Should voting be required in the US?

But do you really want people to vote on issues/propositions that they haven't given any thought to? I guess you could assume that those people would be evenly distributed between pro and con, but I suspect they'll just vote for or against based upon the flashiest commercial.

i'm a firm believer that an uninformed vote is worse than no vote at all.

Unless you vote, you should lose the right to bitch about government.

I dont want candidates standing in a church podium, receiving federal matching money and extolling the reason to vote for him/her. Its a conflict of interest and hypocritical. All people though should vote or not bitch when it doesnt turn out right in their way of thinking. These guys and girls do give up a lot when they decide to run for whatever and no one is ever happy.

Failure to vote apathy is a big problem. When they do vote in huge numbers though Revere within a year or so the candidate who won generally is being vilified by the other side. Much to the detriment of the country.

On voting by "low information" voters: what do you suggest? We give people a current events test before they vote? It is far from clear that people who vote are better informed (or more accurately informed) than those who don't. An empirical question, of course, but pertinent. If I am right, though, voting measures preference, not information. There seems little way around this.

Just fine people $20 for not voting, like in Australia.

I came across a book once that actually went and spoke to non-voters to find out why they were non-voters, and found various categories of non-voters. I can't remember the specifics, but the gist was that the stereotype of a non-voter being ignorant or lazy were not true in the majority of cases. In particular, some didn't vote because of disillusionment with politicians. Those people would vote if there were a candidate that they really believed in.

I think the first steps in increasing voter turnout would be making election days national holidays (or voting on weekends), and having the polls be open for 24 hours, so that workers could have more opportunities to vote before and after work. At the very least, if there aren't already, there need to be rules that employers can't penalize employees for leaving work to vote, as there are rules that they can't penalize them for having jury duty. (I seem to remember there are such rules, but I have my doubts about them being enforced, particularly with lower-paid and hourly work.)

As an added aspect, if voting is mandatory, it also needs to be easier to vote absentee. In my state, you can vote absentee if you're a student out of state, or in the hospital, or various other things, but you have to fit into their proscribed categories. I know a woman in Australia, for example, who's disabled with a chronic illness and lives in a rural area. Getting to the polls is a hardship for her, as they're far away, but neither can she really afford the fine that comes with not voting.

All that said, mandatory voting would be better than all the attempts at vote suppression currently going on under the guise of stamping out (largely imaginary) voter fraud.

I live in a country (Australia) that has compulsory voting for State and Federal elections.

I regard voting as an obligation, not a right. We live in a democracy rule by the people if people dont vote, you dont have a democracy.

The argument about requiring uninformed people to vote, presumes that the reason that they are not voting now is because they are uninformed. I doubt that that is the case. I suspect that the reason large numbers of people in the USA dont vote is because they feel disenfranchised and believe that, regardless of whether or not they vote and regardless of who wins the election, nothing will change for them. If this is correct, then it is of course self-fulfilling belief.

Americans believe that they live in a great democracy because that is what they are told from a very early age. Americans believe that their country promotes and defends democracy in the world because that is what they are told from a very early age.

The actions of US governments, Democrat or Republican, however suggest that the promotion or defence of democracy is rarely a major consideration when formulating US foreign policy. US governments will support any foreign government as long as there is an advantage to be gained by the USA. It doesnt matter what these foreign governments are like: democracy or a dictatorship, harsh and brutal or relatively benign. US foreign policy is always focussed on the immediate benefit to the USA; the short-term gain. When this short-term gain passes, you are left with the long-term problem.

So how do you solve these long-term problems? Well you promote and defend democracy! Yeah, right.

So is the USA a great democracy? Well it doesnt act like one and, given that a large proportion of your population cant even be bother to vote, suggests that they dont think so either.

Pardon me while I laugh my head off.

Should we require people to vote? How can you possibly think about that when the current trend is to try to discourage people from voting? For example, in my home state (Georgia) there is a law requiring an official form of photo ID. The driver's license is the most common one, of course. But my elderly father in law does not drive and has no other form of ID. How will he vote? He will not, because he probably isn't aware of the requirement. There are others who have no ID and perhaps are unaware of the need or unable to get the officially-accepted forms, or perhaps can do so only with great difficulty. If they try to vote, they will be turned away. There is no doubt in my mind that this law is directed at the poorer citizens and specifically at blacks because they are the least likely to have the accepted forms of ID and to have heard about the law, and they are considered the most likely to vote Democratic. Do I need to say that this law was passed by a Republican-majority legislature and signed by a Republican governor? State officials have said that they know of not one case of voter ID fraud that took place at an official polling station. Any fraud invariably involves absentee ballots. But the law is aimed at in-person voting, not absentee voting.

Oh well. In the general election my father in law will almost certainly not vote for my preference.

When a person votes for a candidate, they're doing the equivalent of saying, "I want this person to be in that office. I support their goals and I want to be on record as saying so. I give that person my endorsement. I expect to vigilantly do whatever they tell me my duty as a citizen must be."

Don't agree? Then don't be heard mouthing that juvenile mumble, "You voted for him, it's your fault."

Ditto to Kieran's comments. I'm an expat Canuck living in Oz, and I must say that the compulsory voting makes alot of sense to me now. Some seats in Parliament are won by the slenderest margin of votes, so the illusion that each vote doesn't matter is very obvious on occassion.

At least in the US of A you are voting for choosing the leader, in principle anyways. Here the backroom boys and political party factions elect the party leader, and then we get to confirm or deny their choice at an election by electing the party. Different system with strengths and weaknesses.

But it is more directly democratic by all the people IMO compared to the state by state rules for winning delegates (some proportional, some winner take all), not to mention the electoral college system which, like the rules of cricket, still has me scratching my head.

I'm not voting today because I have no real preference between the two candidates (Obama and Clinton).

If others don't vote because (for whatever reason) they also don't have a real preference, what is lost by their not voting?

It is true that those who don't vote in general elections are a non-random sample; but it may also be true that those who don't vote in the aggregate have no preference.

This would be more likely to be true if barriers to voting were lower. Thus, it would probably be better to proceed by lowering those barriers - i.e. permit as of right absentee voting and make election day a holiday or have elections on weekends. Once these reforms take effect, it is increasingly likely that those who don't vote have no preference.

I'm in Australia and support mandatory voting as we have. The key reason is that it removes the possibility of disenfranchising voters as described by Mark P above. If people are required by law to vote then there is an obligation to make sure they have an opportunity to vote. It helps if you have a federal, independent authority running elections instead of partisan officials at local level as well.
I also think that having some sort of preferential voting, and proportional representation helps to give voters a genuine choice. A completely proportional system can be criticised for leading to instability, but we have a compromise - one house with members elected from single member electorates, and one consisting of members elected by proportional representation from the states.

In my mind, the logic around "does my vote make a difference?" is pretty much the same as "does vaccinating my child make a difference?" -- both are about the responsibility of an individual to contribute to a herd effect that is necessary for the greater social welfare.

Just as with the jury system, we need people to vote to make the system work.

No - we need people to vote well.

Furthermore, making voting mandatory is like forcing schoolchildren to undergo religious indoctrination: it's a remarkably effective way to get people to reject it. If voting were really effective, why would we need to force people to do it? Ergo, if we force people to do it, it must not be worth their time and effort.

And so it is not.

I like the Australian way. Don't want to vote? No problem, $20.00 please. And I would disagree with Mr. R., I can think of several elections where a tiny number of votes made all the difference. Most were local but the one in Washington state last election was not. Gregoire won by 129 votes. And we all remember the Gore/Bush fiasco.

You folks amuse me. Voting 'well' and voting 'informed'
is smoke and mirrors for saying 'the way I vote.'

I vote all the time too, and I just know you are all happy to hear that, but what really gets me going to vote is when I hear that the Dems in my district are riding around 'getting out the vote'. I need to counteract that the only way I know how!

Constitution speaks to voting as a right and left to the individual state legislatures to regulate. It wasn't until the 15th Amendment that the Constitution 'limited' what the states couldn't do in regards to citizens right to vote. Interestingly it is phrased " The right of citizens of the United States to vote..", while the 2nd Amendment says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." Oh its pretty much the same isn't it? (I just had to go there). Anyway, revere what is interesting is if a state could make voting mandatory, I don't think the Federal government could unless the Constitution was amended. Any legal scholars out there??

A further note on Australia - actually you don't have to vote, you just have to turn up at a polling place. You're free to just put a blank ballot paper into the box if you're really set on not voting.
Also, this is just for Federal Elections (approx. every 3 years) and state elections (every 4 years). At each of these you have 2 ballots, one for each house of parliament. Occasionally there's a referendum question as well.
Elections are always held on Saturdays, people who work on Saturdays can vote earlier at specified prepolling places, or by postal vote.
So the mandatory requirements are not very onerous.

I do not mind compulsory voting, but would like the option of registering my dissatisfaction with the construction of our political system.

I would prefer a political system that (like in Italy or Israel) encouraged multiple parties. No party has ever represented more than about 55% of my preferences on major policy positions.

So there should be a compulsory vote, with an "I don't like this political system, or any of the offered candidates" box to tick, and sure, a $20 fine for not attending to vote.

Mark P. Yep and we passed the same laws here in Tennessee to prevent people from voting that were not legally qualified to do so. That was passed by a Democrat Legislature and signed into law by the Republican governor.

Know what happened in the next election? The Republicans were swept into power with huge majorities of votes because well seems that when they did show up to vote, they voted provisionally (hand ballot). They did that rather than the machines which recorded the votes immediately. They took the ballots downtown to match them up with the voter registration records and only get this 2% were registered to vote in either the precint, county. 45% were not even registered in the state. A quick check in Miss, Arkansas and Alabama turned up loads of the same names.

I wouldnt go too far with that Republican thing being the reason for voter registrations being skewed Mark P. You'll be happy to know that we are registering ethnics at an all time rate here and it is done properly. They didnt do that in California in the Gray Davis election. Clintonites registered some 3 million illegals to vote thus giving them the keys to the city and the welfare system. They voted for Gray, they availed themselves of the hugely beneficial welfare system and the state went broke within 2 years. So we got Clinton for his second term and they recalled Gray D. Too bad really, he wasnt even for a Dem a half bad governor. Only governor ever recalled in the States history if I understand it right.

It does go back to what I said on other parts of the blog though. ALL elections are states elections using federal guidelines. There is NO disenfranchisement of anyone IF they follow the rules and no one tries to play funny with the system. And really down here they pay people 20 bucks for lunch to go and vote in the Democrat party. They'll even pick you up to go and vote in a bus. But times are changing, Hillary wept a big tear tonight for sure and I say run Obombme run. I hope that if he is nominated that he isnt stupid enough to pick her as VP. He would likely have an unfortunate accident. He might have one if he is elected. I fear that greatly.

I didn't read the other comments (but I will later on). But my answer?

NO. Terrible idea.

The right to vote is based upon the idea that a well-informed citizenry is the only way to control the government (by the people, for the people?).

It is your civic duty to be a well-informed citizen and vote. But if you cannot or do not fulfill the first half -- being well-informed -- by casting an ignorant vote you are doing nothing but hurting America. You don't deserve to cast a vote if you aren't willing to at least read about the candidates and where they stand on the issues. To require people to vote means that people who are truly apathetic about their country and wouldn't care to vote otherwise will go into a booth and vote for Joe Sh*t the Rag Man, for all he cares. It's just to make sure he doesn't get slapped with a fine, right?

Except multiply that one "don't care" vote by a couple thousand, and you get another Bush vs. Gore.

That seems so common sense to me -- you're only in a position to make a decision after reviewing every possible consequence of that decision -- but common sense, unfortunately, isn't so common.

I'm from Oz too.

A case for compulsory voting is that "selection bias" is less likely to be operating. In a voluntary system, special interest groups that are able to highly motivate their constituents to vote can become over-representated and speak with a more powerful political voice than the 'silent majority' ie. influence of evangelical voters as one example.

But if you think the purpose of voting is not "to make a difference" but to accurately gauge the preferences of the population, then voting should be required.

It may be sufficient to take a sample of just 40-60% of the population, such as we see in typical U.S. presidential voter turnouts to get a fairly representative gauge of the preferences of the electorate. Given that it may be likely that those who do not vote are more likely not to have any preferences, forcing them to vote might just add noise to the process.

The other way of looking at it is if many of those who do not vote do it because they have no preference, than in a sense this IS their vote: a vote of no preference. (though of course there are those who don't vote because of beliefs about individual efficacy, laziness, difficulty in voting, etc.)

Please keep in mind that for compulsory voting the obligation is simply to turn up to the voting booth. You don't have to vote. I don't vote in local elections (I'm in Australia, too) - I don't know the issues, don't care, so I donkey vote (line through the ballot paper).

Second, what the hell makes you think the people voting in the US are the informed ones? Why would they be more informed? Everyone I know - no matter how ignorant of the issues - has an opinion about which party they like, which they loathe, and when you have voluntary voting you simply get the most motivated voters turning up, not the most informed. When voting is voluntary, elections focus more on convincing the people who were going to vote for you anyway to actually get up and vote, rather than convincing fence-sitters to come over to your side. Emotion becomes a lot more important.

That's the flaw, and it poisons the whole system.

Further, as mentioned above, preference voting is absolutely critical. You could bypass this whole primary process. Simply put all the candidates on the same ballot, and you mark them in order. So one Democrat might put:

1. Obama
2. Clinton
3. That other guy

Another democrat could reverse that. If their first preference doesn't get in, their vote goes to the second. There you are - the election and the primary done in one easy step.

...but it goes further and allows some nuance. Love Obama but loathe Clinton? Vote 1. Obama and nothing else. Or 1. Obama, 2. Huckabee, if you like the cut of his jib. Or *gasp* vote for a third party candidate first, then your "has an chancer" - because maybe everyone else wants that other, too, and it will at least put a scare into your chancer if he sees how many votes went to the third party guy.

Consider 2000. People voting for Nader lost Gore the election. But if you could put 1. Nader, 2. Gore you wouldn't waste your vote. Once the initial votes are counted and Nader has no chance, your vote goes to your second choice. No wasted votes.

That's the single biggest issue in US politics, IMO - lack of real choice. You can't vote for the weird amazing guy you want to vote for or the new party that actually represents you, because you have to worry that no-one else will, either. You're stuck with two options, neither of which may represent your views. You have to guess how everyone else is going to vote before you vote yourself. You shouldn't need to do that. You should be able to vote for anyone you want without wasting the vote - because maybe everyone wanted to vote for Nader in 2000, 100% of the population on both sides, but no-one did because no-one thought he had a chance (not likely, but you see where I'm coming from) - and because people didn't think he had a chance, he didn't.

In the end, you're voting *against* the main opposing candidate more than you're voting *for* your own.

American democracy is OLD. The world has moved on. Fix the system.

One argument in favor of compulsory voting not mentioned above is that the large percentage of eligible Americans who "opt out" by not voting make it possible for small, determined bands of zealots & professionals to capture the entire system and hold it in its current queasy stasis. Because nobody has to commit themselves to a political choice -- and therefore nobody has to inform themselves as to what such choices might entail -- we are trapped in the current deeply unsatisfactory two-party, electoral-college, winner-take-all and devil-take-the-hindmost system. This jerry-built and jury-rigged chimera satisfies nobody outside the small circle of professionals and wannabe-professionals who have dedicated themselves to ensuring that "Their Gang" gets to make all the real political choices, whatever the remaining 96% of the voting-eligible population may think of being restricted to a choice between, for instance, George W. Bush and John F. Kerry. The theory is that requiring Americans to state their preferences every November would awaken some shadow of the competitive instincts that lead so many citizens to voluntarily vote for their favorite American Idol (even though they have to *pay* for the privilege!), or to mount petitions for and against everything from a traffic light in front of the local elementary school to "protesting hunger in Africa" (as though hunger had its own constituency). Too many Americans think of Politics as a sort of natural force, like the weather in New England, which can be cheered or complained about but which is not actually subject to human intervention.

I'm surprised that the two biggest issues hasn't come up yet.

The first is the electoral college. In a presidential election, it is simply useless to vote in Washington, DC, because its electors will vote Democratic anyway. It is likewise useless to vote in Utah, because its electors will vote Republican anyway. Except in the swing states, your vote really does not make the slightest difference -- so lots of people in sure states don't bother voting, and I really can't blame them. Abolish the electoral college already!

Now, I understand the idea behind the electoral college: that the states should elect the president of the United States. Fine, but the electoral college has outlived its mere feasibility. In 2000 and 2004, there were websites where Greens and Democrats exchanged their votes: Greens in swing states promised to vote Democratic to avoid having the state go Republican, and Democrats in sure states promised to vote Green so the Greens got the same national total of votes as they would have otherwise. There must not be a way to stop such a practice because the vote must stay secret, so you might just as well abolish the electoral college altogether.

The second is the two-party system: when people think they don't have a real choice, they don't bother voting. I know that it doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that "there shall be two serious Parties, plus a few others just for Show", but nevertheless the two-party system follows straight from the Constitution. That's because, practically unique among democracies, you don't have a separation between president and government. Elsewhere, the government depends on the parliament; when the parliament doesn't like it any longer, the government is toast. In the USA, the president is the head of government, and when Congress doesn't like the Administration, nothing happens -- literally nothing, because the country is blocked. Erm. Sorry for the digression. Elections for a person always turn into a one-on-one fight, and that means that at most two candidates will ever have a real chance. Each of those two candidates accumulates a party behind themself, and that means there will only be two parties that will ever have a real chance to be elected. Elsewhere, to get a new government, what is elected is the parliament. In a parliament there's ample room for more than two parties. Because this can mean that no single party has a majority in parliament -- and without a majority in parliament, the government is sooner or later toast --, coalition governments become possible, which means that your vote is usually not wasted if you vote for a party that is 3rd or even 4th in all polls, and that means higher turnout.

(Except if you have a stupid winner-takes-almost-all system like the UK, which just as inevitably leads to a two-party system.)

M. Randolph Kruger: As I said in my comment, Georgia state officials said there had been no (as in zero) cases of voter fraud at the polls before the voter ID law was passed. I have reconsidered some of the reasoning, however. I think that fear of illegal immigrant voting was one factor in the law. But, as I said, there had been no cases of voter fraud (or at least no reported cases) before the law was passed. I doubt that illegal aliens have registered to vote in the numbers you say, but if they registered, that must mean they had some kind of ID, and therefore the voter ID law would not prevent their voting in any case.

I also have to say that Georgia has passed one law making it easier to vote: early voting. Unlike absentee voting, early voting allows anyone to vote in the week before the election for any or no reason. I did so, and it was very nice because there was no one else there and therefore no waiting in line.

I agree that the system needs to be changed.

Now, how exactly will participating in the system bring about that change? The most relevant property of the outmoded process seems to be that it is very, very hard to change the foundation - most people will want to stick with the status quo without powerful reasons, and the indoctrination about the utility and importance of voting prevents them from recognizing that they have no real say in how things turn out.

Look at how difficult it's been to abolish the Electoral College! No one seems to think it's any use, except politicians who know how to use it to their advantage, and so it remains.

Voting in national elections is a waste of time. The outcome is predetermined. Who are you going to vote for this year because the candidates look awfully the same? Then on the points that they are different really don't matter. Vote for one and you get high taxes, more government intrusion, less war, but if you vote for the other you get lower taxes, more government intrusion, more war. Wow, I can't wait to vote!

Electoral College insures that states with smaller populations do not have equal footing in electing a President as states with larger populations. MRK is correct the States elect the President of the United States.

About mandatory voting, instead of being fined twenty bucks if you don't vote like the Australian manner, what if the government gave you twenty bucks when you voted? Better yet, as long as the check box remains on the 1040 about giving money to the presidential campaign fund, how about a box (with voting receipt as evidence) that gives you a twenty dollar tax credit every 4 years? Of course people who don't pay any taxes wouldn't be eligible and then we'd hear the screaming, the wailing, the gnashing of teeth about tax breaks for the rich, but its only 20 bucks.

I think voting should be mandatory but with three provisions: make it much easier to go and vote which includes absentee ballots (like for those in nursing homes), a choice of none of the above, and a write in option. And if you don't vote, a token fine like $5 to $10.

Making votin a requirement? mh. No. But I like the Australian idea of having an incentive. Although I would make it non-monetary, otherwise it carries far too much weight for the poor.
I vote. For sure. Whenever I can.
I admit, once I was completely uninformed (some political professional body I pay little attention too, nothing of importance) absolutely no idea who the candidates were. So I voted by gender and professional expertise, pure guessing.

We have no mandatory voting here.
Any other country that has, so far I only see australia as one example for a voting incentive - or rather non voting penalty?

I think that we need to get rid of the electoral college before we go to mandatory voting. I also agree with bar that a "none of the above" option should be on every ballot. If you're going to make me vote, you must give me the option of telling you that all the candidates are unacceptable to me. Enough of those "none of the above" votes could well lead to a much needed multi-party system.

I don't worry that much about the two-party system versus a one-party or multi-party system. Many Southern states had an effective one-party system after the Civil War - the Democratic Party. All elections were decided in the primaries, but then everyone who wanted to run ran there, so there really was no difference between then and now.

And why should having more than two parties make it more likely that your particular desired candidate will win, or that a better candidate will win? You might get some kind of presence in Congress, like that real winner, Lieberman. His presence shows that a statewide independent can already win a seat in the Congress. But it simply won't happen in the presidential race. At most there will be a non-majority President, like we already have.

informed voters would be an ideal state. and by "informed" i do not mean "votes like me." i mean someone who has looked at the candidates' plans and has compared them. in any case, this rarely happens. by no means is that an empirical statement, it is mostly based on anecdotal evidence. individuals like this person because s/he represents "change." yet, when you analyze their stated plans, you see little evidence of concrete actions that will result in substantial change.
in the end, we must remember that this, much like the student government elections in high school, is a popularity contest. it's about who shines on TV, who makes great speeches, who looks the coolest or appears to "think like me." its rarely about the person with the most experience, the most detailed plan on how s/he will achieve goals on issues. its popularity. if you remember that, you'll stay sane.

Rigor is absolutely right about selection bias. Southern Baptist churches organize their members to vote for a specific candidate. Since they are highly motivated and organized to vote, they wind up being over represented. Think about Kemal Ataturk being voted the Man of the Century, because Turkish people voted in droves. I can think of another example: periodically ESPN will do a "best college football team of all time" poll. The results of these polls always rank Nebraska teams highest, because even though Nebraska fans are few in number, they are organized and motivated to vote, so they bias the outcome.

"thinks like me" is a legit reason to vote for a particular candidate...why on earth would I vote for someone who doesn't appear to "think like me", when I know I am always right??

I have never registered to vote in the 32 years that I have been eligible to. It may be an excess of cynicism about the blatant power hunger that so many politicians display. I don't entertain the fantasy that co-signing the random nonsense of someone who believes that they can coherently speak to or for several hundred million people is worth my time. And this does _not_ preclude me from hollering about the decisions made by the skull-fucked idiots in office. I try to resist as much cooperation with State entities as I can manage. None of the people running for President represent me, and holding my nose and voting for the least objectionable candidate would truly be a waste of my vote.

Ahh Mr. Davis, two hundred plus years of representative democracy turned on its head in a paragraph.

Christ Davis: Your choice, of course. In the Australian system you'd pay a small fine, which you would obviously prefer to do rather than vote. But there can easily be (in fact there was on the ballot I cast last night) a choice of No Preference or None of the Above. So you wouldn't be forced to choose someone you disagreed with but you would be forced to give your preference (even if it was for no preference).

pauls lane, how have I managed that? There have always been people who hold, more or less, the same opinion and our Nation somehow trundles along. I may be egotistic but stop short of claiming the juice to turn the Republic on it's head.

This plan is for the USA, I don't have enough knowledge to create policy for other countries.

Being a proponent of the belief that if one does not know/care what their rights are, maybe they shouldn't have them; I have a proposal. When a citizen reaches voting age, they are automatically registered to vote. If say X years go by without a single vote, that person would have to take some sort of Constitutional familiarity test to be able to vote again. Any X year gap at any time during their life-span.

Also not on board with the fine. If the government of the day is greedy enough they could just come up with a weekly voting plan.

No, I do not advocate nor would support depriving anyone of their rights because they don't know what they are. It is just a personal belief.

Mr. Davis - first as long you are a taxpayer you can bitch about the government all you want in my book. Second, voting for the least objectionable candidate also in my book is a civic duty. In fact this very presidential election season, it probably will be my solemn duty to vote for the least objectionable candidate. Third, I don't know where the idea arose that presidential candidates speak for the masses. For the most part they speak for their party. Now your representative in the House, and to a lesser extent your Senators are supposed to speak for you in the national government.

A see a bit of angst about the fact that no party fulfills all requirements, so no party deserves a vote. So here is a solution.

So far as I can see, the answer already exists in the USA at state level. California is one of about 30? states wherein citizens can initiate legislation (or dismissal of a governor) without necessary intervention by politicians. Not only that, but Californians have established that voters do not abuse that power by overuse.

Might I point out the advantages? What governor of California would now dare to ignore the will of Californians?

Vote for one and you get high taxes, more government intrusion, less war, but if you vote for the other you get lower taxes, more government intrusion, more war. Wow, I can't wait to vote!

In that case, vote for the high taxes. Unless you want to live in a bankrupt country, that is. Simple, no?

Electoral College insures that states with smaller populations do not have equal footing in electing a President as states with larger populations. MRK is correct the States elect the President of the United States.

I said that, and I also said it simply doesn't work anymore. People can cheat this system, and there must not be a way to stop them.

Any other country that has, so far I only see australia as one example for a voting incentive - or rather non voting penalty?

Brazil, for example. (Mickey Mouse regularly gets high percentages of the vote in Brazil.)

I have a proposal. When a citizen reaches voting age, they are automatically registered to vote.

This is normal in countries with indoor plumbing. But imagine how lots of Americans would react if they were told the government knows where they live...

David, why doesn't the Electoral college "simply work anymore"? There are states with hugely different population numbers. How is the system being cheated?

David, if your example of cheating is that story about the Greens and Dems I think we'll need more proof that the Electoral College system is doomed.

The government already knows where you live, you get a Social Security statement every couple of years don't you? You get your tax bill don't you? Water bill? Not that I am criticing you, because you are right, they would be coming out of the woodwork to complain.

If people refuse to serve on juries merely because they don't want to, an important aspect of the judicial system cannot function. (Well, it's supposedly important, but that's another rant for another day.)

How does people not choosing to vote make the system not function? Voting doesn't necessarily involve expressing support or preference for any of the available candidates. How is it more functional to force someone to come in and write 'Mickey Mouse' than to let them stay away as they prefer?

(Mickey Mouse regularly gets high percentages of the vote in Brazil.)

Uh, no. Since voting went fully electronic in 2000, you can only cast a blank ballot by pressing the "white" key or an invalid ballot by entering a number that is not registered to any party or candidate.
And because I live in a city that has had electronic voting since 1996 - my first election - I never had the juvenile pleasure of writing something silly on a piece of paper. Bummer.

pauls lane said:

"Now your representative in the House, and to a lesser extent your Senators are supposed to speak for you in the national government."

The operative phrase being "supposed to." I am cynical and skeptical about politicians and the whole process by which they gain access to the sugar teat. I have read too many books and lived with too many people run over by the policies inflicted on us by professional grifters. In the city I live in, the local grifters, supported by the state level have essentially abandoned a huge swath of the city to concentrate on building condos, down the street from new unoccupied condos. Property taxes go up at least every year to subsidize this while Police, public works, schools, etc that serve the population that earns ~15-20,000/year or less gets cut.
I discount anything government functionaries say by default. I believe in direct service where it is needed. I understand the advantage of living in the usa, but I don't care to give the appearance, by endorsing with a ballot, that I support the direction the State has been dragged in the last 60 years or so. I will continue to pay attention and awaiting a time when I won't have to pawn my ideals to support lip service from politicians.

Our founding fathers never intended to let the average citizen with an IQ of 100 vote for the President or Senators. And they did not give is a Democracy either, but a Constitutional Republic. The citizens were only to vote for their Representatives in the House where they could not do so much damage, and their state legislatures and Governors.

So today we have everyone voted in by the citizens, and many of them make decisions based on religion, race, sex, looks, 30 second commercials and Fox/CNN debates that are so dumbed down as to be meaningless.

Today we have a 1 party system in 2 colors, Red or Blue. Choose your color, but thats all you get, they are all bought by the same people who tell them what to do while they make millions in bonuses selling CDO's.

"they did not give is a Democracy either, but a Constitutional Republic."

Some people make a lot of that, but it ignores the most important fact about our republic - it is a democratic republic. There are lots of republics in the world. In fact, most governments are republics, including North Korea, China, Iran and virtually any other country you name. The difference between the "good" republics and the "bad" republics is that the representatives are elected in a democratic process and in principle anyone can run for office. In the US, the official stance is that any citizen, with very few exceptions, mainly dealing with criminality and mental deficiency, can vote. Unfortunately, there have been too many examples in which voting was not actually democratic. For example, in the South there used to be poll taxes and literacy tests specifically meant to exclude blacks. Today we are far less obvious about it.

Revere: Hope you will forgive this item I found and cut, but it does seem relevant..

While walking down the street one day a senator is hit by a truck and dies.

He arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance. 'You have to spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity.'

'I want to be in heaven,' says the senator.

'I'm sorry, but these are the rules.' And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down to hell.

The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They play a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and champagne. Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who has a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are having such a good time that before he realizes it, it is time to go.

Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises...

The door reopens on heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him.

24 hours pass with the senator joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time and, before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns.

'Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity.'

The senator reflects for a minute, then he answers: 'Well, I would not have thought it. Heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell.'

So he takes the elevator down.

The doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls from above.

The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulder. 'I don't understand,' stammers the senator. 'Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?'

The devil looks into his eyes and smiles. 'Yesterday we were campaigning. Today you voted.'

Mr Davis, I guess I could get on a soapbox and spout lofty ideals about getting involved and voting the bastards out, but I won't. I understand your cynicism. Besides you vote one SOB out and you just get another. I favor term limits. I still vote. For some reason it gives me great pleasure in letting my elected officials know that I didn't for them and won't vote for them in the future or did vote for them but won't in the future. Silly I know because they don't care. But it's all I got.

mandatory voting? I'm in favour of it, personally...but Canadian elections tend to be simpler - we don't have all those proposals and measures and referenda and whatnot on our ballots - we just vote for our MPs or MLAs/MPPs. It's THEIR job to represent our wishes on those proposals and measures and referenda...

maybe if people knew they had to vote they might actually pay attention...and even if they WERE uninformed, it would help to reduce selection bias.

maybe if politicians knew that the entire country would be voting instead of the laughably small percentage that does, they'd be more responsive and do a better job of representation

the form of voting that "SmellyTerror" suggests is similar to one that was proposed where I live - unfortunately it was narrowly defeated (it needed 2/3 of the vote in order to change the rules, and it didn't quite get it, mostly because the media did SUCH a poor job of covering it, that joe q public didn't know what it meant)...I think it would have worked quite well.

pauls lane, you sound more cynical than me, "it's all I got". Since they don't care what you think, take the pragmatic step of walking away from the whole mess.

I'm not reading the 51 comments, so maybe this was said already. But my solution is :
make a representative sample of some thousand people
and let those vote only.
A vote out of these is much more likely to be decicive.
Their voting should be mandatory or rewarded.
If someone of these doesn't want to vote nevertheless,
a similar person with same characteristics is selected.

That's also much cheaper than having the whole population to vote. It's statistically pretty reliable.

anon: That won't work. If you sample deliberately you have to account for sample error. Suppose then, that two candidates are not statistically significantly different. You don't know if one actually is preferred or only "won" because of a chance event. That isn't acceptable. I also don't know what you mean by "statistically reliable." You can account for sample error but you can't do anything about it.

Davis it might be all got but I'm going to continue using it. I don't see how walking away helps. What is amusing about all of this is that I am for the most part the complete political opposite from the editors and 90% of the commenters on this blog and yet we complain about the very same thing when it comes to elected officials.

revere, it does work. See the opinion polls.

if two candidates are not statistically significantly different, then
does it really matter, who wins ?
reliable = sample outcame matches full election outcome
with probability >99%

Voting is bullshit. Voting is nothing more than a scheme designed to make the indoctrinated think that they have any say in their political system. We the voters are nothing more than a bunch of cows to be milked by the people who control the system. Especially poor people, since they have very little ability to game the system to their advantage like rich people do. The best thing to do is to refuse to take part in the whole rotten system. Don't participate by voting. Whenever possible find alternatives to patronizing the government.

Democracy = 3 wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, and nothing more.

I dont want candidates standing in a church podium, receiving federal matching money and extolling the reason to vote for him/her. Its a conflict of interest and hypocritical. All people though should vote or not bitch when it doesnt turn out right in their way of thinking. These guys and girls do give up a lot when they decide to run for whatever and no one is ever happy.

Failure to vote apathy is a big problem. When they do vote in huge numbers though Revere within a year or so the candidate who won generally is being vilified by the other side. Much to the detriment of the country.

David, why doesn't the Electoral college "simply work anymore"? There are states with hugely different population numbers. How is the system being cheated?

David, if your example of cheating is that story about the Greens and Dems I think we'll need more proof that the Electoral College system is doomed.

The government already knows where you live, you get a Social Security statement every couple of years don't you? You get your tax bill don't you? Water bill? Not that I am criticing you, because you are right, they would be coming out of the woodwork to complain.