Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiA Call for Universal Voter Registration
Between 2 and 4 million Americans were unable to vote in the last election because of problems with their registration. And that's just people who tried to vote; in 2006, there were more than 65 million who were eligible to vote, but weren't even registered. That's a third of potential voters.
It doesn't have to be this way. Registration rates in other countries frequently run upwards of 90 percent (both Canada and France hit that mark, for example, while Venezuela stands at roughly 94 percent, and Russia about 97). Now reformers are seizing the moment to use existing law to expand registration, as well as considering new laws that could finally put the United States on an equal footing with many of the world's other democracies.
"That's a pretty staggering number," says Project Vote's executive director Michael Slater of the millions unable to cast a ballot in 2008. "We don't have the egregious problems with voter registration that we had in the past, but it's still a system that's far from perfect and it's still a system that's preventing people from voting in America."
As with too much else in America, the divide between the registered and the unregistered isn't neutral. The think tank Demos estimates that while 80 percent of citizens in households making $100,000 or more a year are registered to vote, only 60 percent of those making less than $25,000 a year can say the same.
The National Voter Registration Act, passed in 1993 and often known as the 'Motor-Voter' Law because it made it possible to register to vote at your local DMV, was intended not only to make registration easier, but to begin closing the chasm between rich and poor voters. Section 7 of the act instructed public assistance agencies to offer everyone who walked through their doors an opportunity to register to vote. At first states complied and registrations jumped, but as of 2006 voter registration applications from public assistance agencies had plummeted from over 2.5 million to below 500,000.
Along with Project Vote and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Demos has set about challenging states to comply with the NVRA. In Missouri, the state's public assistance agencies had collected a measly 15,500 registrations in 2005 and 2006. In the six months after the coalition won a court ruling against the state in July 2008, those same agencies saw 90,000 new registrations. North Carolina saw a similar six-fold increase in registrations, while Virginia saw monthly registration applications leap eight-fold.
Iowa offers an even more compelling demonstration of the benefits of enforcing the NVRA. Even though Iowa had one of the highest voter registration rates in the country, after the Governor lit a fire under its public assistance agencies (or ordered its public assistance agencies to comply with law), the state still saw a stampede of new voters through those agencies' doors: a mind-boggling 3000 percent increase over 2003. As a report issued by Project Vote and Demos concludes, if this is what happens in a state with a strong registration rate, states with low registration rates can expect even more dramatic results.
On the other side of the scale, there's the state of Maryland. In the two years after the NVRA was passed, Maryland registered a mere 982 voters via its public assistance agencies. After a private party filed suit, the state got its act together. In 1999 and 2000, those same agencies registered 32,250 people. Then the agreement by which the suit had been settled came to an end in 2001, and public assistance registrations tumbled back down to around 1,000. "Most states which are covered by the NVRA are not in compliance," says Project Vote's executive director, Michael Slater. "The lesson that we draw from this is the old line that vigilance is the cost of liberty. Performance needs to be monitored and states that are failing need to be taken to task." Project Vote and Demos have already issued 'notice letters' to six of the forty-four states covered by the act that they're failing to comply, the first step toward taking legal action against them.
"The good news is the Justice Department is actually interested in enforcing this again," says Regina Eaton, the Deputy Director of the Democracy Program at Demos. "We've already seen a marked change in attitude." 13 million people who make less than $25,000 a year aren't registered to vote. Their chances of voting just got a whole lot better.
Placing the burden on voters to register before they can participate in elections was first done in Massachusetts in 1801, but it was only after the 15th Amendment granted African-American men the right to vote and waves of immigrants began arriving on the country's shores that such laws gained traction. Under the original Massachusetts law, town assessors drew up lists of voters, which were then publicly posted. If come election day your name wasn't on the list, you could simply present the necessary documents and register to vote. Since then, many states have shifted the burden onto the voter and closed the window in which it's possible to register. "Voter registration deadlines vary widely across the nation," says Demos' Eaton, observing that "these cut-off dates bear little relevance to a state's ability to run smooth elections."
As evidence, Eaton cites the experience of the nine states which now allow voters to register and cast their ballot on the same day. Usually referred to as election day registration (EDR) -- except in those states like North Carolina where election day is off limits, but voters can still register and cast their ballot early, where it's therefore known as same day registration -- this simple reform holds the potential to dramatically increase participation in our democracy. Every one of the five states with the highest percent turnout in 2008 used EDR, and on average, states with EDR saw turnout rates 7 percent higher than those without. Historically, states with EDR have enjoyed an even greater advantage, usually leading the rest of the country by between 10 and 12 percent.
In the wake of the 2004 election, the AGs of New Hampshire and Wisconsin both launched investigations of EDR voters for fraud. In both states, the practice was vindicated. Demos' early estimates suggest that in the last election over 1.1 million Americans used EDR and SDR to vote. Iowa, which enacted EDR in 2007, saw the highest turnout in state history in 2008, even as the number of provisional ballots cast (between 20 and 33 percent of which often go uncounted) plunged by almost 70 percent between 2004 and 2008. Young voters in particular benefit from EDR. As young Americans, especially college students, are highly mobile, EDR ensures that they can show up at the polls and vote on Election Day. Research suggests that EDR could raise turnout of young voters in presidential elections by 14 percent.
Yet these reforms still leave the burden of registration on the voter. The holy grail of registration reform remains universal registration. As the Election Protection coalition states in its report on the 2008 election, this would mean a registration system that was automatic, permanent (providing voters an opportunity to update their registration when they changed their name or address, for example), and allows for voters to correct any mistakes on election day. "A system where everybody's registered in some fashion automatically is much better than the patchwork system we have now," says Regina Eaton of Demos. "But that doesn't mean we don't need a way to make corrections. And there will be errors." In her analysis, EDR is part of the foundation of universal registration.
Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU, calls universal registration "potentially the most significant improvement since the Voting Rights Act of 1965." He sees it as the surest path toward giving those 65 million more potential voters a voice in our democracy. "Roughly a third of eligible Americans still are not registered," Waldman says. "They tend to be less educated. They tend to be people who are locked out of the system. We don't expect people who are going to court to rustle up their own juries. Making sure that every citizen is registered should be a core responsibility of government."
Project Vote's Michael Slater is quick to sound a note of caution. He points to the troubled implementation of the Help America Vote Act's requirement that state's implement statewide voter registration databases. "Creating a brand new untested system has a real risk of making the system worse rather than better," he says. While he agrees with "the central tenet," that the state and not the individual should be responsible for registration, "we need to roll it out over a period of time so we know what we're getting. In the meantime we need to enforce what we have already, which would get us a long way toward universal registration."
As of this writing, Senator Chuck Schumer is reportedly considering introducing legislation to this effect in Congress soon. We may not have such a long way to go.
47 Comments so far
Show AllSince our choice was a Full bodied Bush vs. Bush light, who frigging cares?
War goes on
occupation the norm
long after King Obama the first is
selling his memoirs
US troops will be dying in Iraq
covert strikes the norm
innocent lives lost,
mostly kids,
coal continues to pollute
destroy, poison, and suffocate,
us all...
Katrina babbles on
an endless drone of irrelevance
nothing changes
save the sheeple
lining up for
more of the same...
yawn
The first thing to do is making voting easier - make it a public holiday. That would be the most return for least resistance.
FYI, Katrina turned The Nation rightward - she even found it too radical to (gasp!) consider supporting Nader or McKinney.
In Australia, we have universal, compulsory voter registration administered by an independent non-partisan electoral authority at federal and state level.
In addition to this, every enrolled voter has to account for his or her vote on Election Day, by either turning up at a polling station, arranging an absentee vote or in exceptional circumstances arranging for electoral officials to come to them.
This is not quiet compulsory voting as the ballot being secret (introduced first in Australia in the mid 19th century) means that the voter can leave his or her ballot blank. (Although there is a nominal fine $20 for not voting without reasonable excuse.)
The result is a 95% turn out at all elections.
This system was introduced in the 1920’s when after a very poor turnout conservative politicians feared that predominately conservative rural voters may not be making the necessary effort to travel often long distances to cast their vote unless compelled in some way. In latter times conservatives have made noises about abolishing the compulsory elements of the system believing that elements of society more likely to vote for their opponents, the unemployed, aborigines, migrants, short term prisoners etc might lack the necessary motivation to voluntarily become involved in the electoral process.
What has been the social and political result if any? It perhaps did mean that a social democratic party based in the trade union movement was able to obtain government from time to time. These governments introduced measures such as universal health cover, minimum wage laws, anti discrimination laws, land rights for aborigines and (for a time) free tertiary education.
How about making it a felony to conspire to prevent people from voting or commit election fraud?
With a penalty of 20 years to life in prison? With a fine of up to $1 billion. Come-on, the big guys can afford it!
Nearly 20% of Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth. This block is enough to turn nearly any election.
Any thoughts that they might mostly vote Republican?
I'd like to know why in this so-called democracy, we still have one unfilled senate seat?
"Demorcacy" is somewhere between a quaint romantic notion and a useful lie.
The answer isn't here.
There really are no answers, the fittest prosper. Those who prosper were the fittest.
How about giving us better candidates and allowing 3rd parties equal airtime? Why should monied celebrities hog up the show?
Money often dictates who the winner is. Perhaps corruption has trickled down to we the people. Most of us even on this forum despite our anger against the Democrats betraying us are used to voting for the same party yet again just like the extreme social conservatives, aka the Limbaugh crowd, will scream fits about their party but in the end vote for them anyway. As much as I would like to see 3rd parties taking over Congress starting in 2010 and possibly the White House down the road, to most of us the chances of that happening are so far slim to none. As long as we are all kept distracted to the politics and entertainment bullshit on the radio, television, and even the internet, I seriously doubt much is going to change. Even youtube isn't tweaking their searches and recommendations to let 3rd party candidates be known.
Bravo for election reform on all fronts, if not in all ways.
Most central, though, might be to reduce the effect of advertising money on the whole process.
Almost everyone here in Ecuador votes - the system assures that with potentially serious sanctions for not doing so. There's a small fine for not voting but, more important, a record of your having voted is a requirement for many essential interactions with governmental
institutions, like registering your car or getting a driver's license, getting health insurance, getting a passport, etc. You can vote a blank ballot or disfigure one, but must still vote (all blank ballots count as votes for who or what otherwise gets the most votes). I think I rather like the idea. Very smooth and efficient system with clear instructions and no long lines.
(I favor aggressive automatic registration combined with vote by mail (which would eliminate early votes in the east influencing voting in the West.)
"the system assures that with potentially serious sanctions for not doing so."
Sounds oppressive. Freedom loving people should not stand for such things.
We were never intended to be a "Democracy", but rather a "Republic". With the American "two party system", neither exists. As Ralph Nader has pointed out several times, we have a system of, by and for the corporations. Corporations control the main stream media, thus the dumbing down of America is virtually complete. Stop reading these "alternative news sources" and turn on your T.V.. NOW
Yeah sure, give us the popular vote, ban "vote purging", ban the Electoral College, ban super-delegates, and disband the Senate as well.
But the issue is not getting more people to vote for our two headed duopoly. It's giving people a reason to vote.
The issue is not merely transparency but accountability. It's no help, for example, to know voting machines are rigged and then keep using them.
KVH has written three articles on election reform, and yet no mention of rigged voting machines, run-off voting, mandatory public financing, blocking corporate influence, or advancing "third parties".
As Sibel Edmonds recently wrote,
"What I want the readers to do is to read the extremely important cases above, step back in time to those un-ending campaign trail days, and answer the following questions:
How would Senator McCain have acted on these same issues if he had been elected? How would Senator Hilary Clinton? Do you believe there would have been any major differences? Weren't their records almost identical to Senator Obama's on these issues? If you are like me, and answer 'same,' 'same,' 'no,' and 'yes,' then, why do you think we ended up with these exact same candidates, those deemed 'viable' and sold to us as such?"
One should be required to pass a "critical thinking" course before one is allowed to vote.
This is better than a literacy test of the old south, it would actually measure someones ability to dissect arguments for content.
Of course, the ruling elite don't want a literate or thinking public.
Elections are a shame now and will remain so into the future.
Don't vote, save yourself the frustration.
It's decent of you to include such a fine counterexample to your own argument.
"One should be required to pass a "critical thinking" course before one is allowed to vote. "
That might be a good idea.
"One should be required to pass a "critical thinking" course before one is allowed to vote. "
How about before running for office?
Sioux Rose
THOMAS: Good one!
Democracy is a system that is meant for participation. If someone can't be bothered to get off their butt and register to vote, inform themselves on the issues and pick the best candidate from what someone pointed out are not the best bunch of candidates......I do not want them to vote. Nor do they deserve the vote.
When I grew up there were many blacks and Latino Americans that would have crawled across glass to get the opportunity to vote. That is not the case now.
I fail to see why anyone would want the uninformed to vote unless they had a personal gain issue from that vote.
"Democracy is a system that is meant for participation."
What if there are people who are sick and tired of all this fake democracy going on and don't feel like voting? If 3rd parties were given equal airtime as the Republicans and Democrats so that they could have a chance to better inform the voters and in the process help, more people would be motivated to vote. I wouldn't blame the nonvoters for their apathy to politics. Even us 3rd parties are often cast aside as nonvoters even though we voted and are often told that we shouldn't have voted.
"If someone can't be bothered to get off their butt and register to vote, inform themselves on the issues and pick the best candidate from what someone pointed out are not the best bunch of candidates......I do not want them to vote. Nor do they deserve the vote."
If you're talking about uninformed voters, then that includes most of the voters who chose between D and R. 3rd party voters are generally very well informed and take their candidates' stands on the issues seriously. You'd be surprised to find at least half of those who voted D and half of those who voted for R being totally uninformed about their candidates' positions but simply choosing on party label or corporate media sound bites.
"When I grew up there were many blacks and Latino Americans that would have crawled across glass to get the opportunity to vote. That is not the case now."
The Latino and Black voters back then weren't misinformed unlike today. But then there are more blacks and latinos growing apathetic because they feel that they are being shut out of real choices. If they know that there's no difference between the Democrats and Republicans and that third parties are almost ways prevented from being heard at all, then why blame them?
"If 3rd parties were given equal airtime as the Republicans and Democrats so that they could have a chance to better inform the voters and in the process help, more people would be motivated to vote."
One can only have a single third party; after that, wouldn't they be 'multiparties'?
Why would our masters give us the means to veto their actiosn or put them in prison?
"Universal registration"? "Enforcement?" Can you say totalitarian? Many people don't want to register, because they don't vote anyway. You want to know where to find them, maybe send a black SUV or prison bus to collect them every time there is an election for anything, local, state federal? Herd them to the polls? Fine them for slacking? Ten years in supermax for third offense? Come on, Katrina.
Actually, this article suggests none of the measures you associate with the author's language, and I'm not sure what part of it you find recognizably similar.
U.S. Citizens are all registered already. They have Social Security numbers, birth certificates or immigration papers at the very least. Adults generally have already left a pretty substantial paper trail and digital trace as well, even if we just stick to what's publicly known.
In what way would privacy or autonomy be damaged by allowing those already registered as citizens of age to vote?
What the piece omits is that most of those countries with higher voter registration rates also have national ID cards. Each of them also has in their history the government using said national ID card databases for nefarious purposes (which the US government is certainly capable of, as they have done so in the past, the Palmer Raids, COINTELPRO, etc.).
The current American system is dysfunctional, systematically disenfranchises the poor and minorities, and is several decades behind technologically, but do we really want the cure -- a national ID card?
Good point.
Does that always mean a national ID card is required? Do you believe a database (or many of them) does not already exist in the US?
No! WE have a 'federal' system. The individual states hold elections.
Politics is no longer a viable avenue to reform.
Z-zzzzzzz
Well comrade, I agree with you on that, at least partly, not for theoretical reasons but rather practical ones. The ever-present dilemma we face is: how to affect reform/change? Who will lead the charge? Can it be peaceful or is violence necessary for the greater good?
I can see capitalism continuing its slow-grinding way to, eventually, a complete stop, when in the end, someone will finally use a nuclear device in an effort to stop Them. Better to use small, effective levels of violence and other means now, than to wait for someone to really f**k things up.
Unless you somehow think these people will finally, at some point, start doing the right things; Preserving the earth. Equality for all Nutritious food for all. Education for all. Quality healthcare for all. The end of war as practiced by "Them", then you'd better start getting busy. If you have kids, you'd damn sure better start getting busy.
Are They capable of giving up a little of these things that They all have and sharing them with the masses? No, they are not. And they never will be. Is there some little piece of humanity buried in Their cold hearts that might change them? No. And they don't have hearts, either.
Who will lead? There must be thousands of leaders.
KVH and the rest of these people have magazines to sell and careers to maintain and grow. Solving any of the above issues is not at their core interests. They are not useful for gaining the things we want. How many articles? How many "series"? How many votes? How many candidates? How many elections?
Tell me, how many is enough?
Bush Sr. saw a thousand points of light. I see a thousand monkey-wrenches.
Just my take.
That's a very nice idea but there's just one problem. How about supporting candidates who really matter? If powerful progressive groups such as The Nation would have tilted their support to solid progressives such as Nader and Mckinney instead of Bush-lite, we would have more pols who would actually push for universal voter registration. I find it questionable that a lot of our otherwise excellent progressive focus groups would go out on a limb and endorse anyone with a "D" next to their name and then lament on their causes going nowhere. Don't let one party bully you. Please show some respect for other parties that share your views and goals for a change. Thank you.
right. but don't look to k.v.h. to address the systemic & substantial, rather than the purely formal & bureaucratic. i didn't vote in the last national election b/c i felt, rightly, my vote was meaningless. it's easy to say the 50% of the country that doesn't vote in national elections is apathetic (or worse). rather, some of us know a rigged game when we see it and refuse to waste an hour or more of our lives in a totally empty gesture.
rush limbaughs taint,
You are correct in your assessment. If you want to effect any change, I suggest that you send a contribution to your favorite candidates. I sent money to Nader, Cindy Sheehan, and Kicenitch.
Vote? No, it is a waste of my time.
i like all of them, more or less depending on which one, which issue of course, but when the plate is passed round, i look for the hammer & sickle ;)
Sorry, duplicate post. Bad connection today. :(
Again, sorry for the duplicate post.
And never vote Democrat again. Third Partys Unite !!!
This is a good start, and is really nothing new. With barely 50% of registered voters voting in general elections is not democracy. In our system the result that 25% or less of eligible voters elect a President. This does not seem very democratic to me.
Next: although it goes against statute and precedents protecting "free speech" we need to regulate TV time for candidates, say 15 minutes a day for each candidate max., tightly regulate money spent on campaigns, and regulate contributions. The system we have now is simply, he/she who raises and spends the most money wins. That is not democracy either.
After that we can talk about reforming the winner-takes-all system, which is highly disproportionate in the outcomes and not very democratic either.
Political parties need to earn respect.
One is perfectly justified in not respecting any party that fails to deliver a vital threshold of the citizens needs.
Some Parties that fail this litmus test are NeoNazis,Republicans and Democrats.
"With barely 50% of registered voters voting in general elections is not democracy."
Why do you think this? I would guess most of the voters who disenfranchise themselves are apathetic and less knowledgeable. Do you think different, and if not how would things be better if they did vote? Careful what you wish for, greater turnout does not mean that the quality of the overall electorate is any better, the opposite is true IMO.
Most of what gets called apathy comes from perceived hopelessness, as in Mikep's comment immediately above this. Many things cause perceived hopelessness, but the biggest factor is a total or partial lack of genuine hope. Generally, the rich feel more hope than the poor, and those whose views align with the people who run the country feel more represented than those who do not.
Their feelings of hopelessness do damage progressive causes, but not because they have no motive for feeling as they do or because they are necessarily dense about political issues.
The educated elite are not predominately progressive, BTW. If formal education made for correct political choices, one would expect to see higher degrees closely correlated with support for progressive causes. This may well be because factors like income, age, and investment in the status quo militate against it. Nonetheless, all these factors make differences in terms of registration as well.
Actually, to the majority of people in this country, it's the minority of voters who continue to participate in a blatantly corrupt electoral process and who vote for the absurdly corrupt Democratic and Republican parties who are the apathetic and less knowledgeable ones. Certainly no one who seriously claims that there are differences between the two parties can claim to be knowledgeable, not at this point. It's ludicrous.
People don't vote because they're not corrupt, and they're not interested in more of the same or in propping up a failed process. Registration has absolutely nothing to do with it. Proscribe both parties and allow the real Americans to start rebuilding the democracy and there won't be any problems getting 90% of the people to vote. Right now though it's just a waste of time.
I would refer you to Robert Dahl's handbook: "Democracy". What is democracy?
If we want such a system, then aren't the people supposed to choose representation?
If we want an enlightened despot or oligopoly, we can have a dictatorship. We are almost there as we have a quasi-elective Emperor as it is.
If you like the status quo, then do nothing
"aren't the people supposed to choose representation? "
Of course, but they are not *compelled* to, and many of them don't care that much. My point is if the people on the margin of "don't care" end up voting because it's been made super easy, we may not have a better electorate when seen in total. Let them stay home.
Please don't take my stance here as trying to make a case to make it hard to vote.
I did not realize we were talking about copelling people. Automatic or universal registration would not force anyone to actually vote
We seem to be trying to make things super easy. My question remains, what kind of average voter results? One who cares? One who knows things? Or not?
You are coming dangerously close to justifying "voter qualifications" such as those my great grandfather had to pass when he was in Georgia during the Jim Crow period. If only the "properly informed" are allowed to vote, then the elites of this nation (who already wield disproportionate power due to their campaign contributions and ability to crowd out citizen lobbyists with legions of full time "hired guns") would use their leverage to continue to suppress the actions of us "lesser mortals."
"You are coming dangerously close to justifying "voter qualifications""
You are coming dangerously close to making a strawman. You would have been better off using this angle with those of us contemplating the "critical thinking test" suggested elsewhere. All I did was question how any change from the current situation would improve the electorate in any positive way besides sheer numbers. I have no doubt that if the side suggesting changes thought it would be politically detrimental to their side that they would not propose them.