What if there were a voting opt-out fee for US elections?

Awesome. What we really need is to further penalize poor people for being poor, and unable to take time off work to go vote.

@Aethelflaed huh, what’s voting like where you live?

The places I’ve lived allow you vote up to two weeks before the election day (including Saturdays) and have hours well before and well after typical work hours on election day. I guess I can’t think of a scenario offhand where someone would have to take work off to vote.

I’m one of those people who believe if you are uninformed don’t vote. I don’t want to force people to vote who have no clue who or what they are voting for, they might vote counter to their own interests. Maybe it would inspire people who usually do not concern themselves with politics to pay more attention and educate themselves more on the issues? But, the risk is too great I think.

The majority of votes in my area don’t have a lot on the ballot that interests me, so I don’t vote because

1) I’m not informed
2) The issue being voted on is not important to me

So I would rack up fees and fines because I don’t really care on most of the bond elections, city council votes, school board elections, and county administrators.

I do vote, but honestly I don’t care who the sheriff is and neither do most of my neighbors.

@phaedryx Those are largely local laws, and not everywhere has them – they’re actually really, really new. And when you’re really, really poor, you work more than just 9–5 M-F. Voting is actually hard enough for lots of people, we don’t need to make it any harder, both because it’s just plain morally wrong, and because punishing people for their preexisting situation won’t actually make it any better.

That is why I love where I live (Seattle area). I get a ballot mailed to me automatically; no polling places :)

@phaedryx There are schemes set in place by certain parties to prevent the poor from voting already but setting up weird time frames for certain precincts where it would directly affect low income workers. Anyways to answer the OP I don’t think there should be an opt out fee. That’s almost fascist because there is a penalization for not being involved with the political process when paying taxes is fine enough by some citizens standards.

I think it would change a large part of the motivation for many people to vote. If they don’t know and don’t care, but are ticking a ticky-box in order to avoid a fee, it could go very wrong.

I wish all those people were high-information, motivated voters, but the truth is that you can’t make everyone care, or want to learn what issues are important, and the positions of the people running for office. And once we start getting into things like fees, literacy tests, etc., it makes me wonder if those tests would be enforced evenly against all people, or if we’d have a Jim Crow situation some places.

The whole thing is fraught. I wish there were better solutions.

I’m with @Aethelflaed on this one regarding voting times, etc.

@JLeslie – I actually used to hold this position (the uninformed shouldn’t vote). But they do vote. Bush 2 was elected a second time. People vote against their own interests all the time. I am not sure there is any connection between a true understanding of what is at stake and your willingness to vote.

So, I’m thinking I might like to see a week-long, 24-hr/day voting period, make it easy for everyone to vote, then penalize you for not voting. Maybe then some people might see that it is critical that we value a quality education for everyone because we won’t have a voting class and and a superfluous class.
Note: I’m just playing with the idea. Haven’t thought it through, and it will never happen. For now, we’ll continue to have an ill-informed populace marching to the polls to vote for people to screw them over, and a large completely-clueless superfluous class that has no idea who is even running.

“Not Voting” is a form of free speech and expression. Compelling me to vote would not add anything to the quality of the representation.

If it were done, there would have to be a “none-of-the-above” choice. if NOTA won, the area would have no representative for the term.

Would there also be fines for not writing your congress man on a weekly basis?

Why would you want to force people to vote like that? If you don’t know the issues and you aren’t informed about current politics, I don’t think you should vote. An uninformed opinion is worse than no opinion. Imposing a fee would just be a topical bandaid solution. The real problem is education, and fining people for a lack of it isn’t going to solve the problem but it might actually make it worse by helping to shift wealth.

This is coercive in nature and runs counter to our concept of freedom.

I remember about a year or two ago there was a story on NPR about how mandatory voting was recently enforced in Australia and that it fixed several problems similar to what was have now.

Anyone from Australia want to share about it?

@tom_g Very true. Everything you said about many uniformed people vote, and many people vote counter to their interests. But, for now, I am still sticking with my answer. It is difficult really, because I think probably the majority of the adult population does not really understand the issues well, or simply votes the way their parents did, etc. A lot of us even who do understand don’t have candidates we fully agree with of course, so then even informed people put into office politicians who do some things we are not happy with. Politics is a nasty business.

The very basis for democracy is the right to refuse to participate. Forcing people to vote is like screwing for virginity.

I think it’s a bad idea. Forcing people to vote or pay a fee/fine would lead to people voting just to avoid the fee/fine. Those people would probably be angry about it and feel like they were wasting there time. They probably wouldn’t become any more informed about the candidates than they were when they were planning not to vote, and they could possibly just pick people at random. Worse yet, they could deliberately pick people they felt were horrible just because of their anger.

I think it’s best to let people pass up voting if that’s what they want to do.

I would prefer a different method. If you miss three national elections in a row and are over 21 years old, you must re-apply for U.S. Citizenship. Further you do not get to be a full citizen until you perform 2 years national serivce.

The problem these days is people talk about and expect their rights to be protected. Nobody ever says anything about the citizens responsibilities toward their country. I don’t see how you can have rights without responsibilities.

I think big voter turnouts happen on America when people are afraid of the direction of the country or are really suffering or frustrated with their living circumstance. That the US has low voter turnout means to me overall the citizenry lives a pretty good life.

You want to encourage people to vote, not penalize them for not voting. That’s the general principle in learning how to make friends and influence people. We do not want to create resentment about the voting process and this proposal would do exactly that. It is a classic case of a proposal that is dead on arrival.

Make it easier to vote and more people will vote. That’s all you can do. Unless you want to pay people to vote, but that would be pretty stupid, too. You don’t know what people do in the voting booth.

So do like Seattle and send everyone a ballot. Also give them a polling place to go to.

Hmmm. I wonder how they vote in Portlandia?

It does need to be easier to vote. I’m all for measures that make voting more secure and help stop fraud, but long lines and inconvenient times stop a lot of people from voting. Absentee ballots in my community are hard to get.
I will always vote, but I know others who don’t bother because they can’t get to the polls.

I would like to see a system where, if you did not bother to vote, you could not bitch about the results.

Devil’s advocate: isn’t a non-vote essentially agreement with the majority?

Also, this is really interesting. Last time I voted I walked a couple of blocks from my house, didn’t wait in a line at all, and it took me all of 5 minutes to vote. I guess my experience is atypical?

No thanks.

If you don’t know who your voting for, don’t vote. If you don’t know who holds what position, don’t vote. If you don’t know what the issues are, don’t vote.

If you want to insure everyone votes with some ridiculous scheme like this, you may as well pick the candidates by lottery.

@Jaxk I completely agree.

@phaedryx – you determine the majority by voting, so I can’t see how not voting could be agreeing with anyone.

As an example. Lets say your idea is enacted, I go to vote in my theoretical sheriff election to avoid the fine. I’ve decided beforehand that I’m voting for the guy in the big hat with the mustache because I loooooove me some mustaches. I have no idea what his politics are of what his past experience includes.

It’s a close race, someone who has researched the candidates and realizes “my guy” is a bigot votes for the other guy because he’s actually qualified beyond his facial hair. Turns out my guy wins by one vote.

I’ve just cancelled that person’s vote because I think it’s funny to vote for the guy in the big hat. I’ve also just determined an election when I had no idea what was going on.

Doesn’t sound like a good way to go.

I understand the upside of what you’re proposing, you’re thinking people would take it more seriously, fulfill their duties, and make a difference.

Instead, a lot of people would probably vote for the guy with the mustache, or the funny name, or who was listed first on the ballot. You simply can’t force people to care.

@funkdaddy: “Instead, a lot of people would probably vote for the guy with the mustache, or the funny name, or who was listed first on the ballot.”

You’re right. But what you’re describing is happening now. And the people who vote and think that they’re voting based on something else are often profoundly confused and ignorant.

I’m not really in support of making people vote – other than in a somewhat joking way. It’s similar to my occasional support for conscription with no exceptions – it would force the ruling class in this country to think long and hard about sending children off to go invade a country if their children are going to go. If everyone had to vote, nobody would be able to write off the nearly half of the population that doesn’t vote. They would have to reach out to the people who don’t matter right now.
Again, I don’t really support this, but it’s an interesting idea.

I’m not necessarily trying to promote this idea; just thought it was an interesting idea to explore.

@Jaxk Seems like a lot of the voting these days is not so much voting for as voting against someone or something. I guess this still counts as having an opinion, hopefully one based on knowledge.

@phaedryx – All for changing how we vote… asked a similar question question a while back Voting on issues rather than representation I just don’t think mandatory voting is the right change.

@tom_g – I getcha. I tried to convince folks if you eat meat you should have to kill one animal yourself each year. Then you get your meat card. Not so much serious as just a little something to remind everyone (myself included) that meat doesn’t come from the grocery store.

@rojo

Say you get to vote on whether you should be fired. A yes vote and you’re gone. A no vote and you keep your job. I would think that even though you vote against it (a no vote) you are taking a definite stand. And possibly a knowledgeable stand.

You might generate a lot of write-ins. Who knows, maybe Mickey Mouse will finally get elected. I will avoid the cynical followup of saying that we might not know the difference.