Freelance Propaganda

Neglected but not forgotten -

Neglected but not forgotten -

So somebody is paying attention. Doug wrote a response to my comments on American elections that made some good points but, as to be expected from a man with a Rotweiller called Freedom he jumped off the deep end on compulsory voting :)

I admit it - compulsory voting is not very likely in the States in the forseeable future - so I think I might drop it. I'd hate to think of all those people exercising their 2nd amendment rights to blow away the ballet box. "Vote this, steeeking yankee muthafucka".

On the question of linking a politican with the percentage of people that voted in her electorate Doug had this to say:

... Term limits seem to keep politicians accountable to the electorate and it helps stop monarchal rule. Linking the term to the percentage of vote insulates politicians from any changes in the electorate. Linking pay to voter turnout is also a bad idea, why punish elected representatives in a tight race? The last thing we need is to create a system that punishes politicians who work hard to get elected in highly contested districts. Finally I don't think that these ideas would get the vote out. They do not increase the incentives for people to vote. They increase the incentives for politicians to mobilize interested voters and or increase voter fraud. Politicians have enough incentive to get the vote out, we call it being elected.

In reverse then. No - obviously politicians do not have enough incentive to get the vote out. That is why we are having this discussion.

Yes - voter fraud would be a possibility but manageable. Certainly much of voter fraud, that which doesn't use dead people, relies on casting a vote on behalf of an eligible non-voter. More voting - less targets for voting fraud. Obviously Politicians would mobilize those that will vote for them - that is the self-interest that we are relying on to get the percentage up. Hopefully all political groups will mobilize their 'natural' supporters and eventually voting will become a habit.

Highly contested districts would not be punished - wouldn't highly contested districts would have a higher aggregate percentage of voters . In fact linking something to "percentage of constituents that voted" would punish those in easy seats which traditionally have the lowest voting percentages.

I did think about term limits - there would also be chaos in having staggered elections. Perhaps, then, voting power of individual representatives could be adjusted on a ratio basis. The underlying theory here is that politicians from electorates where more people vote have more legitimacy. So representatives from high-voting districts could have a higher number of votes to cast in a congressional vote on a motion than representatives from a low-voting electorate. Hmmm.

Anyway - good to know that others agree that Tuesday is a dopey day for an election. A little Googling reveals this FAQ from a State.gov site.

Why Tuesday? Since most residents of rural America had to travel a significant distance to the county seat in order to vote, Monday was not considered reasonable since many people would need to begin travel on Sunday. This would, of course, have conflicted with church services and Sunday worship.

Because clearly the question was Why Not Monday? Shit. What's wrong with Saturday - load up the wagon Friday, Vote Saturday, be back in time to ask forgiveness for voting for that bloke. Easy.

There is an interesting FAQ there too:

Q: Why do so few people vote? Is there no penalty for not voting, like in Australia?

A: Several factors seem to influence voter turnout. Many observers believe that current registration laws hinder voter turnout. Demographic composition of the electorate, long periods of political or economic stability, predictable outcomes in many races, and lack of some candidates' appeal are other factors determining voter turnout. Turnout tends to be higher in general elections than in primary elections.

Although seriously discussed, compulsory voting has never been enacted into law in the United States. Regard for the vote as a right and a privilege rather than a duty might have its foundation in the Constitutional establishment of a group of "electors" who were designated within the states for the single, specific purpose of choosing a president. (U.S. Constitution, Article 2, section 1.) Although the franchise now extends to almost every citizen 18 years or older, in the beginning of the Republic, the right to vote was limited to adult males who either owned property or paid taxes.

There you go - very sensible historical reasoning. Electors were property-owning church-going farmers and voting wasn't a duty because not all could do it.

Well now that tuesday no longer suits a universal electorate is it not time to do as they did way back then and make the election laws suit today's population?

Posted by james at December 27, 2002 04:50 PM