Should Voting be Mandatory?

Thursday, November 17th, 2011
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

YOU ARE GOING TO VOTE -- OR ELSE!

Why don’t more people show up to vote on Election Day? In elections all over America, fewer voters are turning out at the polls than ever before. The New York Times ran an op-ed piece last week decrying this national trend, and suggesting that voting be mandatory, just like jury duty. So how big is the problem, and how important is it to force citizens to vote?

My home state of Louisiana recently held what traditionally is the largest election in any four year period, to pick most of the statewide and local public offices. Turnout was a miserable 35%. In some precincts, fewer than 10 voters showed up to cast their ballots. There have been recent elections where the only people to show up were the five required voting commissioners. And low turnout is not unique to Louisiana. The downward trend is prevalent all across the country.

Of course we should encourage all Americans to vote. Participatory democracy is a hall mark of our system of government. There have been hard fought battles in the past century to give voting rights to women and to protect the voting rights for a cross section of minorities. The Voting Rights Act was necessary in 1965, but it’s outlived its usefulness and discriminates against a hand full of mostly southern states. The problem today is not to stop voter discrimination, but how to encourage more people to show up on Election Day.

In his recent op-ed article, William Galston with the Brookings Institution argues what he feels to be a number of advantages to mandatory voting. He points out that thirty-one countries have some form of mandatory voting, including two thirds of Latin American nations and a cross section of other democracies that include Australia. Here’s what he sees as the benefits of a legal obligation to vote:
“Imagine our politics with laws and civic norms that yield near-universal voting. Campaigns could devote far less money to costly, labor-intensive get-out-the-vote efforts. Media gurus wouldn’t have the same incentive to drive down turnout with negative advertising. Candidates would know that they must do more than mobilize their bases with red-meat rhetoric on hot-button issues. Such a system would improve not only electoral politics but also the legislative process. Rather than focusing on symbolic gestures whose major purpose is to agitate partisans, Congress might actually roll up its sleeves and tackle the serious, complex issues it ignores. “
All well and good, and few would argue with the advantages of lessening the tension of governing and creating an atmosphere for more political compromise, and less of the present “in your face” way of governing.

But what price is paid for such results? Does the government have to hold a stick over your head with financial sanctions to force you to vote? Australia, for example, fines any eligible voter who fails to show up at the polls. A small fine to begin with, about the amount of a traffic ticket, with escalating amounts for repeated failures. Yes, turnout is around 95 %, and Australians tend to see voting as a personal obligation, something not nearly as ingrained in the U.S.

One reason, particularly here in Louisiana, that voting percentages are way down, is the changing patterns of “getting out the vote.” Retail politics in the past meant well oiled political machines that spent considerable resources on Election Day. Both political parties developed aggressive get out the vote campaigns with transportation being provided to voting locations for voters who requested it. Numerous political rallies, beginning months before Election Day, was standard campaign procedure in years past. Now it’s primarily television, direct mail and robo calls. The election “street money” and the retail politics of the past have gone by the wayside, resulting in less reinforcement and fewer voters making their way to the polls.

Another reason voting percentages are way down is the fact that in many states, way too many elections are held. School boards and local taxing districts often pick an “off election” date, with few other items on the ballot. They look to get their particularly constituency to the polls with the hopes that those who oppose their particular proposition will not take the time to vote. In many European countries, where voting participation is always quite high, one annual Election Day is held on a Sunday. Families go to church and then take the time to vote, knowing that they will only have to vote once a year. In my home state of Louisiana, voters are often asked to vote six times or more per year, frequently with only one or two local issues on the ballot. Generally, U.S. voters face too many elections of little interest to them, resulting in extremely low voter turnout.

Is democracy served by telling citizens that they have to show up and vote, regardless of their interest and/or ignorance of the candidates and the local issues? Can a registered voter be told by the government: “Regardless of your interest in this election, we are requiring you to show up, and if you don’t, you will be fined.”

And finally, how about the argument that not voting is actually a vote? If all votes are your opinions, then by not voting, are you not expressing your opposition to all those candidates and items on the ballot? I remember back in the 1970’s as a Louisiana State Senator I introduced a proposed law to include “none of the above,” on the ballot. Isn’t that what you’re indicating when you fail to vote? And if so, isn’t this your constitutional right?

If the country is going to have a system of government that is responsive to a majority of its citizens at all levels, then high election turnouts is a key ingredient for such a goal. There are a number of ways for elections officials to encourage going to the polls on Election Day, but it begins with education at the grade school level.

But making voting mandatory takes away the right of a citizen to choose. Freedom means the right to express your views as you see fit. Voting is one of those options. So is non-voting. It’s all about your freedom of choice, isn’t it? To vote, or not to vote -- that is your decision. But living with the consequences is not.

*****

“I never vote for anyone. I always vote against.” W.C. Fields

Peace and Justice

Jim Brown

Jim Brown’s syndicated column appears each week in numerous newspapers throughout the South and on websites worldwide. You can read all his past columns and see continuing updates at www.jimbrownusa.com. You can also hear Jim’s nationally syndicated radio show each Sunday morning from 9 am till 11:00 am, central time, on the Genesis Radio Network, with a live stream at http://www.jimbrownusa.com.

Presidential Primary Candidates Ignore Many States!

Thursday, May 26th, 2011
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

HOW CAN STATES LIKE LOUISIANA
BECOME PLAYERS IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?

Last week, this column analyzed how only a handful of states will be both relevant and make any substantive difference in next year’s presidential election. Under the present system, it’s a “winner take all” contest, where the state’s electoral votes go to the top vote getter. In a red state, like Louisiana, a Republican voting majority is a dead cinch. So why should the candidate for president pay any attention to die hard red or blue states where campaigning is of little value? How about this? Maybe there is a way for my home state of Louisiana to become a major player.

There is no doubt about the Democratic nominee. The president is running for reelection, but has little chance for any gains in Louisiana and the Deep South. But the Republican nomination is wide open, with a number of candidates actively in the running. The primary season kicks off on January 16, with the Iowa caucuses. Here is what takes place before it is primary election day in Louisiana.

Monday, January 16, 2012: Iowa caucuses

Tuesday, January 24: New Hampshire

Saturday, January 28: Nevada caucuses, South Carolina

Tuesday, January 31: Florida

Tuesday, February 7 (Super Tuesday): Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, Montana Republican caucuses, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah

Saturday, February 11: Louisiana primary

Not only will there be a number of elections before Louisiana’s primary, the cost factor has become a big legislative issue. The cost for a primary in the Bayou State is $6 million, no chump change in a year with a real state budget crisis. The Louisiana Legislature is searching for ways to fill a void of some $1 billion less than was available last year. Some legislators are suggesting calling off the primary all together and letting the political parties choose delegates to their respective national conventions as they each see fit.

Louisiana political commentator John Maginnis wrote recently about why there is little enthusiasm for a state primary. “If like four years ago, only a quarter of Republicans who are about 25% of registered voters, vote in the presidential primary, overall participation will be about 6%. The arithmetic frames this question for our Legislature: is the opinion of 6 percent of Louisiana voters worth almost $6 million, or about $30 a vote, to find out?”

So is there anything Louisiana can do to save $6 million, yet still have a significant impact on who will be the next president? Yes! And at no cost. Louisiana is the only state in the country that has a late 2011 election already scheduled. It’s the regular gubernatorial election where many races will be on the ballot with a significant statewide turnout. Therefore, instead of wasting $6 million in election costs, the Bayou State could be the first in the nation to have a vote on who will be the respective party nominees.

It need be only a non-binding beauty contest. Both Republicans and Democrats could hold caucuses in the spring of next year to pick their respective delegates. But as far as giving the nation an indication of how voters are thinking nationally, Louisiana could, at no cost, be the first state to hold a presidential primary.
It would be an understatement to say that the candidates from both parties would flock to the deepest of the deep southern states. It is the first chance, particularly for the current long list of Republican presidential wannabes, to build momentum and show strength. It would be unwise for any candidate, particularly within the republican ranks, to pass up making a significant campaign effort in Louisiana.

A Louisiana presidential election tied to the gubernatorial election this fall would also put some additional heat on the candidates to focus on Louisiana issues. Put them on the spot when it comes to drilling in the Gulf, revenue sharing, and coastal erosion. Here’s what the speaker of the Florida House of Representatives had to say in commenting on Florida moving its primary up to next January: “Moving up the primary would force presidential candidates to pay more attention to issues that are important locally, like soaring property insurance rates.” Hello! Sounds like what Louisiana officials should be saying.

Iowa has the process of sucking in presidential candidates down to a science. The have the first of the nation’s primary voting through their caucus system that will take place in January of 2012. But they take gambit one step further by having a second “mini-caucus” this coming August. As Mike Murphy in Time magazine wrote this week: “It’s an essentially phony contest that forces the candidates to start earlier, visit more often, book more hotel rooms and put more friendly Iowans on the payroll to organize the vast logistics of getting all those would-be voters…” out to vote. Hillary Clinton spent $29 million in 2008 Iowa caucus, with other candidates spending millions more.

If Iowa can get the various candidates to genuflect all over the Hawkeye state and garner huge media attention over 10,000 voters at a caucus, it would seem for Louisiana to be a no brainer to tie in a straw vote for president at the same time as this fall’s gubernatorial election. The Louisiana legislature is in session right now. A simple minor change in the election law will allow the presidential straw poll in November, and pull millions of dollars into the state, and cost the taxpayers nothing. No other state has such an opportunity.

The Scots have a saying that opportunities are never lost; someone will take the one you miss. There is a win-win opportunity available for Louisiana if its political leadership is wise enough to seize the moment.

“Opportunity is often missed because we are broadcasting when we should be tuning in.” Jackson Browne

Peace and Justice

Jim Brown


Jim Brown’s syndicated column appears each week in numerous newspapers and websites throughout the South. You can read all his past columns and see continuing updates at http://www.jimbrownusa.com. You can also hear Jim’s nationally syndicated radio show each Sunday morning from 9 am till 11:00 am, central time, on the Genesis Radio Network, with a live stream at http://www.jimbrownusa.com.