ELECTIONS - WHEN WE HOLD THEM, WILL THEY COME?

With the election less than two months away, one of the questions already cropping up is what percentage of eligible voters will actually participate in the process. Given the relative disenchantment with our major parties' candidates, and the anxiety among many about the state of the world and our place in it, voter participation could be a major factor in the outcome on November 8. Presidential elections traditionally tend to draw more voters than mid-term elections. In 2012 roughly 55% of eligible voters showed up at the polls, while in 2014 only 37% exercised their right to cast a ballot. The US has traditionally had one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the "free world." Of 39 countries listing average participation percentages during lower house elections between 1960 and 1995 we end up dead last, averaging only 48%. (Mark Franklin, "Electoral Participation," 2001).

Political scientists are often pre-occupied with voter turnout as a measure of system legitimacy. A high turnout is generally considered desirable. However, the issue tends to be more complex. Dictators have fabricated high turnouts in showcase elections to reflect their "legitimacy," while some low participation rates may result from opposition parties boycotting elections they see as unfair or illegitimate. Consequently, there are political scientists who question the view that high turnout is implicit endorsement of the system. One of these, Mark Franklin, contends, for instance, that in the European Union elections opponents of the EU are just as likely to vote as its opponents. (Mark Franklin, "Electoral Engineering," British Journal of Political Science, 1999).

Esoteric discourse aside, political operatives regularly confront the practical question: "How do we increase participation by Americans eligible to vote?" Strategies designed to elevate participation rates include: Making voting compulsory, as is the norm in 22 other countries, including 12 Latin American countries (something President Obama suggested while addressing a civic group in Cleveland in 2015), automatic voter registration, designating election day a federal holiday, and moving election day to a weekend. None of these promises to be a panacea, but they do deserve consideration.

A study completed for the In Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance concluded that participation in compulsory voting countries averaged around 85%, compared to 65% in countries featuring voluntary voting rules. Some legal experts believe that making voting mandatory may be unconstitutional since "freedom of speech" includes the freedom not to vote. opponents and proponents of such a law line up either supporting civil rights or asserting civic duty (as in the case of jury duty). Since some experts believe that compulsory voting would actually benefit the Democratic Party, such a change would more than likely die in Congress. However, the facts speak for themselves. In countries where voting is mandatory and enforced participation rates are significant. Australia, which has had a compulsory system since 1920, has turnout rates in excess of 93%. Countries like Venezuela and The Netherlands, where compulsory voting has been rescinded, have seen substantial decreases in turnout.

Proponents of automatic voter registration argue that adopting such a system will add up to 50 million eligible voters to the rolls, save money, increase accuracy, improve the security of our elections, and substantially enhance participation rates. (New York Unversity School of Law, September 22, 2015). This system has been provided to eligible citizens in 15 states, but there appears to be opposition to rolling it out nationally. In November of 2015 Governor Christie vetoed a bill that would have allowed New Jersey to join this group.

A proposal to make Election Day a federal holiday was submitted and rejected by Congress in 2005. The suggestion was reintroduced in 2014, but has not yet been enacted. Proponents argue that it would increase election participation by allowing people to vote without interfering with their jobs, while underscoring the importance of elections in a democracy. Thus far eight states and the territory of Puerto Rico have declared Election Day a civic holiday. Turnout in Puerto Rico's quadrennial elections has been 50% higher than it was for presidential elections in the fifty states. However, the other members of this group have seen little real effect.

Another question that keeps coming up is: "Why do we vote on Tuesday? Saturday or Sunday would make much more sense." The reasoning goes back to 1845. That year Congress instituted a uniform date. The US was a largely agrarian society. Farmers often needed a full day to travel by horse-drawn vehicle to the County seat to vote. Tuesdays did not interfere with the biblical Sabbath or with market day, which in many towns was on Wednesday. Now Tuesday is a work day, which decreases turnout. Outside the U.S. Strong election participation in countries like Australia, Belgium, Germany and India are often attributed in part to holding elections on a weekend or on designated holidays.

No matter how many of us will ultimately cast our ballots this November, the question about participation rates will continue to be raised and potential solutions will continue to be controversial. The issue is not new. Greek philosopher Plato already admonished us centuries ago that "one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." So, go out and do your civic duty. Every election is determined by the people who show up.