As you probably know, voter turnout for midterm elections falls well short of turnout for presidential elections, and even in the latter contests, on average not much more than half of the voting-age population goes to the polls.
In a Monday post, American Prospect blogger Paul Waldman suggested a solution to those shortcomings: mandatory voting, which would not only increase turnout but also serve as pushback against the “one political party” -- guess who -- “that is determined to make voting as difficult as possible, particularly for those unlikely to vote for them.”
Waldman acknowledged that some would find mandatory voting “a horrifying infringement on freedom…But wouldn't it be better if the question of who was going to turn out wasn't a part of our campaigns and the parties could just concentrate on persuading the public that their ideas were superior?”
From Waldman’s post (emphasis added):
Imagine, if you would, an election in which almost everyone turned out to vote. Campaigns would have to reorient their persuasion efforts, because they'd have to talk to everyone. It wouldn't matter whether it was a presidential year or a midterm year. All the time, money, and effort that goes into identifying potential voters, making sure they're registered, and then getting them to the polls would no longer be needed…
…[I]n most other mature democracies…turnout is far higher than it is here. That isn't to say we're uniquely bad, but many countries do much better than we do…
…[Y]ou may have heard that voting is mandated by law in Australia [and] in a couple of dozen other countries, including Belgium…In some of those places the mandate for voting isn't really enforced, but in others you really will have to pay a fine or face some other kind of sanction if you don't vote. And it works.
You may find the idea to be a horrifying infringement on freedom, and if we were ever to do it here it would have to be accompanied by vast improvements in our voting system to make it much easier for everyone to cast ballots…But wouldn't it be better if the question of who was going to turn out wasn't a part of our campaigns and the parties could just concentrate on persuading the public that their ideas were superior? We could obviously go a good way toward that goal if we did some practical things, like not holding elections on a weekday when people have to work. And then there's the fact that now more than ever before, we have one political party that is determined to make voting as difficult as possible, particularly for those unlikely to vote for them.
It's obviously in the Republican Party's interest to keep turnout low, and the fact that turnout is what it is in midterm elections is particularly critical to them maintaining what power they have. But it's worth considering just what an election without turnout concerns would be like…[I]f nothing else we'd be able to say that the choices that came out of the process represented the will of nearly all the people, however ill-informed or ill-considered that will might be. Which is more than we can say now.
