I’m not aware of any. I think those elections are close to universal at this point.
When I was in elementary school, way back in 1992 (stop snickering old people), my school was a polling place. The voting machines (a lever type, I believe–I only voted on them once, back in 2000) were brought in early and the whole school got to cast votes at the Presidential level. They even had three kids play Bush, Clinton, and Perot and give little speeches.
I don’t vote regularly these days because of that experience. I vote regularly these days because the Republicans are fucking crazy. Actually giving them a reason to vote makes a lot more sense than some silly straw poll. (Except for the actual result, Election Day 2000 was great. I got the day off from school, went and voted fairly early in the day, and got to spend the rest of the day goofing off until the polls started to close.)
I’m not sure this proposal is really anything new. Back in 1968 I was in first grade, and our class had a mock presidential election. I voted for Nixon, I’m ashamed to say, and he won in our class. Our teacher also took us on a short field trip to a polling place a couple of blocks away.
I don’t see how a voting lesson for the very young is comparable to going and voting three or four times in actual federal elections. Particularly if students know that there is a chance, however minuscule, that their votes might affect the outcome. But even if they have no chance of doing so the kids will have the experience of entering a real voting booth and then seeing the results of the election. And, of course, they are all registered so there is no barrier to voting if they decide to do so as adults.
Then I don’t understand why you brought them up. My idea is preferable for the reasons I laid out in the OP. It could encourage more citizens to vote.
That’s the problem. “A little thought.” I’m so sick of people claiming that voting is a civic duty but not being informed. I’d rather a citizen be informed and not vote than be ignorant and vote.
In either case, you can’t deny the math. My vote is absolutely useless. The only way I’d start voting is if for some reason almost everyone else stopped.
There is no chance of their vote affecting the outcome. The difficult part about getting people to vote is convincing them the inconvenience is worthwhile, not the physical act of pulling a lever or checking a box.
Because there are already elections that students can participate in, so there’s no need to force them to cast a meaningless vote in federal elections for “practice.”
You haven’t demonstrated that it would actually encourage them to do anything, and you haven’t demonstrated that this would do anything that is not already done by school elections. On the other hand it would slow down the voting process (which potential voters might find discouraging), make more work for election volunteers, and cost more money.
If you read the OP you know what I am talking about. If you do then perhaps you could make your point clearer so I could know what you are talking about.
I would agree with this with the caveat that the inconvenience isn’t just showing up at the voting booth but in caring enough about government to follow politics. Becoming voters helps with the latter by connecting citizens with their government.
You haven’t demonstrated that participating in school elections encourages people to vote in federal elections.
I have already pointed out to you that people who vote young tend to continue to vote. If you don’t accept that assertion then say so plainly. Clearly there is no evidence that something along the lines of what I’m proposing has ever encouraged people to continue voting. It’s never been done. But it would have all of the hallmarks of the act of voting so I would think the effect would be the same. And yes, I am talking about the psychology of voting and not just the nuts and bolts of pulling levers.
That our electoral infrastructure is so flimsy is a national disgrace. If it’s not robust enough to handle positive changes (and I wouldn’t argue that it is) then that’s not an argument that we shouldn’t move forward with them. It’s just more reason we should strengthen the infrastructure.
I read your OP. The youth vote is never going to be used as a tiebreaker, and you and I already discussed that fact. So the votes count for nothing. It’s a beauty contest.
That’s true, too.
There’s no connection if the vote doesn’t count.
That’s true, I haven’t. I don’t know if there are studies to that effect. But I do know that school elections have most of the features that you say you want to promote. There’s no connection to the federal political system, but there’s a connection to the student government and a sense of civic responsibility for some of the voters. I think that means there’s no need for an additional, mandatory, fake election.
I don’t think it applies to a contest where everyone agrees ahead of time that the votes will count for nothing at all. I think encouraging high school students to register and vote in real elections is probably correlated to their continued voting later in life. I don’t think it follows that if you make it mandatory for 12-year-olds to vote in a contest that doesn’t actually do anything that they will be more likely to vote for real when they are older.
Yes, the hallmarks… like standing in line and making people spend time and money to organize the election. The only hallmark that would be missing is even the slimmest chance that the vote would accomplish anything of any kind. There’s no value to the task and there’s no value to being an informed voter in an election that does not count.
This doesn’t strengthen the infrastructure. What it might do is frustrate real voters, who have to pay for this sham election and then wait in line behind teens and preteens who are forced to vote even though those votes count for nothing.
None of this is going to happen. Why quibble about one part?
But communication doesn’t happen either unless people are clear in what they mean.
Do you think school elections have the hallmarks of a federal election? The idea is to duplicate the actual voting experience to such a degree that the same psychological effects occur. I don’t see how helping Susie beat Billy for student council is even in the same ballpark.
This is the crux of the disagreement I’d say. I don’t see any way to resolve the issue. If the votes had no chance of being used, that is.
Ah, the quibbling makes sense now. Your objection to the idea falls apart if the youth votes are used to break ties.
I’m not saying it would. I was saying that if the infrastructure isn’t strong enough to accommodate improvements then that’s more reason we need to strengthen it. (As if we needed more reason.)
Mandatory elections address the issue that the majority of people do not get the candidate they preferred (assuming that apathy is not a bar to deserving that in the first place).
It doesn’t address other issues such as a flawed electoral system or the feasibility of direct democracy.
Those that quite rightly point out that an individual’s vote is essentially worthless if coupled with those that believe that there is a definable limit to a person’s lack of understanding of issues are not really advocating democracy.
Not really. Even with 100% turnout, in a first-past-the-post election it’s common for the successful candidate to have less than 50% of the vote.
When you have a choice between more than two candidates, sure. But that’s not the U.S. system.
And I agree that this is already done in schools all over the country anyways. I would see no problem with Buck Godot’s version.
Heck, I remember that Nickelodeon used to have a big to-do about having a children’s vote. And the results from the kids always matched the adults’. And the kids were happy to do it.
But actual mandatory voting? It’s sunk. What you are forced to do is work. What you choose to do is play, even if it’s harder than your work. Force the issue, and the kids will feel resentful, and it will cause lower participation, not greater. Note that the story mentioned in the OP, the teacher DOES NOT make it a requirement to register. If she did, I bet there wouldn’t have been those students who were so gung ho about voting.
Forcing people to do something is a horrible way to get them to want to do it.
Hurm. Well you might have something there.
After thinking about it I’m not sure how likely it is that kids would get their backs up over having to go to the polls since they would have a day off of school to do it.
If your goal is to replicate the psychological effects of voting [in children] in an effort to encourage lifelong voting, you should just go whole hog and change the system enough to make it truly meaningful.
Amend the Constitution to make the voting age 8+, make it so their vote counts, eliminate the electoral college so their vote really counts, and throw 'em in the damn pool.
Give them a civics lessons on secret ballots (no one ever has to know how you really voted) and why you shouldn’t let other people tell you how to vote and let them have at it.
I never have bought the 18+ voting requirement. It seems entirely separate from the ‘contract’ argument or any of the other rationales that I’ve heard advanced for why that is the magic age where people can decide shit for themselves. Sure, probably a lot of kids might vote the way their parents vote (see earlier examples of school presidential elections) but if that’s really your concern you should be trying to figure out a way of legally disenfranchising all the people who vote exactly the way their spouse, parents, preacher, elder klansman or invisible rabbit named Harvey tell them to vote. It’s not like there is some sort of test that we do to determine if people are using logic and are free from outside influence currently (obviously).
Compulsory voting? Different argument entirely, but I tend to agree with those that say “Don’t give a shit about voting? Then don’t.”
This would be opposed by the GOP as if their life depended on it, which it would. Younger voters skews Democratic. More education skews Democratic. The GOP would not let this pass the committee stage because doing so would be the end of the Republican Party as we know it
Yes, but an electoral system designed to ensure that there are only two candidates already maximises the chances that the majority of people will not get the candidate they prefer, because they can only choose between two candidates, neither of whom might be their preference. I’m assuming that if you want an electoraly system which ensures that the majority of people get the candidate they prefer, you start with an electoral system which is open to more than two candidates. And then you make sure that they system allows voters to express their preference as between the candidates. The current US system fails on both counts, and mandatory voting would do nothing to fix it.
forcing someone to vote and indoctrinating them into this process as grade school children smacks of something I can’t put into words. The best I can come up with is citizenry by decree.
I can’t imagine such a system passing any type of legal challenge. But in case it ever happens my vote will be a write in for “inanimate carbon rod”.
Really, indoctrination? Must you begin with hyperbole?
We can all agree that voting is a good thing, that citizens should do it. We only differ on the belief of who is a good voter, or what type of information is important for him to consider. There is no harm in making kids vote any more than making them go to school. It would imprint upon them the importance of this civic duty, like serving on a jury, that they should make it a habit of doing it when they can but its not bad to get some practice in it first
Minors? LOL. Most of them can’t even find Australia on a map, or tell you what the Bill of Rights were. Why in the name of Sweet Jesus would we want them to cast ballots so as to help determine who our countries leaders will be? Just what the world needs: more uneducated voters.
“Vampirerrrs; Facebook; Justin Bieberrrrr” Those might be some stuff of what minors would have a clue about. Otherwise? Fuhgedaboutit!