Bad officials are the ones elected by good citizens who do not vote.” George Jean Nathan
______________
I am deeply concerned about what is going on in this country now, and even more concerned about what is going on in the legislative branch of this government. The power of money and special interests, not only in elections but in Congress itself, is of such magnitude that a recent study conducted by Princeton and Northwestern universities described the United States in words more descriptive of an oligarchy than a democracy. The study’s strong conclusion was “The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence,” adding “When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose.” Nowhere is this more apparent than in the 114th Congress.
We have very few mandated responsibilities in this country, and they have been limited to those deemed essential to the functioning of this government and this democracy. We pay a mandatory income tax to keep the government running because the government doesn’t run on good intentions and needs a source of revenue to protect and provide for us. We have mandatory jury duty because it is considered vital to the administration of justice in this country and thus is a condition of citizenship. And we have mandatory military service in the form of the Selective Service System and the draft because it is considered necessary to ensure for the provision of the defense of this country.
Isn’t it time that we decided that the survival of our democracy is far too important, not only for citizens to fail to participate, but also too important to allow someone to interfere with their participation? The only power any American has left is the power of the vote, but there are strategies being developed and implemented in this country that make it harder for people to vote, especially for minorities and the disadvantaged. Voter turnout is getting lower and lower, not only due to difficulties being placed on voters but also due to the overwhelming sense of powerlessness in the American society.
Isn’t it time that we considered voting a responsibility essential to the functioning of this government and this democracy? If mandatory voting was instituted in this country, the rampant power and influence of money and special interests would be lessened because once again one billionaire’s vote would be equal to one ordinary citizen’s vote. The power to elect or re-elect legislators would once again be returned to the people. Legislators would once again be reminded to listen to their constituents who voted for them to represent their interests and rights, as they once again had the power to vote them out of office.
If mandatory voting was instituted in this country, elections would truly represent the will of the people, and reflect the intention of our Founding Fathers and our forefathers that “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen …. by the people” and the “Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State elected by the people.”
Additionally, it is much harder to interfere with a mandated responsibility than it is to interfere with a right. But not impossible, allowing for the ingenuity of those who would.
As you know, mandatory voting (or “compulsory voting” as it is alternately called) is nothing new. However, it has recently popped up in several articles and discussions. Generally, the writers go through the pro’s and con’s, but each time they present the idea in terms of how it is practiced in other countries, namely, with penalties and fines for not voting (which range from a slap on the hand to time in jail), and then discuss whether those penalties are being enforced or not enforced. Of course, that most often leads to the conclusion that the practice in this country would be “undemocratic” and that voters compelled to vote under the threat of punishment may not be the most committed to the democratic process and may instead behave irresponsibly by just walking into a voting booth and pushing levers at random, or something of the sort.
However, I think there is another perspective, another way to approach the issue of mandatory voting that may be more in line with our democratic values and more consistent with our approaches to other “behavior” that we have tried to encourage in the citizenry as a country. I am referring to the successfully paired tools of “incentives” and “disincentives” this country has used over the years. In approaching mandatory voting, if we used both the incentive and the disincentive, and not just the disincentive, I think the sting of “mandatory” or “compulsory” would not be felt as keenly; it may even be welcomed.
What if we approached the issue by pairing taxes and voting not only as essential responsibilities of citizenship, but as a connected pair of required contributions to the government? If one “contributed” to the government by voting, then one would owe less of a “contribution” to the government through taxes. This could be in the form of a tax credit, a lump sum deduction from their tax liability, or any number of things. It could also be implemented in such a way that one received an additional amount of reduction in their tax “contribution” for each member of their family (claimed on their income tax return and who is eligible to vote) that does vote.
Conversely, the same would apply if one does not vote: their “contribution” to the government through taxes would be increased. And again, it can be applied in such a way that the “contribution” increase would apply for each member of their family (claimed on their income tax return and who is eligible to vote) that does not vote.
I would suggest that the incentive amount and the disincentive amount would be more effective if they were the same; were equal.
Such a system of incentives and disincentives would benefit the most those who need it most. Further, applying this contribution calculation to everyone in the family claimed on an income tax return also allows an individual to maximize the tax benefit for voting (e.g., those in the lowest income brackets can reduce their taxes and/or increase the amount of their refund with each voting member of their household; those already getting tax credits such as EITC can reduce their taxes even more with the same result). It also allows an individual to minimize the tax liability for anyone in the family not voting (e.g., the kid at college “forgets” to vote even after multiple calls and email reminders, but with each family member that does vote, the damage is minimized and the family can still experience a net gain).
While the start-up of a national mandatory voting law has been described elsewhere as a “legal and bureaucratic nightmare,” the impact could be greatly lessened if, knowing that the population at each polling center will at least double, voting could take place over 3 days, much as it is in states that currently have the early voting option. This would also lessen the need for absentee ballots, and lessen the need to voters to request exemptions due to emergencies or being out of town. Further, employers would only be required to ensure that each employee was available to vote (i.e., not out of town or on a business trip) for a full 24 hour period during the course of one of the voting days.
Related to the issue of mandatory voting is the issue of states requiring a government-issued photo identification card and proof of citizenship (which impedes many disadvantaged and minority voters). This could be addressed as well through the mandatory voting system using the social security number, as the social security number has come to be used as a nearly universal identifier and is issued at birth. And the social security number is uniquely related to our country’s system of taxation.
If the social security card issued to each person was modified to include a photograph, much like a passport picture, and issued to every U.S. citizen over the age of 18 years old, then each voter would have a virtually unimpeachable form of voter’s identification as well as proof of citizenship, no matter what state you lived in. Of further benefit to this form of voter identification, each U.S. citizen filing an individual tax return is required to supply a social security number, thus the two systems are already linked. Your voter identification would be linked to your taxpayer identification, and could easily be utilized to implement your tax credit for voting.
To further provide secure verification in the voting process, a bar code or a QR code could be added to the social security photo ID (with each person having a separate 4 digit PIN for security), and the card could be scanned as part of the voter identification process at the polling location. Once the voting process was over, the social security number data could be forwarded electronically to the IRS to serve as verification of eligibility for the incentive.
Inserting the bar code or QR code on the social security photo ID would also open up the possibility of voting from your cell phone at some time in the future. QR codes and bar codes are already used for secure financial transactions on cell phones, so that would seem to make them secure enough for voting. Cell phone voting would lessen the lines and crowding at the Polls, reduce the need for absentee ballots, and lessen the need for voters to request exemptions due to emergencies or unavoidably being called out of town. We already file our income taxes electronically and submit payments to the IRS electronically. The scanning technology is already developed, the voting software is already developed. It would seem to be something far short of a quantum leap to implement this system. However, I am neither a scholar nor an expert on this subject, and leave it to those far more knowledgeable than myself to determine the feasibility.
I would wonder if this voter social security photo ID card system couldn’t be implemented now, and without the need for legislation, thus eliminating the voter identification problem in the present. Doing so now could not only increase voter turnout during the next election period, but also make for a less of a stressful transition in the future to the start-up of a national mandatory voting law.
I say again: Isn’t it time that we considered voting a responsibility essential to the functioning of this government and this democracy?
From: Metaphsyical Outlaws In America