How to Increase The Vote? Depends Upon Your Theory

In the United States, we hear a litany of slogans and platitudes about the importance of voting.  "You can't complain if you don't vote!" and "Voting is a right, a duty, and an obligation" are oft used expressions, and there is a general sense that voting matters and that there is a moral responsibility to participate in elections. Despite this sentiment, we routinely see low voting rates, even in Presidential elections. 

Why does this happen?  It depends, I suppose, upon your theory of voting behavior, which probably to some extent reflects your political views.  Progressives tend to think that not voting is a result of structural barriers such as inconvenient and limited voting times, voter ID laws, transportation difficulties, or laws excluding those with felonies.

Conservatives, on the other hand, don't spend a great deal of time worrying about low voter turnout. Indeed, low voter turnout tends to favor conservative candidates; a recent study by Asolabehere and Schaffner indicates that frequent voters tend to be more conservative.  In recent years, many (not all) conservatives have tried to dismantle the Voting Rights Act, and have pushed for voter ID laws and other mechanisms that actually reduce voter turnout.  This is based upon the argument that in fact the real issue is voter fraud, which Republicans generally suggest is committed by partisans of the Democratic Party.  However, Lorraine Minnite of Rutgers University concludes after 10 years of study that voting fraud is quite rare.

More radical thinkers believe that the two party system has alienated voters, and contend that there are no major differences between the parties, which reduces voter interest.  These thinkers suggest that the electorate doesn't feel it is worth their time to vote because policy outcomes under the two major parties aren't substantially different.   Commentator Chris Hayes has referred to this as "policy nihilism",  a sense that rising income inequality across successive administrations has led voters to assume that neither Democrats nor Republicans can provide them with help. 

This view finds some support in data that reveals the high levels of distrust that US citizens have for major institutions, particularly the United States Congress.  Left thinkers tend to believe that voters are alienated from the political process because of the power of the wealthy to game the system through campaign contributions, Political Action Committees, and corporate donations.  Blogger Pajoly at the Huffington Post provides us with an example of a more radical view of why people don't vote.

Each of these views, of course, would take us in different directions, policy-wise.  While conservative efforts are focused on making voting more difficult, progressives favor solutions such as making Election Day a national holiday, extending voting hours, allowing more early and absentee voting, fighting voter ID laws, allowing online and same day voter registration, and other similar solutions.

Leaving aside the issue of campaign finance reform (which we will take up later), more left leaning activists suggest solutions to make it easier for third party candidates to run for office.  They promote ideas such as fusion voting, ranked preference voting, open primaries and other solutions that would allow third parties to participate in elections without being completely marginalized in the winner takes all model of US politics.  In fact, some have even suggested that the US consider moving to a parliamentary system of government so that minority party voters aren't completely disenfranchised by the two party system.  If one is a Democrat in Kansas, for example, it is almost certain that they will have almost no political voice because the legislature is overwhelmingly controlled by Republicans.  The same is true, in reverse, for a Republican in Vermont.  Parliamentary systems award seats based upon a proportion of the total number of votes cast, which would increase minority party representation in such states, and even allow room for the election of third party candidates.  Richie and Hill, while not arguing for a parliament, do argue for proportional representation in the Boston Review, and their essay is very compelling.

Empirical data on voting has been gathered by the U.S. Census Bureau on why voters don't vote.  Respondents indicated a variety of reasons, but the top four were: 1) too busy (19%), 2) out of town (9%), 3) not interested (16%), and 4) didn't like the candidates (13%).   These answers suggest that progressives are right--people don't have time to cast ballots or the window for voting (13 hours, typically) is too limited.  But further left thinkers are even more right--about 30% don't find the candidates or the issues compelling, and thus aren't engaged in the process. Combined, available time and the lack of diverse and compelling choices seem to be the strongest explanations for our embarrassing voter turnout rates.

There are a number of organizations dedicated to promoting greater involvement in the political process.  I will be presenting some links to some of those organizations in the next week or so for those of you who might want to work on the issue of increasing the participation of non-voters in the electoral process.  Am I off base here?  What am I missing?  Feel free to post your thoughts about why voters don't show up to the polls, and what, if anything, we should do about it.