4 thoughts on “Policy Options Brief on Voter Apathy”
The lack of voting in the United States is a major issue. The writer states toward the end of the paper that a reason people do not vote is a result of them feeling uninformed or just being apathetic to the system. We cannot make voting mandatory as the writer explains, for the above mentioned reasons. However, having less than 60% of Americans voting in any major election is a failure.
A reason people have become apathetic is due to the vast amounts of ads and media coverage of the candidates. Each media outlet has its own agenda so you never really know how to perceive a candidate. The vast amounts of money spent on campaigns are another reason people disagree with voting. An option not mentioned is banning all campaign commercials and all opinion-based election reporting from news outlets and spending money on rewarding people for voting and being able to explain why they are voting for a candidate. Voting represents one of the rights that America was founded on – that there will be leaders elected by the public in order to enforce Rule of Law. Whenever a big election goes by and someone does not exercise this right, it is a small failure for the Founding Fathers of America.
I think the best option is to make voting mandatory and punishable by fines. This will at least give the person no reason to be upset with an elected candidate he or she voter for because they made that decision themselves. It would be helpful to know how much Australians feel connected to the government so we could see if the law actually improves awareness and knowledge of the political landscape of their country.
Voting rates are definitely a major issue in this country, especially during midterm elections. This policy brief does a nice job highlighting the philosophical issues associated with low turnout, but it would be helpful for additional stats and context. These could include voting rates during presidential elections, rates for in-state elections (on both the high and low end) and then these rates over a number of years. This would highlight if rates are consistent across elections and years, and whether they are worsening by the year.
One option that could be explored is voting digitally. Obviously this would be a major change to our elections and difficult to implement, but with so many other daily activities moving toward the digital world, it would be interesting to see if there is any research into this area. The Australia case study is helpful in demonstrating compulsory voting – I wonder if something exists for digital voting.
The best option right now seems to be national early voting. Compulsory voting seems great in theory, but at the same time, voting is also a privilege. Voters should have the education and the interest, not just be forced. If someone checks off a name at random, does that lead to a mandate any more than low turnout? Providing options to make voting more flexible and gauging how that helps (or doesn’t) seems to be the best option.
With the appalling turnout rate of voters in the U.S., I think it necessary that something be done to address the lack of participation in government. While I would love to see mandatory voting implemented, and measures taken to encourage the electorate to become educated voters, I am not sure that this is the jurisdiction of any government within the U.S. Ease and flexibility of voting systems seems to be the best way to address this problem at present. The research done on the effects of changes to voting methods has concluded that voter turnout increases with ease of access. There are still a number of other factors to explore in the many ways that new systems might be implemented. While I think that most would agree that voter apathy is a concern, and likely affecting the politics of our nation, it is at its root an extremely political issue, and this options brief should be interesting to see proposed to an audience.
Response Panel
To: Amir Abbady
From: Shanice Branch, Tara Gitter, Nabila Ibrahim and Nickiesha Paisley
Voter Apathy
After reviewing the policy options brief and questioning the presenter during his presentation, the response panel has decided not to select neither early voting nor mandatory voting as the best policy option. Instead, the response panel would like to propose mail voting as an alternative policy option to increase voters participation.
Vote-by-mail systems exist in multiple forms across the fifty states. They enable the voter who prefers convenience to participate in government easily. In states where no-excuse mail voting has been implemented, voter participation is far above the national average. There are a number of small problems that have been found or are feared possibilities, but widespread implementation would necessarily drive research to resolve any complications.
Current applications have due dates for mailed ballots earlier than Election Day in order to ensure receipt and correctness of ballots. It is the responsibility of the voter to inquire of the election board that their vote has been received, validated, accepted correctly, and counted. For those states who do not do away with conventional polling locations on Election Day, there is still an opportunity to visit if tradition is preferred. Ensuring that a ballot is correctly submitted should a voter want to refrain from using a mailed ballot and like some assurances that his or her vote is counted. There is a check done to ensure that multiple submissions from a single voter are not accepted, inclusive of all submission methods.
The direct mail to all voters who opt-in, or all registered voters, is a proven method to encourage voter participation. It serves as a reminder, with little intervention in one’s day-to-day life required to partake, and allows those who choose to refrain, to do so. If it is assumed that this occurs in the context of a federal mandate, the national implementation of this program would likely still require Supreme Court intervention, and possibly a constitutional amendment, but changing how one votes is presumably less contentious than changing who votes. This is, effectively, only a small infringement on the constitutionally-ensured right of the states to choose who votes, and how.
In an effort to promote civic participation, and what could arguably be the constitutional responsibility of the government to represent its people as accurately as possible, postal voting is not the most effective way. It is, however, one way in which input, and so representation, is greatly increased, without grossly overstepping on the rights of the states. Mail is likely to face less pushback from the part of the population that would like to retain the (unestablished) right to vote, and steers away from the treacherous territory of deciding who is an eligible and capable voter.
Mail voting has a history in the U.S. stretching back to the 1800s. It has proven increases in voter participation, and has the added benefit of increasing relevance of the world’s most reliable postal system. Such a policy would certainly initiate more research on the topic, and how to improve its dependability and security. Such a method keeps in line with the Founding Fathers’ idea that America might not be best served by complete democracy. Hopefully, the invitation to vote sent in the mailbox will also serve as a reminder to fight Churchill’s fear of the average voter, and to become educated on politics and the state of the government.
The response panel have concluded that mail voting is the best policy option. Although mandatory voting would increase voters participation, it would be less controversial to implement the mail voting option. Unlike mandatory and early voting, mail voting help accommodate those who are unable to arrive in person to poll sites. It will also provide an opt-out option for those who do not wish to participate in voting. In doing so, mail voting does not infringe upon citizens’ rights. Each policy option has its challenges but it is important to implement policies that best align with our constitutional values while preserving the rights of the people.
The lack of voting in the United States is a major issue. The writer states toward the end of the paper that a reason people do not vote is a result of them feeling uninformed or just being apathetic to the system. We cannot make voting mandatory as the writer explains, for the above mentioned reasons. However, having less than 60% of Americans voting in any major election is a failure.
A reason people have become apathetic is due to the vast amounts of ads and media coverage of the candidates. Each media outlet has its own agenda so you never really know how to perceive a candidate. The vast amounts of money spent on campaigns are another reason people disagree with voting. An option not mentioned is banning all campaign commercials and all opinion-based election reporting from news outlets and spending money on rewarding people for voting and being able to explain why they are voting for a candidate. Voting represents one of the rights that America was founded on – that there will be leaders elected by the public in order to enforce Rule of Law. Whenever a big election goes by and someone does not exercise this right, it is a small failure for the Founding Fathers of America.
I think the best option is to make voting mandatory and punishable by fines. This will at least give the person no reason to be upset with an elected candidate he or she voter for because they made that decision themselves. It would be helpful to know how much Australians feel connected to the government so we could see if the law actually improves awareness and knowledge of the political landscape of their country.
Voting rates are definitely a major issue in this country, especially during midterm elections. This policy brief does a nice job highlighting the philosophical issues associated with low turnout, but it would be helpful for additional stats and context. These could include voting rates during presidential elections, rates for in-state elections (on both the high and low end) and then these rates over a number of years. This would highlight if rates are consistent across elections and years, and whether they are worsening by the year.
One option that could be explored is voting digitally. Obviously this would be a major change to our elections and difficult to implement, but with so many other daily activities moving toward the digital world, it would be interesting to see if there is any research into this area. The Australia case study is helpful in demonstrating compulsory voting – I wonder if something exists for digital voting.
The best option right now seems to be national early voting. Compulsory voting seems great in theory, but at the same time, voting is also a privilege. Voters should have the education and the interest, not just be forced. If someone checks off a name at random, does that lead to a mandate any more than low turnout? Providing options to make voting more flexible and gauging how that helps (or doesn’t) seems to be the best option.
With the appalling turnout rate of voters in the U.S., I think it necessary that something be done to address the lack of participation in government. While I would love to see mandatory voting implemented, and measures taken to encourage the electorate to become educated voters, I am not sure that this is the jurisdiction of any government within the U.S. Ease and flexibility of voting systems seems to be the best way to address this problem at present. The research done on the effects of changes to voting methods has concluded that voter turnout increases with ease of access. There are still a number of other factors to explore in the many ways that new systems might be implemented. While I think that most would agree that voter apathy is a concern, and likely affecting the politics of our nation, it is at its root an extremely political issue, and this options brief should be interesting to see proposed to an audience.
Response Panel
To: Amir Abbady
From: Shanice Branch, Tara Gitter, Nabila Ibrahim and Nickiesha Paisley
Voter Apathy
After reviewing the policy options brief and questioning the presenter during his presentation, the response panel has decided not to select neither early voting nor mandatory voting as the best policy option. Instead, the response panel would like to propose mail voting as an alternative policy option to increase voters participation.
Vote-by-mail systems exist in multiple forms across the fifty states. They enable the voter who prefers convenience to participate in government easily. In states where no-excuse mail voting has been implemented, voter participation is far above the national average. There are a number of small problems that have been found or are feared possibilities, but widespread implementation would necessarily drive research to resolve any complications.
Current applications have due dates for mailed ballots earlier than Election Day in order to ensure receipt and correctness of ballots. It is the responsibility of the voter to inquire of the election board that their vote has been received, validated, accepted correctly, and counted. For those states who do not do away with conventional polling locations on Election Day, there is still an opportunity to visit if tradition is preferred. Ensuring that a ballot is correctly submitted should a voter want to refrain from using a mailed ballot and like some assurances that his or her vote is counted. There is a check done to ensure that multiple submissions from a single voter are not accepted, inclusive of all submission methods.
The direct mail to all voters who opt-in, or all registered voters, is a proven method to encourage voter participation. It serves as a reminder, with little intervention in one’s day-to-day life required to partake, and allows those who choose to refrain, to do so. If it is assumed that this occurs in the context of a federal mandate, the national implementation of this program would likely still require Supreme Court intervention, and possibly a constitutional amendment, but changing how one votes is presumably less contentious than changing who votes. This is, effectively, only a small infringement on the constitutionally-ensured right of the states to choose who votes, and how.
In an effort to promote civic participation, and what could arguably be the constitutional responsibility of the government to represent its people as accurately as possible, postal voting is not the most effective way. It is, however, one way in which input, and so representation, is greatly increased, without grossly overstepping on the rights of the states. Mail is likely to face less pushback from the part of the population that would like to retain the (unestablished) right to vote, and steers away from the treacherous territory of deciding who is an eligible and capable voter.
Mail voting has a history in the U.S. stretching back to the 1800s. It has proven increases in voter participation, and has the added benefit of increasing relevance of the world’s most reliable postal system. Such a policy would certainly initiate more research on the topic, and how to improve its dependability and security. Such a method keeps in line with the Founding Fathers’ idea that America might not be best served by complete democracy. Hopefully, the invitation to vote sent in the mailbox will also serve as a reminder to fight Churchill’s fear of the average voter, and to become educated on politics and the state of the government.
The response panel have concluded that mail voting is the best policy option. Although mandatory voting would increase voters participation, it would be less controversial to implement the mail voting option. Unlike mandatory and early voting, mail voting help accommodate those who are unable to arrive in person to poll sites. It will also provide an opt-out option for those who do not wish to participate in voting. In doing so, mail voting does not infringe upon citizens’ rights. Each policy option has its challenges but it is important to implement policies that best align with our constitutional values while preserving the rights of the people.