192/7 "2014-05-26T08:16:43Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I never understood the idea that we had reward or punish people for voting habits. Voting in the US is pretty damn easy. If you can’t be arsed to make the effort to vote, then it’s probably better you didn’t. I think that’s an argument for **Honesty** ’s thread. The idea here is not to increase incentives for individuals to participate but to remove incentives for political operators to raise barriers against participation. And real barriers do exist. I was unable to vote once here in Pennsylvania when I had a last minute business opportunity to travel to the other side of the state. I missed the cutoff date for an absentee ballot by a couple of days and we don’t have early voting or alternate location voting here. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2014, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-politician-deduction-for-not-voting/689192/8 "2014-05-26T09:33:24Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > That would imply that Registration could never possibly equal 100%, not that it could go higher. Does Alaska allow people to register prior to their eighteenth birthday? ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_Door](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@Bill\_Door](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_Door)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2014, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-politician-deduction-for-not-voting/689192/9 "2014-05-26T15:33:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Did you read the definitions, at the bottom? > > I never understood the idea that we had reward or punish people for voting habits. Voting in the US is pretty damn easy. If you can’t be arsed to make the effort to vote, then it’s probably better you didn’t. Did you read the OP? It didn’t propose to reward or punish people for voting habits. It proposed that the representation of a state be proportional to the number of people who voted in the election. That may reward or punish a state for voting habits, not an individual. If a state can’t be arsed to make an effort to allow its citizens to vote, then it’s probably better that state gets fewer congressman. It’ll all work out in the end. ---
**Author:** ![Crawlspace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Crawlspace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crawlspace)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2014, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-politician-deduction-for-not-voting/689192/10 "2014-05-26T16:18:00Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I did. Here they are. > > > [@](#): > > > > VAP refers to the total Voting Age Population of the State as reported by the Bureau of Census. Please note that the VAP includes all persons over the age of 18 – including a significant number of people not able to vote in U.S. elections. > > > > REG refers to the total number of registered voters as reported by the States. > > That would imply that Registration could never possibly equal 100%, not that it could go higher. My guess is that the anomaly is caused by the numbers being collected by two different agencies, with the census being more of an estimate. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2014, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-politician-deduction-for-not-voting/689192/11 "2014-05-26T16:28:14Z")
> [@Bill\_Door](#): > > Did you read the OP? Yes. > [@](#): > > It didn’t propose to reward or punish people for voting habits. It proposed that the representation of a state be proportional to the number of people who voted in the election. That may reward or punish a state for voting habits, not an individual. If a state can’t be arsed to make an effort to allow its citizens to vote, then it’s probably better that state gets fewer congressman. It’ll all work out in the end. A distinction without a difference. As already noted, voting percentages by state are controlled largely by personal choice (to vote or not to vote), not by voter suppression tactics. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2014, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-politician-deduction-for-not-voting/689192/12 "2014-05-26T19:25:58Z")
It may be a personal choice, but it’s a choice influenced by factors outside of an individual citizen’s control. A person might, for instance, have a choice between taking off from work to vote or going to work and getting paid. Yes, some employers make it easy for their employees, but not all. You might be able to go in before or after work, but if your polling place routinely has three hour lines, and the polls open two and a half hours before you start work and close two hours after you get off, that’s not an option. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2014, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-politician-deduction-for-not-voting/689192/13 "2014-05-27T04:49:32Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Non-voting in the current system is almost entirely dependent on factors other than voter suppression > [@John\_Mace](#): > > As already noted, voting percentages by state are controlled largely by personal choice (to vote or not to vote), not by voter suppression tactics. Bullshit. Or to be more polite. cite please? And not a cite from Fox News, or some Republican operative. As a counter argument, how do you explain that the states with election-day registration are also toward the top of the turnout figures – many years, they are the very highest in turnout. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2014, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-politician-deduction-for-not-voting/689192/14 "2014-05-27T05:36:40Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > That would imply that Registration could never possibly equal 100%, not that it could go higher. I think it could, theoretically, because I don’t think the census includes college students, snowbirds, expats, etc. who were living out of the state on the census date but can still vote there. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2014, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-politician-deduction-for-not-voting/689192/15 "2014-05-27T16:34:19Z")
They would still re-apportion HoR districts only once per decade, right? I wonder whether TPTB in states that stand to lose (or gain) seats would consider long-term consequences outweigh the short-term benefits enough to justify extraordinary efforts to encourage (or facilitate) increased voting. PTB in this country aren’t famous for valuing long-term considerations, after all. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2014, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idea-politician-deduction-for-not-voting/689192/16 "2014-05-27T16:45:46Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Bullshit. Or to be more polite. cite please? > And not a cite from Fox News, or some Republican operative. > > As a counter argument, how do you explain that the states with election-day registration are also toward the top of the turnout figures – many years, they are the very highest in turnout. Gee, I don’t know. I suppose I could point you to my earlier post where I said that the Jim Crow era of actual voter suppression had had lingering effects in many of the Southern states. Or I could ask you for some factual evidence that the current attempts at voter suppression affect more than a single-digit percentage of the population, not nearly enough to explain the known gap between high and low. Or since I live in New York, a state without election day registration, you could try to convince me that New York has engaged in deliberate voter suppression. Or here’s a thought. You can try to explain your definition of voter suppression and why it’s so different than anybody else’s.