Ralph Nader Hosts Debate On Mandatory Voting
SOURCE:
Norman Ornstein supported a type of mandatory voting that could enforce fines.
Considering that Voter ID legislation—laws that are designed to limit access to voting for young people and minorities—is so popular right now, perhaps it’s not a surprise that the oft-contrary Ralph Nader hosted a recent debate on a subject much the opposite: mandatory voting.
The American Enterprise Institute's Norman Ornstein faced off with Competitive Enterprise Institute founder Fred Smith Monday, over the possibility of mandatory voting in the United States. The debate, which was hosted by the Center for Study of Responsive Law, was the first in Nader’s series of "Debating Taboos" events.
Ornstein championed a type of mandatory voting which would be enforced by a fine comparable to a small parking ticket, in hopes of increasing voter participation in the U.S. Meanwhile, Smith, a self-identified libertarian, argued that mandatory voting would be an unnecessary act of state coercion, and would encourage uninformed citizens to cast frivolous ballots.
Ornstein compared this formulation of mandatory voting to jury duty: “There is an enormously high level of patriotism that comes with voting. People start to see it, as time passes, as a civic duty.”
Smith found himself on the defensive for most of the debate, as Ornstein parried his points about theoretical loss of freedom with real-world examples of mandatory voting, with an emphasis on the Australian model. Ornstein did admit, however, that American voters are not very receptive to compulsory commitments of any kind.
“I would start with one realization,” Ornstein said. “This isn’t going to happen, because Americans viscerally react against mandatory votes. But if you look at this continuum, and you look at societies and countries like Portugal and Belgium and Australia that have mandatory attendance at the polls, you don’t find a significant loss of freedom that citizens feel.”
The debate was moderated by Mark Green, an author and politician from New York City.
Ornstein appeared less prepared to deal with Smith’s more concrete objection that mandatory voting would encourage ill-informed voters to come to the polls in order to avoid a fine.
“Most people don’t read the federal register before they go to bed at night. They have other things that occupy their time,” Smith said. “They’re not stupid; they’re rationally ignorant.”
The pair found common ground in the possibility of a “None of the Above” line on ballots, which would allow voters to express disinterest in all listed candidates. “It is far more effective to show up and vote for ‘None of the Above’ than it is not to come out,” Ornstein said. The two also agreed that early voting measures should be limited to reasonable excuses, in order to preserve the privacy of the voting booth.
The next event in the “Debating Taboos” series will be on the securities transaction tax, featuring UMass Amherst’s Robert Pollin and Georgetown’s Jim Angel. It will take place on July 8.
Correction: A previous version of this story misspelled Norman Ornstein's name.
Jon Christian is a staff writer with Campus Progress. Follow him on Twitter @Jon_Christian.
Sen. Rubio Sympathizes with, then Attacks, Blameless Children
Public Opinion Snapshot: Millennials Want a More Equitable Society
Cartoon: The Nine Zeros Club