Opinion: What if everyone voted? The case for 100 percent democracy.

[JoanofArgh]

E.J. Dionne Jr. is a Post Opinions columnist. Miles Rapoport is a senior fellow at the Ash Center of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and a former Connecticut secretary of state. This essay is drawn from their book, “100% Democracy: The Case for Universal Voting,” published this week by the New Press.


The first step toward ending our voting wars is to recognize that every citizen should play a role in shaping our nation’s destiny.

In the wake of changes that made voting more convenient, and resulted in record turnout in 2020, state after state is making it harder for citizens to cast a ballot. Congress is deadlocked on whether the federal government should protect this most basic of all democratic rights. False claims of election-rigging in 2020 led to a violent attack on the very process of transferring power. As a nation, we vacillate between inclusion and exclusion, between embracing democracy or retreating.
Breaking this cycle requires a game-changer. We propose universal voting.


Under this system, every U.S. citizen would be legally obligated to vote, just as every citizen is obligated to serve on juries. By recognizing that all of us, as a matter of civic duty, have an obligation to shape our shared project of democratic self-government, we could move from our 2020 voter turnout high — some 66.8 percent of eligible voters — much closer to 100 percent democracy.

Universal voting takes seriously the Declaration of Independence’s insistence that government is legitimate only when it is based on the “consent of the governed.” The Founders did not say “some of the governed” (even 66.8 percent). Including everyone in our system of government would live up to the promise made at the birth of our republic. Universal voting would tear down barriers and elevate our civic obligations. It could undergird other reforms and make clear that our country’s commitment to democracy is unapologetic, confident and complete.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/23/universal-voting-would-end-legal-battles-over-ballot-access/


I'm 100% in favor but the GOP will fight this tooth and nail.

[ck4829]

1. A 100% turnout would be a deathblow against "voter fraud", real or imagined

The GOP says "millions of dead people vote", so wouldn't a 100% turnout demolish any power of dead people voting?

Funny that they would fight that... almost like the issue actually isn't about voter fraud at all, but about people not voting the way they want. Very suspicious.

[Wednesdays]

2. It's a pipe dream, to be sure

But I definitely could live with it.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

3. Non-voters do not have any realistic right to comment on politics or governance

Technically, free speech is free speech, but non-voters should be shamed and shut up when they complain or comment.

[JoanofArgh]

17. Agree with this so much.

[sanatanadharma]

4. There is 100% suffrage in Uruguay; voting is a legal requirement

There is 100% suffrage in Uruguay. Voting is a legal requirement.

This coming Sunday there will be an election in Uruguay; voting on a referendum to overturn some of the current government's conservative legislation.
Like the every five-year Presidential election, and all elections, voting is mandatory and those who do not vote must jusitfy their inaction or be fined.
Uruguayans are passionate about democracy, liberty, equality, legality, and fútbol.

Voting is all on paper ballots in this nation the size of Arkansas.

[JoanofArgh]

27. Thanks for the info! Love this.

[Polybius]

5. I'm 100% opposed to this

Forcing an 18 year old to vote who doesn't know anything about politics is beyond a bad idea. Probably needs to be an Amendment too, so good luck getting 2/3rd of Congress and and 3/4th of the states to agree.

[ck4829]

6. "doesn't know anything about politics" AKA someone who knows more about politics

than a person who is a regular reader of Gateway Pundit or One America News.

[Polybius]

8. I shouldn't have said 18 year old specifically

Because there are 18 year olds that care about politics, and 35 year olds who change the channel or subject when anything political comes up. Those people should not be forced to vote.

[JoanofArgh]

11. A lot of American voters know nothing about politics. It's how Trump got elected.

So you think only educated people should vote?

[Polybius]

13. Maybe I should rephase what I meant

I'm talking about people who hate politics like my dad did. He never voted nor thought about any issues that were in the news. If politics came on TV, he changed the channel. Reagan debating Carter? He'd change the channel and put on a western.

[JoanofArgh]

19. I see what you mean. You have a point.

[drmeow]

39. You can submit a blank ballot

These types of laws require you to show up to the polls - they don't make you vote for anyone.

[former9thward]

7. This would be a violation of the First amendment.

You have a freedom of speech not to vote. The government can't compel it. The analogy used is terrible. "Every citizen is obligated to serve on juries" Only a tiny percent of people ever serve on a jury. We have around 70% or so voting.

[Mariana]

14. Every citizen is not obligated to serve on juries anyway, so that premise is false.

Many people are exempt from jury duty, for various reasons.

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. No, it wouldn't

not any more than being compelled to serve in the military in the event of a draft, or being compelled to pay income tax; there are responsibilities incumbent upon citizens. Expanding those responsibilities to include voting doesn't really conflict with the First Amendment, because no-one would be telling you HOW to vote.

[former9thward]

32. The 16th Amendment authorizes income taxes.

The ability to draft is part of the rules and regulations authority that Congress has with the military -- also in the Constitution.

[BGBD]

21. When has the first amendment

Ever prevented the government from mandating a behavior?

Being legally required to vote isn't any different than being legally required to get health insurance or pay taxes.

And it wouldn't force anyone to cast a vote for someone they didn't want, they could always leave the ballot blank.

[former9thward]

31. Since 1789

That is the answer to your first question. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes taxes. The SC used that section for the ACA health insurance mandate.

[BGBD]

35. Conscrption

Selective service, federal juries, and on and on.

Plus, nothing in the first amendment stops the first things I mentioned, regardless of any other part that allowed them.

They can't put you in jail for saying yoi don't want to vote, but they could create a law to fine you if you dont.

[former9thward]

36. Well then support a politician than feels the way you do.

But don't be disappointed when they don't get too far.

[JoanofArgh]

26. They proposed a conscientious objector status.

Those with a moral objection to voting could assert conscientious-objector status, as they can for the draft. To avoid the compounding of fines and fees of the sort disproportionately imposed on low-income people of color, we propose that any fine imposed for failure to vote — no more than $20 — not be compounded with interest and penalties, nor could it be the basis for any criminal warrant. And the penalty could be waived in exchange for an hour of community service.



It's never going to happen anyway but interesting idea and it works very well in Australia.

[zipplewrath]

9. Hmmm

There are many flaws here. I do wish there were a higher level of participation. But I do worry about the frivolous voter. What'd Trump say? He loved low information voters? "Pure democracies" are usually considered to be mob rule. Think French Revolution and the Guillotines. Mostly we advocate representative democracies, at least at the state level. Our real problem is that we have a democratic republic constructed of unequal states. When it was 13 colonies, small states having some parity wasn't much of a problem. The majority still had majority control. But with so many "small" population states, the minority is in control of much of our federal government. Yes, we need to change that. 100% democracy not only is probably unachievable, but unwise.

[SKKY]

10. Although I don't think it could fly, I want to see them attempt it...

...if for no other reason than to watch the Republicans lose their shit on national TV. It would be spectacular.

[Polybius]

15. Not just Republicans

I don't see any mainstream Democrats voting for this either.

[SKKY]

23. Oh of course they would. It's pretty much a given that, as voter participation...

...rises, Democrats win. Take Kentucky for example. There are more Democrats registered than there are Republicans. Yet, Republicans control practically every position of power with the exception of the Governor and the Mayor of Louisville. And it's only because Democrats turn out less than Republicans do.

[Polybius]

25. This would take a while to construct, and would take a Constitutional Amendment to pass

I only see the fringe wing voting for this.

[former9thward]

33. No, in KY people registered as Democrats vote Republican.

It has nothing to do with turnout. There was record turnout in Virginia in Nov 2021 elections and Democrats lost the governor and other state wide positions.

[librechik]

12. Love this idea. Australia has had this policy for decades and it works!

...err.. such as it is considering the small but vocal Aussie population of (sorry to say) bigots, racists and bogans. Not everybody of course, but strong constituency.

Hey I can say this because we are in the same spot.' And my son lives there and I have made extended visits.

They manage to do the right thing a lot of the time. I love Australia; would live there permanently, if I could, for that aspect alone.

[Hortensis]

16. Australia's had it for 100 years, and it's widely supported by the people.

It's enforced for all elections, and participation has never dropped below 90%. Penalties are normally just fines but could extend to jail time.

Whatever they call "conscientious objectors," those can opt out officially.

Some 15% of democracies have compulsory voting, but seemingly it's not enforced in most.

Yes, we can do it, and I believe we should as a step to strengthening our democracy.

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/bonotti-strangio-australian-experience-of-compulsory-voting/13531720

[bahboo]

18. well at the very least...

how about making Election Day a national holiday...

[maxsolomon]

22. Universal Vote-by-Mail is a good place to start.

WA State had 84% turnout in 2020. It can't get any easier than filling it out at home and putting it in a mailbox.

Vs. 66% for nation in general.

[Iggo]

24. If everyone voted, we'd never lose.

Which is why I explain the difference between the two parties thusly, whenever anyone asks:

“Democrats want more people to vote.
Republicans want fewer people to vote.”

[Captain Stern]

28. Not a fan

First of all, legally obligating all of us to vote means there would have to be a penalty for those that didn't vote. What would it be.....a fine...prison? Seems like that would be crappy for folks that have a difficult time getting to the polls.

Secondly, I think that people that don't vote sort of are voting. Their 'nonvote' essentially means they are fine with whatever choice(s) the rest of us decide on.

[meadowlander]

29. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

I like the New Zealand version - everyone is required to register to vote but voting itself is at your discretion.

If registration was automatic as soon as everyone turned 18 or became a tax resident in a new state that would save a lot of opportunities for Republicans to pull dirty tricks and suppress the vote.

[Demsrule86]

30. Legally in a Republic such as ours, you can't force people to vote.

[MissMillie]

34. This is pretty much where I stand on this issue.

I equate anyone who actually uses this argument (to not vote) in the same light as the GQPers who are always complaining about their "freedumbs." It is ridiculous to not take advantage of the right to make your political voice heard. But I don't think ridiculousness should be make a crime.

[Raine]

37. If you don't care enough to voluntarily vote

I don't think you should be forced into it.

[Patterson]

38. It's a stupid idea.

[myccrider]

40. I support this idea...

because it would change one of the terrible dynamics in our politics: the drive to suppress voter turnout. That would mean the parties, even the GOP, would have to appeal to a majority of all of the voters instead of motivating only a minority to vote. There are potential cons to this, too, but I think the pros outweigh those.

1) It would undermine the voter fraud claims because the numbers couldn’t be manipulated by very much since everyone must vote.

2) It would strengthen calls for mail-in voting, election day holiday, etc to accommodate everyone who must vote.

3) It would change the political motivation and energy spent from trying to suppress or GOTV to explaining what a party/politician can and will do for their constituents in order to garner enough votes to win a majority of all the voters.

4) It would stop some of the voter registration idiocy, too. There’d still be bs about immigrants, but as long as there aren’t large overvotes in an election the issue would be mooted to a great extent.

5) The all-vote proposal should include convicted felons, too. I’m not sure that we shouldn’t just require those in jail vote, too. It might help a little in rehabilitating them if they are still included in contributing to society.

It doesn’t get money out of politics or prevent demagoguery from inflaming populations into supporting awful policies and other issues, but those need separate counter moves.

I realize this would be a difficult issue to get accepted (and it’s probably DOA, but…) People who don’t vote because they’re not interested at all could just mail in a blank ballot and/or there could be a box to check in each race that says something like "None of the above" or "I do not choose to participate" (for the whole ballot or similar). Giving those who are opposed to voting or just aren’t interested the easy out of "voting" for "none of the above" and mailing it in would reduce opposition from that portion of the population. The increase in voter participation in places like Washington state by just making it easier to vote indicate that another 20-30% of the population would happily vote if it was easier. I also think that if everyone knows they must start voting at 18, more people would pay attention to what they’re voting about at a younger age.

I believe in democracy and requiring every adult citizen who doesn’t have a mental limitation to vote would strengthen our democracy. YMMV.

[MineralMan]

41. I consider it highly unlikely that any sort of mandatory voting

will ever be put in place in this country. So, it's not really something to wish for, really.

Instead, we should all be working to turn out the maximum number of voters we can. We don't do a very good job with GOTV efforts, really. We could do much better for the Democratic party, but it's an unpopular activity for most people.

I'm no longer able to door knock, but I have done that for decades in the past, wherever I have lived. I've also seen how few people are willing to put out much, if any effort for GOTV. Even on DU, GOTV threads drop like rocks when posted here.

There's not going to be mandatory voting or anything close to it in the United States. There just isn't.