Wishful Sinking

by Adarsh Balaji

Civic engagement undoubtedly plays a significant role in the growth of a democracy. A government by the people and for the people defines nations such as the United States at its core. However, Norman Ornstein has linked a faulty “success” to prosperity. 

The “land down under” seemingly brings ninety percent of its voters to the ballot box. Ornstein argues that civic responsibility has been instilled within each Australian citizen because they find the urge to vote for government officials. This scenario is a terrifying prospect in a land as prosperous and enhanced as the United States. Ornstein remains true when he speaks of the national conventions and the voting pandemonium that occurs between the top two candidates. One must remember though that Australia is and has been a constitutional monarchy. This consists of a monarchy and a bicameral parliament where only one aspect of government requires avid voting participation. The Australian government consists of several high ranked individuals elected into Congress to overlook the various departments. As such, it is imperative that a nation such as this puts in unregistered support to keep the government stable. In America, however, we have a solidified system of checks and balances where no one person has dominant control over the government. If we were to incorporate all the unregistered voters who do not vote due to personal preference and force them to put effort into a lost cause, we stimulate animosity within the nation. In addition, due to personal preferences the overall vote would be far more split whereas now the Republican and Democratic parties clearly exceed due to vigorous support and financial success. We would much rather have the sturdy American population voting for sound reasons instead of swing voters falling for political fodder and risking the stability of the democracy. Once again, Australia has a reigning monarchy whereas America has no fallback. This is not to say America needs a fallback because we have clearly shown our nationalism and dominance economically, fiscally, and socially. America also faces a much higher illegal immigrant crisis than does Australia or any other nation for that matter. What would we do when compulsory voting is enforced and one campaign clearly hopes to augment the status of illegal immigrants to naturalized citizens? Would that not unfairly aid that party simply because of an influx of numbers? This shows that many people in America choose not to vote simply because they are indifferent with the people in office and are more concerned with improving their own life. The government is instituted to aid that process but not to reap benefits unfairly from the hundreds of thousands who call America home. Clearly the United States has several issues to ameliorate; however, to force sovereignty is counterintuitive. One is not forced to practice religion by the book if one does not choose to, one does not have to start driving the day they are legally allowed to, one is not required to attend public school even if they pay property tax to support the school system. Simply put, America thrives on its leniency with living standards, but to tighten that grip with something as important as suffrage borders on government indecency. 

Penalty for Not Voting?

by Diana Zhao

     

As a leading role model of democracy among the nations, America is very protective towards people’s freedom and rights. Civic engagement is, with no doubt, a crucial factor in shaping the politics of the nation and spreading democracy. However, when civic engagement, in this case, voting, is forced upon citizens, and interferes with their freedom of choice, as demonstrated in Norman Ornstein’s article, The U.S. Should Require All Citizens to Vote, it might backfire and negatively affect the outcomes of election.

 Ornstein stands for mandatory attendance at the polls for registered voters and a small penalty for failure to show up unless voters write a letter of legitimate excuses, which is currently adopted by Australian voting system. But due to the differences in political structure, what works for one nation does not necessarily work for another. Who will sit in front of the mail box to read all the letters and determine the legitimacy? And who will pay for this, state government or federal government? In America, voting is an issue of state sovereignty, where states decides whether voting should take place in multiple days, or whether voting ID is required. Therefore, a set federal mandate on voting policies might incur undesirable disputes in the nation. Meanwhile, regarding voting as a civic right rather than an obligation, Americans are inculcated with the idea of protecting individual rights and mandatory voting is just unpractical in America, as Ornstein realizes himself. It’s a potential disturbance and threat to current political stability. Also, forced voting might end up with people voting for wrong reasons and casting random votes. This is not what we expect to happen. As a nation of democracy, we should encourage eligible citizens to use their rights properly to support the government.

However, I do agree with Ornstein’s proposal of voting incentives. Civic engagement in politics, in general, helps citizens know better of their government and current political situation to make the right choices. While Mega Millions lottery appeals to me on the first sight, it’s not the only solution. First, it might encourage gambling in some way by offering people lotteries as a reward for their participation in voting. Furthermore, people might be misled by the incentives and end up voting for wrong reasons.

When people register, they should not feel obligated in any way to show up and vote. Instead, the government and candidates have the responsibility to offer convenient information sessions or basic knowledge lectures to attract the voters. Incentive strategies to encourage voting could be considered, but must be used with caution.

Required Voting

Well-respected political scientist and Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein is of the mind that poor voter turnout in the United States has led to overly partisan primaries and general election candidates who don't represent the more moderated American point of view.  In a July 2012 essay at The Atlantic, he makes the argument that we should be required to vote.

What do you think of Ornstein's concerns?  Is required voting a potential solution to American partisan sniping?  Or is it a pipe-dream?