Elevating Participation in American Presidential Elections

Problems with the Voting System The oft repeated goal of the American voting system is to provide each citizen an equal say in choosing his representatives. In every election, both candidates make a point to tout the continued success of the electoral system and how it represents quintessential American virtues: participation, freedom, choice, democracy. But a quick look at our voting system as compared to the other liberal democracies tells a different story. Voter turnout and registration in the United States remains comparatively lower than that of other Western democracies. Even in the most hotly contested presidential elections, turnout among the voting eligible population hovers around 60%, and in legislative elections with no presidential vote, turnout is around 40%. Given the amount of media coverage and money around a Presidential election, this seems a strange phenomenon. Western Europe, by contrast, has consistent voter turnout between 75-80%.

Interestingly enough, voter turnout is not necessarily tied to whether a state is a battleground or not. Ohio and Pennsylvania, traditionally considered to be two "battleground" states that see a lot of money and visits by candidates have turnout rates near or lower than the national average (Ohio had eligible voter turnout of .3% over the national average, while Pennsylvania was 8.6% lower). Some states considered solid states, like Alaska (26.01), Idaho (34.32) and Vermont (22.36) have average voter turnout rates 10 percentage points higher than the national average.

To increase voter turnout, we can do two things: 1) increase registration, 2) increase turnout among registered voters.

Possible Solutions Vote By Mail In 1998, the state of Oregon instituted a vote by mail system, allowing voters to send in their ballots before election day. In the last six presidential election cycles (2008-1988), the state has had considerably higher turnout among the voting age population than the national average, but this disparity has fluctuated. What has increased is the proportion of registered voters going to the polls. From 1988 to 1996 the percentage of registered Oregon voters actually voting was between 3 and 6 percent higher than the national average. In the three election cycles after 1998, the range was between 10 and 13%, without a corresponding shift in the percentage of voting age Oregonians registered. The state of Washington, which began optional county by county voting by mail in 1993 and now has all but one county using this method, has also seen a gradual increase in the proportion of registered voters participating in the electoral process.

The Oregon system has a number of benefits over the current election day system. It is cheaper, avoids the problem of voter disenfranchisement due to lines or lack of polling places, last minute protests and disruptions at polling places, and people who would otherwise be too busy or tired to vote on November 4th can vote at their leisure. If the Oregon results could be replicated, it would increase participation among registered voters by 10 million.

Increasing the Number of Registered Voters

Ultimately, any major increase in participation must address the problem of lax voter registration. Of a voting age population of 225 million, about 78% were registered as of last election. However, low registration and low turnout do not necessarily correlate. For example, Mississippi and West Virginia, with respective vote differentials of -17 and -16.3 percent in the last election, had voter registration rates of 89 and 86 percent.

Of the six southwest states (CA, CO, NM, AZ, TX, NV), four have voter registration under 70%. Despite Arizona's status as an "in play" state (average spread in the last 3 elections 8.41), it has the lowest registered voter percentage at 61%. All are states with a large percentage of legal immigrants, who are less likely to register to vote because of language barriers, unfamiliarity, or too much familiarity with corrupt politics back home. Automatic voter registration upon citizenship would streamline the process for newly minted citizens.

Traditionally, voter registration drives have been the province of the individual parties or non-profit organizations. In particularly close elections voter registration drives will be in full swing. In the early 90s the Clinton Administration passed the "motor voter" act, which lets people automatically vote when they receive a driver's license- unfortunately, many Americans do not have driver's licenses.

Same day registration gives voters the option of registering to vote on the same day as the election. When instituted in North Carolina in 2007, voter registration shot up 5 percent to 91%, though it is unclear whether this increase was due to the new law or to private get out the vote campaigns.

Automatic registration is popular among most Western nations, and could be accomplished with a system like the Selective Service System which automatically adds citizens onto the voting rolls once they turn 18.

Why is this a Problem? If you accept the proposition that our society operates best when its leaders are elected by a representative bloc of voters, than low turnout should be a concern. Turnout is lowest among the bottom quintile of voters, and is significantly lower among voters with only a high school education. This is a group that already wields less clout because of a reduced ability to donate to political campaigns.

The Interests Opposed to Change Any reforms that increase the participation of the lower class, would be opposed by the wealthy and any politicians reliant on their backing. In the last election cycle, the proportion of voters voting for either party stayed relatively consistent across income bands above $50,000. Below that number, however, votes began to swing toward Barack Obama. People with incomes below $30,000 voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats. The Republican Party, obviously, would not like to see this group elevated to the same participation rate as other income groups.

The rhetoric used by the opposition will appeal to voters' sense of patriotism, history, tradition, and individualism. There will be appeals to the Founding Fathers "if the Electoral College was good enough for them, why isn't it good enough for you?" and to the mythical "good voter", "why should we change what the responsible, informed voters have been successful at for so long?" If people are too lazy to go down and register to vote, why should the system change to accommodate them?

An obvious strategy to combat that rhetoric would be an appeal towards American traditions of democratic participation- everyone should have a vote, voting is a right and access should be universally guaranteed, etc. Unfortunately, this rhetoric is often ineffective. Americans are worried about voting, sure, but they are often worried about the power of their vote being diluted, about "lazy" (read: stupid) voters, or the potential for voter fraud. Perhaps equally as important to Americans is seeing voting as a choice, not a duty. Compulsory voting and automatic registration conjure up images of coercion and rigged balloting.

It might be beneficial to harness the current wave of antagonism towards inefficient government in order to force state governments to enact voter reforms. Vote by mail should be attractive to the elderly and working people, as well as people concerned with government waste or with unintentional voter disenfranchisement in the form of long lines and understaffed polling places. A form of vote by network could be developed to appeal to the youth vote.

Significantly harder would be rallying support for same-day or automatic voter registration. Fears of voter fraud and illegal voting permeate the American election cycle despite such fraud being rare and localized. Local and state incumbents on both sides of the aisle feed into these fears, worried that higher turnout or easier access to the polling place would upset the order of things. In those southwest states with especially low registration percentages, politicians would fear the addition of large ethnic blocs to the rolls, worried they might spawn candidates of their own.