The time has come to make you vote

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Word is that Sean Parker, the 34-year-old Web visionary who built Napster and then helped grow Facebook, is the latest billionaire with an idea to save the political system, or at least a lot of money in search of an idea to save the political system. Parker and other investors are said to be planning a startup aimed at organizing disaffected voters. They've hired some well-connected Washington consultants, because that's what you do when you really want to stick it to the status quo.

This isn't new space, exactly. A few years ago, some moderate operatives in both parties got together and started something called "No Labels," which sends a lot of admonishing petitions to Congress about partisanship and which has the backing of politicians who like to expound on the ugliness of our politics but don't actually want to do anything too controversial.

The truth is that incivility is more a symptom than a sickness; the root cause of our problem is the antiquated system by which we choose our leaders. And if Parker and his high-tech friends really want to "disrupt" our political stalemate in the way they disrupted record labels, then they should consider something more drastic than urging people to get involved. Maybe it's time we coerced them.

Let's first consider the situation in which we find ourselves. Once again this year, the two parties that dominate our politics will conduct parallel campaigns aimed at two distinct subsets of Americans, rather than engaging in any actual debate. One side will scream about liberal overreach and the other will scream about conservative greed and bigotry, and whoever arouses the most passion in their most reliable voters (generally the party out of power at the moment) will probably win.

It wasn't like this when we were a nation that joined and trusted institutions, including political parties. But now that fewer and fewer Americans feel compelled to support their local parties or even register as affiliated, primaries are dominated by an ever dwindling number of hardcore activists, and they're deciding options for the rest of us. And since more than half of voting-age Americans will find those options so uninspiring that they would rather stay home than vote this November, the vast majority of time and money on both sides will be focused on motivating voters who already agree with them.

There are some promising reform ideas out there. Californians have had some success with nonpartisan elections, which bypass the traditional primary system. There's a lot of talk about curtailing all the outside money flowing into campaigns, too – though the Supreme Court is unlikely to cooperate. Taking the responsibility for redistricting away from politicians is a no-brainer for everyone but the parties themselves, which continue to resist it.

But I recently heard a more radical argument from my friend Jonathan Cowan, who runs Third Way, the centrist Democratic think tank. Cowan has been kicking around the idea of compulsory voting – or, in other words, a government mandate just like the one that now forces you to buy health care insurance, except it would require everybody to vote.

I first heard a version of this argument back in 2008, when I gave a series of talks in Australia. The Australians have compulsory voting and they're quite proud of themselves for it, and some of their politicians had fun engaging me in a spirited debate about whose democracy was really more of a model for the world, since they could boast 100 percent voter participation in every election.

The concept struck me then as essentially un-American. After all, as I argued to my Australian friends, part of being a free country is having the freedom to abstain. And anyway, as I rudely pointed out, a country whose Parliament can technically be dissolved by the British queen can hardly go around calling itself a democracy, much less a perfect one.

But Cowan makes a compelling case that compulsory voting in federal elections would actually be the most elegant way to revitalize our democracy overnight, without having to chase a series of piecemeal reforms in dozens of legislatures. Think about it: If voter participation suddenly went from, say, 40 percent in an off-year election to 95 percent (assuming there will always be some slackers and protesters who defy the law and risk the penalty), then the modern industry of voter turnout operations would magically go away.

No more arcane microtargeting and database wizardry. No more overwrought direct mail playing to the most irrational fears of gun owners or xenophobes. No more "base elections" where the only message is that the other guy is a Satan worshipper who will call forth the horsemen of the apocalypse if you let him win.

http://news.yahoo.com/the-time-has-come-to-make-you-vote-090339596.html

[mota bhai 2,675]

The decision to not vote needs to be seen as a decision as well. It's a decision that the individual voter has deemed the process unworthy of his/her attention.

Instead of telling the voter that you must pay attention to them even though they suck, how about reversing it? Tell the candidates that merely getting the most votes is not enough. You must also get a quorum! If participation is less than 60% of registered voters, we do it again. And you, the candidates, get to keep paying for it every time. It's up to you, the candidates, to gin up enthusiasm and motivate people to the polls.

Give us, the voters, a reason to vote.

Also - there's the little issue of eligible voters who don't register. To tackle that, I'd say tie attaining a goal in that metric to continued federal funding. That will get state/local attention fast.

[Karee 4,190]

Interesting. I can see both sides being against it because it seems to threaten them both in different ways. And really the politicians are what's important, not the voters.

[Karee 4,190]

The decision to not vote needs to be seen as a decision as well. It's a decision that the individual voter has deemed the process unworthy of his/her attention.

Instead of telling the voter that you must pay attention to them even though they suck, how about reversing it? Tell the candidates that merely getting the most votes is not enough. You must also get a quorum! If participation is less than 60% of registered voters, we do it again. And you, the candidates, get to keep paying for it every time. It's up to you, the candidates, to gin up enthusiasm and motivate people to the polls.

Give us, the voters, a reason to vote.

Also - there's the little issue of eligible voters who don't register. To tackle that, I'd say tie attaining a goal in that metric to continued federal funding. That will get state/local attention fast.

I think that's how they do it in Thailand. If a certain percentage of voters don't vote in a constituency, then the vote is ruled invalid. So in the recent elections, the opposition made it impossible for people to vote in places. Since the required percentage did not vote, the entire election is declared invalid. There's some other things in the mix, but I think that's the jist of it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Australians have compulsory voting and they're quite proud of themselves for it, and some of their politicians had fun engaging me in a spirited debate about whose democracy was really more of a model for the world, since they could boast 100 percent voter participation in every election.

Only 100%? Pffft. They're doing it wrong. Putin gets better than 140% turnout.

[mota bhai 2,675]

I think that's how they do it in Thailand. If a certain percentage of voters don't vote in a constituency, then the vote is ruled invalid. So in the recent elections, the opposition made it impossible for people to vote in places. Since the required percentage did not vote, the entire election is declared invalid. There's some other things in the mix, but I think that's the jist of it.

Well, damn.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I am all for a test to qualifier voters. It could be as simple as asking them to name any elected official, past or present, anywhere in the world, real, or played on TV. The actor's name would be good enough. Give them five guesses. If they fail, send them back to the end of the line.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Just wanted to let everyone know I vote every election. I love how my vote is worth more because so many don't vote.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I am old. I am a registered Democrat. And I vote.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I am old. I am a registered Democrat. And I vote.

Yup. Even long after you're gone.