How to fix/improve elections?

With election day wrapping up, thought I'd start a discussion on how elections could be improved. To kick off, here's my list:

(My basic assumption - representative democracy is better when you have higher citizen engagement. This isn't a given - some dispute this assumption - but it's the one I'm working from)

- Election day a federal holiday

- Compulsory voting (with a small fine, say $20, with lax enforcement)

- All elections (municipal, state, etc) on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November

- No odd-year elections

- Automatic voter registration when getting state-issued ID (DL, etc)

- Non-partisan districting (eg the CA model)

I would rather see informed voters showing up at the polls as opposed to voters who have never even heard of the candidates on the ballot and use who knows what criteria when casting their vote. To that end, I would like to see more unbiased material on the candidates' qualifications/issues and the questions appearing on the ballot. The League of Women Voters used to put out a wonderful summary but I haven't seen it in years.

I'm not sure that compulsory voting would be constitutional. Refusing to vote can be a protest.

I agree with Joan. I don't feel comfortable whipping people into voting booths when they lack interest.

Definitely get rid of odd year elections. All should be registered when born as a citizen or when naturalized.

Compulsory voting is a non-starter. And even if it wasn't, its bad enough many voters are clueless, but we also want the lazy, disaffected and no-vote protest crowd voting as well? No thanks (and no fair to the intentionally no-vote crowd).

Extended voting periods - not just on a single day. Make it easy to register and vote (unlike what is happening in red states throughout the South).

PVW said:

- No odd-year elections

Win one BOE term, get the second free!

Extended terms could aid in long term planning and in having elected officials who are more informed about the issues on which they are making decisions. However, on the flip side, an extended term makes it more difficult to remove someone from office if they prove to be ineffective in their role and may reduce the willingness of some elected officials to listen to the concerns of their constituents.

If Election Day were a federal holiday, people would travel and not vote.

Automatic voter registration will likely increase turnout.

Including financial reports with sample ballots (% donations from PACs, % of donations from individuals, average donation amount, in-district donation vs. external, etc.). Curb financial donations in the last three weeks of a campaign, so these figures can be tabulated. And give ELEC laws teeth, so there are real consequences to violations. Not just fines.

joan_crystal said:
The League of Women Voters used to put out a wonderful summary but I haven't seen it in years.

It seems that they still do it, at least for some elections, but it has not been widely disseminated. I saw this on Facebook halfway through the day ... too late for it to be much help.

http://lwvnj.org/images/voting/2015/dist27.pdf

Steve said:
Extended voting periods - not just on a single day. Make it easy to register and vote (unlike what is happening in red states throughout the South).

Agree with this- Why is election day only a Tuesday? and why do the polls close so early if there is only one day to vote,

mikescott said:

Steve said:
Extended voting periods - not just on a single day. Make it easy to register and vote (unlike what is happening in red states throughout the South).

Agree with this- Why is election day only a Tuesday? and why do the polls close so early if there is only one day to vote,

When early voting (generally a progressive, increase voter turnout strategy) was proposed for New Jersey, Chris Christie opposed it and apparently his view prevailed.

If Texas (and other red states) have it, why shouldn't we?

Early by mail voting should be made easy. When the election ballot info is mailed, included should be a vote by mail form with an addressed return envelope. Simply fill in the form and mail it. If you don't want to early elect, then go to the voting booth on election day.

The problem with mail is how can you be sure that you mail ballot was received? An answer may be to include a pin with your ballot. Use the pin to check on the election site to see if your mail in ballot was received and if not vote at the booth.

it's naive to think this country will pass any legislation making it easier to vote, or encouraging more people to vote. One of the two major political parties will NOT vote for any such efforts. In fact, that party is currently working diligently around the country to make it MORE difficult for people to vote.

the whole idea is a non-starter.

Is the potential problem with compulsory voting first amendment issues? Wouldn't allowing voters to just submit a blank ballot get around that?

I'm leery of arguments based on labeling people lazy or ignorant. Who decides what qualifies there? I'm pretty liberal in my views, so most conservative view points strike me as un-informed and nonsensical, but I think it'd be seriously problematic to argue that someone holding such (to my mind) lazy and uniformed views should not vote.

In Australia you just need to show up at a polling booth and tell them to "check your name off" (feel free to use some Australian slang here). No need to vote. Is that what we want? Seems silly.

BG9 said:
Early by mail voting should be made easy. When the election ballot info is mailed, included should be a vote by mail form with an addressed return envelope. Simply fill in the form and mail it. If you don't want to early elect, then go to the voting booth on election day.

This would also be very expensive. As an example, in NYC alone, there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.5M registered voters. That's 9M envelopes in an ordinary year; next year it could be 18M (Presidential, Federal, State/Local Primary and General Elections). Also, it dramatically slows the counting of the votes.

In college, I took a class on the Vietnam War taught by a very radical professor. One day, he had a few of his fellow activists address the class, and the question of voting came up. One of them said, "if voting really changed things, they wouldn't allow you to do it." That thought has stayed with me.

Steve said:

BG9 said:
Early by mail voting should be made easy. When the election ballot info is mailed, included should be a vote by mail form with an addressed return envelope. Simply fill in the form and mail it. If you don't want to early elect, then go to the voting booth on election day.

This would also be very expensive. As an example, in NYC alone, there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.5M registered voters. That's 9M envelopes in an ordinary year; next year it could be 18M (Presidential, Federal, State/Local Primary and General Elections). Also, it dramatically slows the counting of the votes.

On the expense side of it, if this was paired with moving all elections to the same day/days (I like that idea of extended voting days), I think it might be a wash or even end up saving money.

I'm not joking. The GOP will never go for any of this. Why should we pretend they would?

Their are States controlled by the Democrats. They can lead the way. I have no problem with compulsory voting like in Australia. If people know they have to vote any will take more interest. There are those who won't but we now have plenty of low information voters.

One thing I would add to the other suggestions is to encourage High Schools to teach Civics. Remind Seniors that they will soon be eligible to vote and offer, or even require them to take the Civics course.

relx said:
In college, I took a class on the Vietnam War taught by a very radical professor. One day, he had a few of his fellow activists address the class, and the question of voting came up. One of them said, "if voting really changed things, they wouldn't allow you to do it." That thought has stayed with me.

I always like the old saying: Don't vote. It only encourages the bastards.

More citizens might vote if we had better candidates running for office.

LOST said:
Their are States controlled by the Democrats. They can lead the way. I have no problem with compulsory voting like in Australia. If people know they have to vote any will take more interest. There are those who won't but we now have plenty of low information voters.
One thing I would add to the other suggestions is to encourage High Schools to teach Civics. Remind Seniors that they will soon be eligible to vote and offer, or even require them to take the Civics course.

I still don't see how making it easier to vote in a handful of states actually makes much difference. For every state that makes it easier, there's a state that makes it more difficult.

Another reason people don't vote is gerrymandering. I can't recall the last time I cast a vote for the House that actually mattered. I'm pretty sure it was never.

I think increasing turnout would make a big impact on local races, which is were government most directly and visibly impacts people. Having local government more truly representative of the people it governs is a meaningful goal, imo, but given the incredibly low turnout local races generally get, how representative is it really? And I think changes here would trickle upward - a lot of policy, including national policy, is based on, influenced, or affected by who controls the state houses and governorships.

Any peer reviewed studies to support that?

Which part specifically? There's a lot of research around voting - if you're sincerely interested, I can try to point you to some.

Why don't we start with how National policy is based on who controls the state houses.

terp said:
Why don't we start with how National policy is based on who controls the state houses.

I said influenced, based on, or affected -- not controlled. Here's a couple of examples I had in mind:

- the ACA was influenced, and in fact partially based on, the MA law. I think we'd agree that the composition of the MA statehouse was relevant here?

- The electoral college is based on electoral districts drawn by the states. When drawn for partisan advantage, this affects who gets elected to the federal government, hence control of state houses affects and influences the shapers of national policies

But perhaps you had a more specific question? I started this thread with some specific suggestions, and asking me to back up my belief they'd work is a fair question - you shouldn't just take my word for them being "obvious." Was there a specific one you were interested in? Or perhaps you had a specific idea yourself, and are wondering if there's any research on it?

I was hoping you had data to back up your claims. There are about 180,000 pages of regulations in the Federal Registry. How many of these were based on who was in the various state houses and how?

ml1 said:
I'm not joking. The GOP will never go for any of this. Why should we pretend they would?

They would never go for a national healthcare program either. But we got one.

It would pay to be prepared, have legislation ready to go when circumstances are right.