Universal voting would help make sure everyone votes in our elections

With the developments of the last two weeks, we now seem headed to a high-interest, high-turnout election. But even if we have turnout at our highest historical levels, the winner will likely take office with the votes of not much more than a third of all eligible voters.

We have had two record turnouts in recent elections: In the 2018 midterms, 50.1% of eligible voters participated, according to the US Elections Project at the University of Florida (turnout slipped back down to 45.9% in 2022.) The presidential election turnout in 2020 was 66%, reflecting major efforts by election officials of all parties during the pandemic to make voting easier and more accessible. Americans responded.

But this hardly gives us any bragging rights: The United States has long ranked toward the bottom half of developed democracies in voting participation.

There is a clear path for doing far better. It is time for the U.S. to consider an approach already proven in some two dozen democracies around the world. Universal voting redefines our civic obligations. It declares that voting is not only a fundamental right, but a required civic duty. Belgium was the first country to make voting a requirement in 1893. Australia enacted mandatory participation 100 years ago, and most countries in Latin America require citizens to vote as well.

There are several major advantages to universal voting.

First, participation levels increase immediately and dramatically, and the actual voting electorate more fully reflects our population — our demos — as a whole. There are now major gaps in voting levels between wealthier and poorer voters; voters with more and less education; white voters and Black and Latino voters; and, most dramatically, between the young and the old. Studies abound showing that government at all levels listens and responds to constituencies that turn out.

Second, with the expectation that everyone will vote, all institutions — government, business, educational, civil society — elevate their activities to ensure the law is followed. For instance, if we were school superintendents who knew that every graduating senior was required to vote, would we make civic education a higher priority? We think so. Evidence also shows that individuals who are required to vote do, in fact, make sure they know how to do so and pay more attention to the campaign.

Third, the incentive structure for campaigns changes. Instead of parties and candidates ginning up their base and trying to depress the turnout of opponents (seen any negative ads lately?), they have to talk to everyone with persuasive messages, because everyone is listening and will vote. Universal voting also reduces polarization: Messages that demonize opponents and excite a party’s base will be less effective with a broader electorate.

A voting mandate, with ‘light’ enforcement

How universal voting is implemented varies a lot. In Greece, citizens are required to vote, but there is no enforcement; even so, the system has boosted participation. In some countries in Latin America, access to certain government services is limited or more expensive if you haven’t voted. In Australia, there is "light touch" enforcement that has been extremely effective, and very popular, for a century. Few ideas enjoy a century's worth of “proof of concept.”

The Australian approach, with some tweaks, could be effective in the U.S.

How does it work? A non-partisan, well-funded Australian Electoral Commission works in cooperation with political parties and community-based organizations, leading to a 96% "enrollment" rate. Enrolled voters are required to cast a ballot, but no one is required to actually vote for or against a particular candidate. Blank ballots, protest ballots, or even defaced ballots are accepted.

If you are among the roughly 10% of enrolled voters who don’t cast a ballot, you receive a letter asking for an explanation, and virtually any reason given is accepted. If you don’t respond, you get a second letter, and if there is still no response, a fine of $20AUD — currently $13 U.S.— is assessed. Australia's system is more a nudge than a shove, and the vast majority of non-voters pay no fine.

The system is widely popular and has created a culture of participation with cross-party support. It is accepted in the same way as our current required civic duty of serving on a jury, if called, has been for a century.

Understanding that there will be strong opposition to any mandate, the proposals we have advanced would allow a "conscientious objector" option for those who on principle refuse to cast a ballot. We would also add a "none of the above" option to ballots to make absolutely clear that no one would be forced to vote for any particular candidate or party.

Discussion, hearings in some states

The public discussion of universal voting is just beginning. But there are reasons to think this idea can gain traction.

Universal voting would not require a constitutional amendment, and can be enacted by states, and in some states at the municipal level. This is how the system began in Australia. Legislation has been introduced, with public hearings held, in Washington State and Connecticut. Significant interest has been expressed at the state and municipal levels in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and elsewhere.

In this polarized time, it needs to be stressed that neither party would gain any automatic or permanent advantage. Some groups whose participation would be enhanced by universal voting lean Democratic, but other groups lean Republican. Many people who would be brought into the system are less ideological, which would force both left and right to address the concerns of voters who are not firmly in either camp.

Universal voting is not a cure-all for the challenges American democracy faces. But it would make our system more inclusive, more genuinely democratic and more responsive to more Americans. It’s a practical innovation that has proven its worth. In the name of strengthening our democratic republic, our nation should be ready to think and act anew.

E.J. Dionne Jr. is a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution and a distinguished university professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown. Miles Rapoport is the executive director of 100% Democracy: An Initiative for Universal Voting. They are co-authors of "100%  Democracy: The Case for Universal Voting.”

The Democracy Solutions Project is a collaboration among WBEZ, the Chicago Sun-Times and the University of Chicago’s Center for Effective Government, with funding support from the Pulitzer Center. Our goal is to help our community of readers and listeners engage with the democratic functions in their lives and cast an informed ballot in November’s election.

We welcome letters to the editor and op-eds. Check out our guidelines for both.

Get Opinions content delivered to your inbox.