INTRODUCTION
There are various means that the population of any country can take to become active participants in society. In the realm of democratic government, citizens’ participation at the polls is typically considered the cornerstone of democracy. Explain what democracy entails The United States is widely known to be lagging in the rate at which its citizens participate at the polls. In comparison to most other developed countries, only 53.6% of the voting-age population in the United States participated in the 2012 elections. Indicate the examples of the developed countries. This number is skewed from representing the number of registered, rather than voting-age, population; where more than 84% of the registered population participated in the election during that same year (Desilver 2015). The reason for exaggerated turnout numbers in other democracies, when compared to the United States is because they do mostly calculate turnout rates as a percentage of registered voters; rather than population of voting-age (Lijphart 1997). Some political scientists argue that the reasons for these low rates of turnout are because of hurdles the possible voter might confront; typically referred to as the cost of voting. The huddles include the various inconveniences that arise due to the registration process. Opponents to this theory have argued that these costs of voting are exaggerated and that a lack of benefits to voting is observed by non-voters and therefore they are not incentivized enough to make their way to the polls on Election Day (Stein and Vonnahme 2008). List some of these theorists who oppose the idea being embedded in the cost of voting
Among young adults (also referred to as ‘youth’ in some political science articles; to distinguish from older cohorts) the number of registered voters is drastically lower than their elders, as well as lower rates of turnout. While young adults have long been known to participate in electoral politics at lower rates, they often increase in participatory rates as they age – as has been the case with the Baby Boomer and Generation X cohorts – and if the idea of civic participation is cultivated at young age it can often develop to become habitual over the course of their lifetime. (Bogard, Sheinheit, and Clarke 2008). In addition, it is important to make newly eligible citizens comfortable in their introduction to civic engagement. However, with technological advances and previous electoral reforms aimed at increasing participation it is bothersome that these numbers have not risen as a result.
While approaching the subject of means to increasing voter participation, it is important to identify different avenues by which the goal could be achieved. There have been arguments made that today’s media culture is volatile and puts off potential voters and as a result they rebuff the political environment.Expain how does media culture affect potential voters? Others have made arguments that the problem lies with the campaigns themselves, the candidates, and/or the political parties, and the ways by which they conduct themselves. While these arguments, and others, certainly hold some validity, the most realistic method to truly enhancing electoral participation is through institutional reform aimed at increasing convenience on the voter’s behalf. Try to cite the people that give these claims, who are the others? Among institutional electoral politics, reforms can be aimed in either of two directions: registration and issues (mainly the costs of voting) that prevent some eligible citizens from be granted access to participating, as well as the methods by which one may cast their ballot. Previous reforms aimed at reconfiguring the electoral process in the United States include the introduction of methods such as Election Day registration, absentee voting, in-person early voting, etc. By examining these methods through a cost-benefit analysis and exploring additionally proposed reforms (that in some instances have been adopted in foreign democracies), this article will assist the argument for and steer the direction that future institutional electoral policies should be taken. A key component to the suggested reforms that will be proposed as a result of this literature is the understanding that reform must be comprehensive across a broad spectrum of institutional policies regarding both registration and voting practices. The cost of both registration and voting must be eliminated, if not drastically reduced, in order to improve electoral participation rates across the country. There is, as will be shown, no unambiguous method that should be given more attention; as compared to other avenues, to reduce the burden of citizen participation. Various mediums to increasing convenience voting must be altered for the benefit of the entire population, and the lagging young adult cohort in particular, so to ensure that individuals can approach the election from whichever vehicle is easiest for them and allows for the same result; that they have their vote counted in the democracy at large.
The introduction part can either try to explain methods on increasing voters in general or create a subsection for the youths. They are the cohorts, what reforms are there to ensure that the youths are able to vote when they attain the required age. Can indicate some of the challenges that they face that make them not turn out for the voting exercise.
LITERATURE REVIEW
First and foremost, the costs for registering to vote must be lowered. It has even been said that the process of registration presents costs higher than that of voting and, as a result, act as a deterrent to voting (Lijphart 1997). Among literature examining youth participation, the means by which eligible voters register is a common feature in discussion of overall convenience voting. Despite the emergence and advancement of technology, a significant portion of young adults register to vote through registration drives at primarily the collegiate level; as well as the high school setting. While 2008 was a sensational year for the voting rate of young adults, only 48.5% of the youngest cohort (aged 18-24) cast a ballot nationwide. However, Stacy G. Ulbig and Tamara Waggener, each an associate professor of political science at Sam Houston State University (SHSU), found that nearly 76% of students who registered through the SHSU registration drive actually cast a ballot in the general election; vastly improved on the 62% national turnout rate for the same age range nationwide with at least some college experience (2011). (It is worth noting for the notation of the previous statistic that it is common knowledge among academics in political science that one’s level of education is directly related to their electoral participation.) Similar results were found in both a 2008 study conducted at Northwestern University as well as a study of the 2004 election. These results highlight the fact that on-campus registration drives are directly related to increase in turnout among students who are exposed to these opportunities to register. These registration drives result in higher participation rates when staffed by student-led, partisan groups rather than non-student, non-partisan groups(Ulbig and Waggener 2011).
Interestingly enough, technological advances have been shown to hinder registration efforts. Studying e-mail outreach, Elizabeth Bennion and David Nickerson, professors of political science at Indiana University South Bend and the University of Notre Dame respectively, concluded that efforts requiring individuals to return materials on their own may (after having downloaded and printed the registration form online) may do more harm than good (2011). A traditional voter registration drive has two primary benefits. First, the registration form must neither be downloaded (nor printed) by the individual as it is presented to them in a hard-copy form. After the short time required to fill out their registration card, the prospective voter can immediately return their registration to the staff working the booth; who will in turn make sure that their registration form is returned to the proper location and on time. Secondly, registration drives are typically staffed by more informed, politically active members of society who may be able to answer basic questions at that moment. The answers to their questions provide these prospective voters with a basic understanding (sometimes referred to as political knowledge) of the process and makes them feel more comfortable with the process going forward; which has been found to increase their likelihood of turning out to vote. Electronic transactions are known to be economically superior to in-person transactions. Drastic savings as a result of online transactions make the prospect of conducting more business online very attractive. With regards to online registration, the unfavorable characteristics of online availability of registration forms (and e-mail reminders to register) show a negative response in registering among eligible registrants. Bennion and Wilkerson note two important points with regard to why online registration and e-mail reminders may negate individuals from registering; e-mail outreach is easy to ignore and these alternative methods for registering may negate a person from taking advantage of quick, in-person registration drives when they are presented that opportunity (2011). More and more Americans have multiple e-mail addresses. These e-mail address help users to sort between what kinds of groups they give their particular e-mail address to so they know generally which e-mail address to give more priority to and which addresses are not as important to them. Ensuring that registration information gets to the “important” address is the difficult task; and even when the e-mail reminding the individual to register is viewed, one e-mail among many can be easy to ignore. When that reminder to register has been received (and viewed) by an individual, it also increase the likelihood that they will ignore in-person registration drives and other opportunities to register because in the moment they realize that they can, and tell themselves that they will, register through their alternative option (Bennion and Wilkerson 2011).
The review focuses on the young voter, there needs to be some consideration of the old people who would love to vote.
One of the most significant reforms to reduce the burden of registration costs in recent years was the National Voter Registration Act of 1993; also known as the Motor Voter Act. Under this legislation, citizens who interact with government services (primarily through the Department/Bureau of Motor Vehicles) will be offered the opportunity to register to vote by that government organization. While the Motor Voter Act has certainly been beneficial to lowering the costs of registering, it is not without criticism. Brandon Schoettle and Michael Sivak of the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute recently conducted a survey regarding Americans’ driving habits. It was revealed that nearly 20% less 19-year-olds have their license as compared to this same age group in 1983. The study also revealed that more than 15% of current could-be drivers do not have a driver’s license in comparison to previous years’ statistics of that same age range (Plumer 2013). While this statistic should not be over exaggerated (the majority of eligible drivers do still have their driver’s license), this statistic still points to the fact that less members of the population are interacting with the Motor Voter Act at their local license branch. The costs of registering have certainly been reduced as a result of this legislation, but until all barriers have been eliminated from eligible voters, the fight is not over.
Another viable option – that has been adopted in many states – to lower the costs of registering (and subsequently voting) is Election Day registration (EDR). Currently, only eleven states plus the District of Columbia have in place EDR; where eligible voters of that state may arrive on Election Day, register, and vote. In most other states, the deadline to register for voting is between eight and 30 days prior to the election. EDR is the epitome of registration convenience for the voter.
How does Election Day registration (EDR) lower the cost of registration? The point is vague and needs further explanation. There is need for citing the authors that indicated the reforms.
PROPOSED REFORMS
An unfamiliar registration policy to the United States is the system that has been adopted in many European countries; where registration is automatic or the responsibility of the government rather than the individual. Political scientists have conducted studies that have found turnout could be increased by as much as 14 points if automatic registration were adopted. Among the current structures of differing state regulations (mainly comparing to EDR to registration deadlines) it was found to be a difference of 15 percentage points (Lijphart 1997).The difficulty with this system of automatic registration in the United States is registration guidelines are dictated by the states rather than the federal government. Under this system, a fairly mobile population – one that moves across state borders without explicit government knowledge with regard to electoral registration – is difficult to accurately track. A voter could be registered to vote in one state but, upon moving to a new state, could become registered in their new host state’s voter rolls and still be registered in their former state. This could lead to double registration that would undermine the electoral process.
Turning our attention to the actual voting matter, there are a plethora of various propositions to reforming the matter of voting itself. Voting reform proposals include: compulsory (or mandatory) voting, multi-day voting, and reconstruction of precinct voting districts.
Compulsory voting is the legal mandate that eligible citizens must participate in the election; or face legal repercussions through fines or other measures. Compulsory voting is fairly common among certain European democracies in particular. Swedish political scientist Herbert Tingsten once stated “that popular participation in elections is very high in countries with compulsory voting, that the introduction of compulsory voting everywhere has been accompanied by a remarkable rise in participation, and that in countries where [it] has been enacted in certain regions, these display more intense participation than the regions without compulsory voting” (Tingsten qtd. in Lijphart 1997). Compulsory voting – while increasing electoral participation – does not increase at the same rate, in countries where previous participation is already high, as it does in countries with low voter turnout. This varying participation can be seen in only a 3% difference in participation in Austria; where voter turnout was well above 90%. However, some countries witness much more drastic changes in electoral participation following the abolition (or implementation) of compulsory voting. For example, the Netherlands, Australia, and Brazil have seen differences of about 10%, more than 28%, and nearly 30% respectively; removal of compulsory voting in the cases of the Netherlands and Brazil, and implementation of compulsory voting in Australia (Lijphart 1997).
A much less discussed institutional reformation of voting practices, for the convenience of the voters, is the utilization of multi-day voting. Multi-day voting could be understood to mean the allowance of early voting or similar practices (where votes can be made prior to Election Day without actually being counted until the day of). In this instance multi-day voting refers to the practice of allowing Election “Day” voting centers to be open for multiple days (for the same round of voting) rather than a one day influx of voters. In terms of convenience, this practice gives eligible voters a larger window of time to appear and cast their ballot; in comparison to the current system. Multi-day voting arrives with various logistical, and burdensome, hurdles however. Security of the multi-day voting location must be maintained overnight. It is also essential that material maintain its integrity; such materials could include: voter lists, unused ballots, completed forms, and lists of/instructions for eligibility requirements for voters not already on the voters list, as well as seals and equipment used to control/prevent fraud (“Voting Operations”). So while multi-day voting (or perhaps weekend voting) would reduce costs to voting for the population by allowing them more time to fit making their way to the polls into their schedule, the same program would create new, financially and logistically challenging, costs for the state.
Redistricting (or redesign) of the current precinct design of polling place assignment and locations is another proposition for reforming the current electoral institutions to being more convenient; and thus easier to take part in and raise participation rates. Current precinct formations are done to equally distribute the population to particular precinct (or polling places) locations so that no polling location is too far from their residence. One proposed reorganization of precincts is the idea of Election Day vote centers (EDVCs). EDVCs would be structured in a way that registered voters could appear to any location within the county on Election Day to cast their ballot; rather than being forced to travel to their designated precinct polling location. Most typical precinct polling locations are located in public places near the individuals’ neighborhood such as a local school, library, or church. The intention behind EDVCs is to relocate them to places more commonly visited by the public throughout their day such as the local supermarket. This relocation is targeted to increase voter turnout among nonvoters who either choose not to travel to the local library or forget about voting or where their polling location is. The problem with past reforms targeting the institution and methods of electoral systems is that they frequently appease habitual voters rather than attracting infrequent voters (Stein and Vonnahme 2008). In previous implementations of EDVCs, registered voters were able to cast ballots at any EDVC in the county. Certainly, registration pools could be expanded for voters to participate at any EDVC in their state, but that would incur higher costs and responsibilities by the state. Stein and Vonnahme’s research focuses on the implementation and comparison of EDVCs in Larimer and Weld counties in Colorado.
2002 Precincts 2003 EDVCs
Schools, fire stations
and churches 73% 54%
Hotels, public facilities
and apartment complexes 27% 46%
N 143 22
In the 2016 presidential primaries in Arizona, voters were forced to wait hours in line before being able to cast their ballot. Arizona had a reduction in number of polling places, but for cost-cutting reasons rather than redistribution of the same electoral infrastructure. When locations are cut, the staff that would have been working should be relocated to these new polling sites so that the capability of these few sites is greater and better equipped.
POLICY PROPOSAL
The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) is a reputable organization that has accumulated various data sets that help illustrate youth participation in electoral politics and civic behavior in general. One CIRCLE survey data publication analyzed why registered voters didn’t vote during the 2010 midterm elections. Analyzing a midterm election is particularly interesting because participation is traditionally lower during these less salient years. These eligible midterm voters and the fact that they are registered points to the fact that they are more politically active yet still did not find their way to the polls on Election Day. Over one-third of registered voters under the age of 30 stated they did not make it to the polls in 2010 because they were too busy or had a work scheduling conflict. In addition, registration problems was more than twice as common a response as it was for voters 30 years of age and older. Having been out of town or away from home also accounted for a significant portion of responses from the young adult cohort; more than one-tenth of respondents (Kawashima-Ginsberg 2014). All of these responses could be reduced had costs to voting been lowered. Time is valuable, and voters have various responsibilities to themselves and their families. These reasons are why convenience voting in the 21st century should be the focus of election officials if they truly want participation rates to increase and legitimize the democracy; where all eligible citizens can be heard.
Registration is the first hurdle in reducing the cost to vote; and increase turnout. Many young adults are not as politically inclined as their elders for various reasons. However, registration deadlines prevent those who wish to participate in the election from doing so. The campaign season is long. For many young adults they do not care to follow the campaigns at early stages, however, in the days and weeks leading up to an election, more people begin to follow the campaigns as it dominates news, social media, and the world around them. By the time that infrequent or non-voters begin to take interest in the political sphere, their chances of being registered have passed in a majority of the states. For those states where EDR is available, we see much higher rates of participation. The first proposal, in dealing with registration guidelines is to allow for EDR in all 50 states and voting territories of the United States. Bennion and Wilkerson’s research shows us that despite technological advances, and implementation, related to registration, the results can, and do, negate the intension for reducing costs to voting.
The next step in increasing participation rates, particularly among young adults, is more widespread knowledge of early voting abilities and absentee voting. No-excuse absentee voting should also be utilized by all 50 states. Currently, 22 states require an excuse to vote absentee (or by mail) and 18 either require an excuse or do not allow any in-person early voting (Alvarez, Levin, and Sinclair 2012). The demand by the state for an excuse of why certain individuals are choosing to vote by alternative methods is an unnecessary obstacle to voters. In states where an excuse is necessary for either, the hassle of acquiring documentation to prove why they are choosing to vote by these methods is enough to stop anyone from going any further. These excuses are merely bureaucratic drama intended to dissuade and prevent should-be voters from participating.
One argument that has been made with regard to all in-person early voting is that these citizens may miss vital information that is revealed in the latter stages of the campaign. These arguments are invalid because many of those voters are more politically active partisans who will not be dissuaded from voting for their candidate no matter what the revelation. The election officials are not responsible for understanding for why people vote the way they do. They should only be concerned with conducting a fair election and ensuring the legitimacy of the process.
A concern with which election officials should take worry is the newly available technologies that could be taken advantage of to efficiently and accurately record the votes. Donald P. Moynihan, an assistant professor at the George Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, researched different technologies and how they could be utilized to secure election results. Moynihan writes that technology, while furthering efficiency, should not be considered infallible. Hackers are who they are because they find avenues to infiltrate computer systems that were not designed to be protected through that route by their designers. Computer specialists have forewarned election officials that they cannot become overly reliable of technology and assume that solutions to current problems solved by these technologies will not produce new vulnerabilities (2004). Two specific technologies that Moynihan finds to be particularly disturbing are lever machines which can be unintentionally or intentionally uncalibrated and cause votes to be recorded incorrectly. The difficulty here is that there is not backup solution to ensure the integrity of the system can be upheld. The second technology he finds disturbing is the direct recording election (DRE) machine. DREs are completely computerized systems that claim to quickly and accurately record votes into a database and keep a running tally of votes. The problem here is that, again, there is no paper backup should the system malfunction or be tampered with. In both of these circumstances errors in recording could go unknown until the majority or all ballots had been cast and abnormalities in results are found. Traditional paper ballots, counted by election officials/poll workers have a hard copy that can be recounted if need be. Additionally, these paper ballots could be
The final proposal I put forth is the dissolution of precinct voting systems. The research conducted in Larimer and Weld counties in Colorado show that EDVCs can increase participation in even the least salient elections. As long as resources are redistributed, and not removed as was the case in Arizona for financial reasons, then the reduction and relocation of polling places will not be a problem. While the relocation of polling places will require a time for voters to become acquainted with, their new location in higher traffic areas will be beneficial. Frequent voters are more apt to going through the effort of locating their polling place. For the infrequent voter, placing these polling locations in more common areas where they spend time will eliminate that burden of retrieving the information of where they are allowed to vote. Under EDVCs the expanded geographical location will allow them to find a polling place more convenient for them as they fit voting into their schedule for the day. While the time to travel to a location further from one’s residence may impose an opportunity cost (Dyck and Gimpel 2005), the relocation of these polling places to more publicly trafficked areas will increase the number of infrequent or non-voters who would have not ventured to their specified precinct polling place or attempted to even figure out where their location may have been. In Stein and Vonnahme’s study, all of the EDVCs were able to include registrants from the entire county rather than a particular neighborhood being forced to vote at one precinct location. I would propose taking this one step further and allowing registrants to arrive at any EDVC in the state in which they are registered (or able to register on that day) and cast their ballot. With the implementation of newer technology, the registrant could still have access to their specific local election ballot because ballots could be printed at that moment and issued to them.
DISCUSSION
I have illustrated a number of way in which the current electoral system could be reconfigured to reduce unnecessary costs to eligible voters. The young adults of today have grown up in a world tailored to convenience. Without changing the electoral system to become more efficient and convenient, we will continue to see depressed voter turnouts among the young adult cohort. The costs to register alone have caused some confusion among young voters. In a 2012 Pew Research Center poll, only half of adults under the age of 30 are even sure that they are registered to vote.
Although I examine multi-day voting, I believe that improving on already established (yet limited) means of convenience registering and voting can drastically improve turnout among all age groups, especially the youngest of voters. The financial burden by the state to pay workers for multiple days and the responsibility to ensure that voting places retain integrity and security over that multiple days is an unnecessary challenge. Issues will remain in the media and campaign environment that will disinterest some citizens from taking part in the electoral process. Politically disinterested persons, for the most part, will find themselves becoming more politically inclined as they age over the long term as well as a particular election nears in the short term. Eliminating registration deadlines and embracing the multiple alternatives to traditional voting will only help to attain these citizens’ votes. Reconstructing the design of polling places from precincts to EDVCs will additionally increase voter turnout.
CONCLUSION
The young adults who are eligible to vote are trailing older cohorts drastically in participating in the electoral process. Those older cohorts make the majority of the United States voting population, a voting population that has historically trailed most advanced democracies in participatory rates. Increasing the rate of participation among the youngest eligible cohort is imperative to validating the democratic system that we live in. If they become more inclined to participate in civics at a young age, it is more likely that this behavior will become habitual and carry with them for life. The continued implementation of registration drives (preferably partisan and student-led) is important. With around two-thirds of young adults attending some form of higher education, colleges and universities are ideal locations to focus these initiatives. However, the idea of convenience voting is that it should appeal to all eligible voters and that there should be multiple avenues by which they can become registered and cast their ballot. The idea of convenience voting should be understood to necessitate a comprehensive solution; like the ideas I have proposed. Absentee and early voting should be expanded across the country and stripped of loopholes that prevent people from taking advantage of these means of voting. EDR should also be implemented across the country because registering to vote is half the battle. Encompassing registration and voting into one location and one time period is the ideal convenience for nonpartisan types who do not actively engage with the electoral process until it is sometimes too late.
Mandatory participation in voting or individuals face legal repercussions is one of the reforms. A multi-day voting is another reform with much less institutional reformation. It involves several days in which the elections are held instead of a single day that experiences an influx of voters. These reforms are great and can achieve a high number of voters, however does is cover the whole population or a aspecif one. Various computer specialists have warned on the over-relying on technology to give solutions for voting. The article summarizes the reforms that are functional. The reforms need to address the population generally or focus on the youths.
References
Bennion, Elizabeth A. and David W. Nickerson. 2011. “The Cost of Convenience: An Experiment Showing E-Mail Outreach Decreases Voter Registration.” Political Research Quarterly 64 (4): 858-869. doi:10.1177/I065912910382304.
Bogard, Cynthia J., Ian Sheinheit, and Renee P. Clarke. 2008. “Information They Can Trust: Increasing Youth Voter Turnout at the University.” PS: Political Science and Politics 41 (3): 541-546. doi:10.1017/S1049096508080724.
Desilver, Drew. 2015. “U.S. voter turnout trails most developed countries.” Pew Research Center. Accessed March 3. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/06/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/.
Dyck, Joshua J. and James G. Gimpel. 2005. “Distance, Turnout, and the Convenience of Voting.” Social Science Quarterly 86 (3): 531-548. Political Science Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed March 8, 2016).
Kawashima-Ginsberg, K. 2014. “2014 Midterms: Why (Some) Registered Youth Don’t Vote.” The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Accessed March 3. http://civicyouth.org/2014-midterms-why-some-registered-youth-dont-vote/.
Lijphart, Arend. 1997. “Unequal Participation: Democracy’s Unresolved Dilemma.” The American Political Science Review 91 (1): 1-14. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2952255.
Moynihan, Donald P. 2004. “Building Secure Elections: E-Voting, Security, and Systems Theory.” Public Administration Review 64 (5): 515-528. doi:10.1111/J.1540-6210.2004.00400.x.
Plumer, Brad. 2013. “Why aren’t young people getting drivers’ licenses? Too much hassle!” The Washington Post, August 7.
Stein, Robert M. and Greg Vonnahme. 2008. “Engaging the Unengaged Voter: Vote Centers and Voter Turnout.” The Journal of Poltics 70 (2): 487-497. doi:10.1017/S0022381608080456.
Ulbig, Stacy G. and Tamara Waggener. 2011. “Getting Registered and Getting to the Polls: The Impact of Voter Registration Strategy and Information Provision on Turnout of College Students.” PS: Political Science and Politics 44 (3): 544-551. doi:10.1017/S1049096511000643.
“Voting Operations.” 2010. ACE: The Electoral Knowledge Network. Accessed March 19. http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/vo/vo30/default.
“Youth Engagement Falls; Registration Also Declines.” 2012. Pew Research Center. Accessed March 3. http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/28/youth-engagement-falls-registration-also-declines/.
