Voter Turnout

[Belsnickel]

With the election cycle in full swing and the general election 8 months away I figured we could talk about voter turnout. Our voter turnout in this country is notoriously low, especially for municipal, state, and midterm elections. Pretty much everything but POTUS roughly half, at least, of the country ignores. I was doing a search for what days of the week different countries hold their elections and came across this: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/15/2000621/international-voting-reforms/

Ignore that it is Think Progress, this isn't something their biases really play much of a role in. There are several things in the article that other countries have done to improve voter turnout. Automatic registration, election day registration, weekend voting, even compulsory voting. So take a look at the article and tell us, what do you think may work here? Any other ideas not on the list? What should we do in an attempt to make this a serious topic of conversation?

I think the problem that I am seeing is that politicians, while pushing the whole "get out and vote" idea, don't do much else to promote increased voter turnout.

[WeezyBengal]

If its Hillary vs. Trump I can see voter turnout being at an all time low. A lot of apathetic people (including me) will be voting, or not voting, in that election.

[Rotobeast]

If the Census was deemed mandatory, I don't see why voting can't be.
Make it a longer process by snail-mail and internet voting.
I'm even in favor of eliminating a large portion of congress if this were feasible.
We could vote on each issue, with no pork.

[Benton]

Online voting would be a big one here. But I don't want to go that route. You can verify IDs by social security numbers, sure, but it's just too easy to cheat.

Weekend voting would be good. Sure, employers have to give you time, but many Americans work more than one job. So it gets into which employer has to give you that extra time off.

This may be a state-by-state issue, but here a lot of people are turned off by the polling centers (most of them are in churches). It's convenient since the buildings are large and not in use — and there's about 1 church for every 900 people — but not everybody feels comfortable going into a Christian church to cast a ballot.

The biggest thing, though, would be to open it up to more parties. A lot of people don't vote because they don't feel represented by any candidate running, let alone a party. If you're hungry and somebody presents option A- free patio furniture or option B- discounts on new carpet, you aren't interested in what they're selling.

Get the vote up, give people candidates who reflect what they are. The segment of the population that can relate to any of this year's presidential candidates is incredibly small.

[Belsnickel]

Out of the options in the article, I am a fan of automatic registration using tax information. Seems like a reasonable enough thing to me. Combined with a law allowing a free photo identification card to be issued would help to remove barriers to voting that exist for many people. Changing the day makes sense to me most of all. Move it to a Monday or Friday, make it a federal holiday, and bam, three day weekend for voting. Unless there is a special election required, elections for all levels should be on the same day.

I like the idea of online voting, but I'm not sure I trust the idea of it, even if they haven't had problems somewhere else with it.

[XenoMorph]

(03-01-2016, 03:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Out of the options in the article, I am a fan of automatic registration using tax information. Seems like a reasonable enough thing to me. Combined with a law allowing a free photo identification card to be issued would help to remove barriers to voting that exist for many people. Changing the day makes sense to me most of all. Move it to a Monday or Friday, make it a federal holiday, and bam, three day weekend for voting. Unless there is a special election required, elections for all levels should be on the same day.

I like the idea of online voting, but I'm not sure I trust the idea of it, even if they haven't had problems somewhere else with it.

online voting would mean the team with the best hackers wins every time. No thanks

if people cant vote thru the normal voting channels absentee, early ballots or bother to show up its on them

[Vas Deferens]

(03-01-2016, 04:02 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: online voting would mean the team with the best hackers wins every time.  No thanks

if people cant vote thru the normal voting channels  absentee, early ballots or bother to show up its on them

The way it stands Diebold wins every time.  

[fredtoast]

(03-01-2016, 03:27 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: If the Census was deemed mandatory,  I don't see why voting can't be.
Make it a longer process by snail-mail and internet voting.
I'm even in favor of eliminating a large portion of congress if this were feasible.
We could vote on each issue, with no pork.

There is no way in hell we have the time to research and understand all of the proposed laws.

[fredtoast]

Use a singing competition to select the next president.

EVERYBODY votes in those.

[fredtoast]

(03-01-2016, 03:28 PM)Benton Wrote: The biggest thing, though, would be to open it up to more parties. A lot of people don't vote because they don't feel represented by any candidate running, let alone a party. If you're hungry and somebody presents option A- free patio furniture or option B- discounts on new carpet, you aren't interested in what they're selling.

This x 1000.  But the two big parties have a stranglehold on the system and there will be no viable third parties until the rules are changed.

1.  Publicly funded elections would help alternate parties because they would have the same resources as the big two.  There would have to be some minimal level of support to keep the crazies off the ballot, but we could still have a wide range of choices for each position.

2.  Having more Representatives run "at-large" and letting more than the first place finisher in.  For example each State would have at least 3 at-large representatives.  There would be an election with a lot of different candidates and the top 3 finishers go to congress.  I think this would do a lot for voter turnout because too many people don't vote because they live in a district where they already know which party is gong to win.

3.  Even if no third party ever controls a major portion of Congress it might make it possible for these small parties supply a crucial "swing vote" that could get Congress working again.  Right now it is frozen in partisan gridlock.  And I am not saying that "more laws" is always a good thing.  I am just saying that this country has some serious issues that need to be addressed and our federal government is failing us all.

[Rotobeast]

(03-01-2016, 04:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no way in hell we have the time to research and understand all of the proposed laws.

While still time consuming the information would be provided by an independent council, free from lobbyists. 
I'd wager we'd get more done than the current gridlocked process, even if we only voted on 5 issues/month.

[Benton]

(03-01-2016, 05:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This x 1000.  But the two big parties have a stranglehold on the system and there will be no viable third parties until the rules are changed.

1.  Publicly funded elections would help alternate parties because they would have the same resources as the big two.  There would have to be some minimal level of support to keep the crazies off the ballot, but we could still have a wide range of choices for each position.

2.  Having more Representatives run "at-large" and letting more than the first place finisher in.  For example each State would have at least 3 at-large representatives.  There would be an election with a lot of different candidates and the top 3 finishers go to congress.  I think this would do a lot for voter turnout because too many people don't vote because they live in a district where they already know which party is gong to win.

3.  Even if no third party ever controls a major portion of Congress it might make it possible for these small parties supply a crucial "swing vote" that could get Congress working again.  Right now it is frozen in partisan gridlock.  And I am not saying that "more laws" is always a good thing.  I am just saying that this country has some serious issues that need to be addressed and our federal government is failing us all.

The numbers may be off a few million or a couple percent, but we have somewhere around 65% of eligible voters who don't. Somewhere around 90 million people. It's absurd to think 90 million people — or even more if you lump in everyone who voted for one of the two parties — are going to be well represented by one of two people. Put 45 million people in a room with that one candidate (figuratively speaking) and he's not going to be able to identify half their concerns.

But, spot on with the third point, I think that's one of the major reasons congress isn't working right now. That was part of the reason the GOP was so upset about the small block of Tea Party candidates a few years ago. They need those seats to do or not do anything. They aren't worried about fixing anything, just having enough seats to keep manipulating the system and stay in office.

[JustWinBaby]

(03-01-2016, 03:26 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: If its Hillary vs. Trump I can see voter turnout being at an all time low.

That seems logical.  But Repub primaries are crushing record turnout numbers.  Even if you postulate independents and Dems are turning out to support or vote against Trump, it's still record numbers.

But I think you are correct....many people not voting for Trump aren't going to vote for him in the general, and that's something north of 30% of primary voters even assuming some WILL vote Repub even if it is Trump.

[Vlad]

(03-01-2016, 04:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no way in hell we have the time to research and understand all of the proposed laws.

But dont you have to pass the bill before you find out whats in it?

[EatonFan]

Why would we want more voter turnout if those voters do not care about the process which they obviously do not or they would vote now? We want MORE uninformed voters voting?

[Belsnickel]

(03-02-2016, 05:05 AM)EatonFan Wrote: Why would we want more voter turnout if those voters do not care about the process which they obviously do not or they would vote now? We want MORE uninformed voters voting?

Even the ignorant have a voice. I mean, those that vote now are uninformed a lot of the time. We can only work to fix on problem at a time.

[fredtoast]

(03-02-2016, 05:05 AM)EatonFan Wrote: Why would we want more voter turnout if those voters do not care about the process which they obviously do not or they would vote now?  We want MORE uninformed voters voting?

I know people who are informed, but don't vote because "it doesn't matter".  Republicans win all local elections here, so you have to vote in the republican primary to have a voice in who wins.  

And in the Presidential races I know people who don't vote because they don't like either option.

Voter apathy is not all due to ignorance.

[*michaelsean*]

It seems the majority of people not voting are choosing not to. That's their right, and I don't feel anything needs to be done about it. There are lots of rights people choose not to exercise.

[Belsnickel]

(03-02-2016, 04:51 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It seems the majority of people not voting are choosing not to. That's their right, and I don't feel anything needs to be done about it. There are lots of rights people choose not to exercise.

I can see that attitude, but to me there are things that make voting more difficult than it ought to be. I have to use vacation time to vote if I want to actually eat dinner at a reasonable time when it comes to major elections, for instance.

I know there are a lot of people that don't vote because they don't want to, which is fine. Often it's because of being disillusioned with the current political climate. Politikverdrossenheit, if you will. But that won't stop me from trying to promote change. Making it easier to vote is a good thing because voting should be the most accessible thing a citizen can do. Making voting easier is just one among many things that we should be looking at to make this a country of the people once again.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-02-2016, 05:02 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I can see that attitude, but to me there are things that make voting more difficult than it ought to be. I have to use vacation time to vote if I want to actually eat dinner at a reasonable time when it comes to major elections, for instance.

I know there are a lot of people that don't vote because they don't want to, which is fine. Often it's because of being disillusioned with the current political climate. Politikverdrossenheit, if you will. But that won't stop me from trying to promote change. Making it easier to vote is a good thing because voting should be the most accessible thing a citizen can do. Making voting easier is just one among many things that we should be looking at to make this a country of the people once again.

For the people who don't vote because they can't make it work, I get that.  I think we've gone a long way in that you can vote for like a month leading up and anyone can vote by mail.  You don't have to be an absentee voter anymore.