[EL] Voter turnout

Bill Maurer wmaurer at ij.org
Thu Apr 10 17:09:50 PDT 2014 

Craig,

An interesting and thoughtful take, as usual.

I’m curious, though, as to how compulsory compulsory voting would be.  Would it be a fine for not voting?  How many people would incur the fine instead of voting?  I would imagine a lot (depending on how high it is).  Would it be cops rounding up people to drive them to the polls?  I can’t imagine that that would cause people to be big into volunteering.  And does the spillover effect apply in situations where the people who are participating in politics are doing so against their will?

I literally had no idea that compulsory voting is a “thing” and am fascinated as to how folks have approached some of the issues it presents.

Thanks,

Bill

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Craig Holman
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 3:31 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Voter turnout

Colleagues:

The recent discussion of mandatory voting brings me back to Aren Lijphart's 1996 presidential address before the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association [re-published in the 91 American Political Science Review (1997)]. I found the lecture enthralling. Here are a couple snippets:

“The most important argument in favor of compulsory voting is its contribution to high and relatively equal voter turnout. Three additional, more speculative, advantages of compulsory voting, however, are worth mentioning. One is that the increase in voting participation may stimulate stronger participation and interest in other political activities: "People who participate in politics in one way are likely to do so in another" (Berelson and Steiner 1964, 422). Considerable evidence exists of a spillover effect from participation in the workplace, churches, and voluntary organizations to political participation (Almond and Verba 1963, 300-74; Greenberg 1986; Lafferty 1989; Peterson 1992; Sobel 1993; Verba, Schlozman, and Brady 1995, 304- 68; but see also Greenberg, Grunberg, and Daniel 1996; Schweizer 1995).

“Second, compulsory voting may have the beneficial effect of reducing the role of money in politics. When almost everybody votes, no large campaign funds are needed to goad voters to the polls, and, in Gosnell's (1930, 185) words, "elections are therefore less costly, more honest, and more representative." Third, mandatory voting may discourage attack advertising-and hence may lessen the cynicism and distrust that it engenders. Stephen Ansolabehere and Shanto Iyengar (1995) have found that attack ads work mainly by selectively depressing turnout among those not likely to vote for the attacker. When almost everybody votes, attack tactics lose most of their lure.

“That compulsion of any kind limits individual freedom cannot be denied, but the duty to vote entails only a very minor restriction. It is important to remember, first of all, that compulsory "voting" does not mean an actual duty to cast a valid ballot; all that needs to be required is for citizens to show up at the polls. At that point, citizens may choose to refuse to vote; the right not to vote remains intact. Moreover, compulsory voting entails a very small decrease in freedom com­ pared with many other problems of collective action that democracies solve by imposing obligations: jury duty, the obligation to pay taxes, military conscription, compulsory school attendance, and many others. These obligations are much more burdensome than the duty to appear at the polls on election days.”


Craig Holman, Ph.D.
Government Affairs Lobbyist
Public Citizen
215 Pennsylvania Avenue SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
T-(202) 454-5182
C-(202) 905-7413
F-(202) 547-7392
Holman at aol.com<mailto:Holman at aol.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: Scarberry, Mark <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu<mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>>
To: law-election at UCI.EDU<mailto:law-election at UCI.EDU> <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Sent: Thu, Apr 10, 2014 4:54 pm
Subject: Re: [EL] Voter turnout
Some people see the mere act of voting, without regard to how you vote or even whether you turn in a blank ballot, as an endorsement of the legitimacy of the government. That raises a compelled speech issue. Some religious groups take that view, I think. Some also think that this kind of participation with the government is a rejection of the authority of God in favor of the authority of human beings (and that it would be wrongful even if done privately so that nothing is expressed to anyone else, which complicates the analysis).

There may also be a compelling interest in requiring people to serve in the military (or perform appropriate alternative service) when drafted; it’s hard to argue that there is a compelling governmental interest in forcing people to vote.

Can a juror be held in contempt for refusing to participate in deliberations? Or is the juror who refuses simply replaced?

Mark

Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu?>] On Behalf Of Bill Maurer
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 1:24 PM
To: 'Rick Hasen'; larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>; law-election at UCI.EDU<mailto:law-election at UCI.EDU>
Subject: Re: [EL] Voter turnout

Professor Hasen,

Thanks for the response.  I would argue that there is separate constitutional authority for the draft and a long-standing common law tradition of jury service.  Given how unpopular being drafted and serving jury duty is proves your third point, though—an elected official promoting mandatory voting would probably come close to seeing his dream realized when practically everyone turns out to vote him out of office.

From: Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu]
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 9:55 AM
To: Bill Maurer; larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>; law-election at UCI.EDU<mailto:law-election at UCI.EDU>
Subject: Re: [EL] Voter turnout

We do all the time---jury duty, conscription to the army in times of war.
Nor do I think there is a First Amendment problem.  No one has to cast a vote for anyone. One may cast a blank ballot.
That said, I believe the issue is a non-starter in the United States, where there is a widespread libertarian-type resistance to compulsory voting.
Here' my analysis:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1314963
On 4/10/2014 9:21 AM, Bill Maurer wrote:
This may be a dumb question, and I am perfectly willing to admit that I know less than nothing about this topic, but wouldn’t there be 13th Amendment problems with compulsory voting?  Can the government force someone to take affirmative action not involving the paying of taxes?

Bill

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 9:35 PM
To: larrylevine at earthlink.net<mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>; law-election at UCI.EDU<mailto:law-election at UCI.EDU>
Subject: Re: [EL] Voter turnout

Compulsory voting?
On 4/9/14, 9:30 PM, Larry Levine wrote:
I have been appointed as a member of the Los Angeles City Advisory Commission on Political Reform. I am a member of the sub-committee on research. The main charge of the commission is to look into actions that might increase turnout in municipal elections. Can anyone on the list provide some recent research on this subject? Nothing is off limits – change of election dates, consolidation with other elections, early voting, expanded number of voting dates, etc.
Thanks,
Larry



_______________________________________________

Law-election mailing list

Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>

http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election


--

Rick Hasen

Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science

UC Irvine School of Law

401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000

Irvine, CA 92697-8000

949.824.3072 - office

949.824.0495 - fax

rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>

http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/

http://electionlawblog.org

________________________________

Spam
Not spam
Forget previous vote


--

Rick Hasen

Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science

UC Irvine School of Law

401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000

Irvine, CA 92697-8000

949.824.3072 - office

949.824.0495 - fax

rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>

hhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/<http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/>

http://electionlawblog.org

________________________________

Spam<about:blank>
Not spam<about:blank>
Forget previous vote<about:blank>

_______________________________________________

Law-election mailing list

Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>

http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

________________________________

Spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04LMmwVlP&m=c18606bb813b&t=20140410&c=s>
Not spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04LMmwVlP&m=c18606bb813b&t=20140410&c=n>
Forget previous vote<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=04LMmwVlP&m=c18606bb813b&t=20140410&c=f>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140411/cdc9e031/attachment.html>

View list directory