Should Voting Be Compelled?

The debate over compulsory versus voluntary voting systems is central to discourse on democratic governance, voter turnout, and representation. Both systems carry distinct implications on political engagement, policy outcomes, and the perception of legitimacy of elected officials.

Countries with mandatory voting consistently report higher voter turnout compared to voluntary systems. For example, Australia enforces compulsory voting and achieves turnout rates between 90% and 95%. Belgium and Turkey also see high participation rates, with 87.2% and 86.4%, respectively.

These elevated turnout rates ensure that election outcomes more accurately reflect the preferences of the entire electorate, enhancing the legitimacy of governance. Conversely, voluntary systems often suffer from lower turnout, as evidenced by the United States' 63.7% turnout in the 2024 presidential election, Bulgaria’s 38.94%, and Pakistan’s 47.28% in their 2024 parliamentary elections. This disparity can lead to underrepresentation of certain demographic groups, skewing policy decisions toward more active voting populations.

Benefits of Compulsory Voting

Proponents argue that mandatory participation encourages citizens to become more informed about political issues, as they are legally obligated to vote. Research suggests that strong enforcement of compulsory voting can positively impact political knowledge by incentivizing individuals to educate themselves or by imparting incidental knowledge through the voting process.

Limitations

However, critics highlight that compulsory voting does not uniformly enhance political engagement. Studies have found that while turnout increases under mandatory systems, some individuals comply without becoming more politically aware, potentially leading to uninformed voting choices. Additionally, forcing uninterested citizens to vote may increase feelings of political alienation.

Inclusivity in Policy

Compulsory voting often leads to policies that address the needs of diverse socioeconomic groups. Research has linked mandatory voting with reduced income inequality, as governments become more responsive to a broader cross-section of society. In contrast, voluntary systems may favor higher socioeconomic groups with greater voter turnout, perpetuating existing inequalities.

Voluntary Voting's Appeal

Voluntary systems respect individual choice and may lead to higher satisfaction among participants who view voting as a deliberate act of civic engagement. However, low turnout risks undermining the perceived legitimacy of elected officials and institutions.

Compulsory Voting's Challenges

Mandatory participation can provoke resentment among citizens who view it as an infringement on personal freedom. Critics argue that forcing uninterested individuals to vote may weaken their support for democratic institutions. Additionally, compulsory voting often results in higher rates of invalid votes (e.g., blank or spoiled ballots), which can dilute electoral outcomes.

Enforcement Challenges

Implementing compulsory voting requires systems to monitor compliance and administer penalties for non-voters. This process can be resource-intensive and face public resistance. For example, Chile experienced a dramatic drop in voter turnout—from 87% in 2010 to 42% in 2013—after shifting from compulsory to voluntary voting due to enforcement challenges.

Both voting systems offer unique advantages. Compulsory voting ensures higher turnout and equitable representation but raises concerns about personal freedom and uninformed participation. On the other hand, voluntary voting respects individual choice but risks lower engagement and less representative governance.

The choice between these systems should consider a nation's specific political, cultural, and social contexts. Balancing inclusivity, freedom, and effective representation remains crucial for fostering healthy democratic processes.

2024: Super-Cycle Election Year Draws Huge Voter Turnout. Here’s Why.

 

In 2024, over 80 countries held national elections, making it the largest election year in history.  These exercises were conducted across continents and included major democracies such as India, the United States, and Indonesia, which represent nearly half of the world’s population. 

The record high volume of elections also accentuated both the resilience and challenges of democratic processes worldwide. While most countries managed to transfer power peacefully, others faced political unrest and disputes over election integrity. The outcomes of these elections have had lasting impacts on both national and international political landscapes.

One standout trait of the 2024 election cycle was the impressive voter turnout across the globe, with many countries seeing participation levels that either matched or exceeded historical averages. Despite concerns about democratic backsliding, political disengagement, and voter suppression, millions of people showed up at the polls, proving that elections still matter. The latest data from International IDEA reveals several key factors that contributed to this trend.

Europe: A Steady Turnout

While electoral participation in Europe has been on a slow decline for the past two decades, countries like Iceland and Austria recorded voter turnouts well above 70% in 2024. Even the European Parliament elections, which often do not see great voter enthusiasm, maintained a steady 50% turnout, signaling that voters across the continent continue to take their democratic responsibilities seriously. This level of engagement suggests that institutional trust is coming back, and many citizens starting to believe again in the power of their vote.

Asia: Mixed Participation Across the Region

Asia painted a more varied picture, with some countries recording impressive participation rates while others remained at moderate levels. Indonesia stood out with a remarkable 70% turnout, showing strong public interest in the electoral process. Meanwhile, Japan and South Korea saw turnout rates in the 50-60% range, reflecting stable but not necessarily enthusiastic voter engagement. The differences across the region highlight how political climates, election stakes, and voter mobilization efforts influence participation.

North America: High-Stakes Elections Drive Turnout

Deep political divisions marked the 2024 US elections, which led to relatively high turnout. Approximately 65% of eligible voters participated, a slight increase from previous election cycles. The highly polarized atmosphere and widespread efforts to increase voter access likely contributed to this rise. Similarly, Mexico recorded a 64% turnout, demonstrating consistent democratic participation despite political challenges.

South America: One of the Highest Turnout Regions

South America saw some of the strongest voter turnouts globally. Uruguay led with over 80% participation, reaffirming its status as one of the most engaged electorates. Brazil and Panama also maintained strong turnout rates between 60% and 70%, reflecting the region’s deep-rooted democratic traditions. Compulsory voting laws in several South American countries play a major role in sustaining high participation levels, but cultural and historical factors also contribute to a strong sense of civic duty among voters.

Africa: High Engagement in Some Areas, Moderate in Others

Africa saw both strong engagement and regional disparities. Botswana and Namibia recorded voter turnouts of around 70%, showing that democratic engagement remains a priority for many citizens. Meanwhile, Madagascar and Mozambique’s turnout ranged between 50% and 60%, which, while moderate, still signals a level of public participation that many democracies would envy. Political stability, electoral transparency, and voter access continue to influence participation rates across the continent.

Oceania: Steady and Reliable Participation

Voter turnout remained stable in Oceania, with nations like the Solomon Islands and Kiribati reporting participation rates near 60%. Despite logistical challenges and small populations, citizens in the region remain committed to the democratic process, ensuring that elections continue to reflect the will of the people.

Middle East: Political Context Shapes Turnout

The Middle East saw moderate voter participation, with Kuwait recording a 50% turnout. However, turnout across the region varied significantly due to differing political structures, electoral freedoms, and voter motivations. Some countries continue to experience restrictions that limit meaningful political engagement, which inevitably affects turnout figures.

Global Average Turnout: A Stable 61%

Despite concerns over authoritarian regression and other challenges, the global average voter turnout in 2024 was 61%, comparable to past years. While some elections saw record-breaking numbers, others followed historical patterns. However, not all elections were without controversy. The annulment of Romania’s 2024 election significantly affected regional turnout statistics, raising concerns about political stability. Algeria, despite reporting moderate turnout, remains classified as “not free”, highlighting the complexities of voter engagement in restricted democracies.

The Impact of Legal Frameworks on Voter Turnout

Countries with compulsory voting laws, such as Belgium (85%) and Uruguay (80%+), continue to demonstrate how policy choices shape electoral participation. Even in the U.S. (65%), legal frameworks that expand voting access—such as early voting and mail-in ballots—have helped sustain engagement.

The 2024 elections proved that when voters believe their votes matter, they turn out in large numbers. Whether driven by high-stakes elections, strong democratic traditions, or well-designed legal frameworks, voter turnout remained strong worldwide. It remains to be seen how voter engagement will hold up in the coming years in the face of the many challenges faced by democracies.

How Income Affects Voter Turnout in the US

 

A report by a non-profit group Washington Center for Equitable Growth has suggested a causal link between income and voter turnout in the United States, shedding light on how the longstanding income divide in the country could be derailing initiatives to ensure that all voices are heard in the political process.

The 2021 report titled “The consequences of political inequality and voter suppression for U.S. economic inequality and growth, ” which also discussed race-based voting gaps, revealed how higher-income citizens of the United States are more likely to vote than their lower-income counterparts.

“Between 1978 and 2008, wealthier Americans were 65 percent more likely to vote than those with low incomes. In 2016, a presidential election year, eligible voters with annual incomes of less than $50,000 voted at a rate of 55 percent, while 80 percent of those with incomes of more than $150,000 voted that year. Households earning less than $15,000 made up 13 percent of all households in 2009 but comprised just 6 percent of the electorate in the 2008 election,” the report said.

The authors cite how lower-income Americans might be less inclined to practice civic engagement due to the following reasons -- they are less likely get paid time off from work, are more likely to regularly move their places of residence, are incarcerated at higher rates, and are more likely to face unstable transportation and child care arrangements.

The report likewise discusses how voting behavior can actually influence the outcome of economic policy. Studies have shown, for example, that states with higher levels of income based voting divides are less likely to enact policies that benefit low- and middle-income Americans.

The existence of a feedback loop between economic inequality and voting inequality was also described by the report, detailing how economic inequality can lead to lower turnout among low and middle-income Americans, which in turn can birth policies that benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor. This can further exacerbate economic inequality, creating a vicious cycle.

“Those who enjoy market power are, not co-incidentally, often the same citizens who enjoy outsized political influence, creating a feedback loop that perpetuates economic inequality, instability, and slow growth. Stated simply, a healthy economy requires a healthy democracy,” the report said.

The authors of the report argue that reducing electoral inequality is essential to reducing economic inequality. To short circuit the deadly feedback loop, the study urges policymakers to consider reforms to the country’s voting system to equalize access to the polls and ensure the electorate is truly representative of the country’s economic and racial diversity.

Specifically, the authors propose to:

· Ease voter registration requirements, potentially even making them automatic

· Enact same-day voter registration in all states consistent with those states that lead the nation in voter participation, where average turnout was more than 10 percentage points higher than in other states in 2012

· Restore voting rights to those with felony convictions, reduce wait times, guarantee paid time off for voting, and reestablish federal oversight through a restored Voting Rights Act.

The report urges policymakers to study how the measures taken by some jurisdictions including the expanded use of vote by mail and ballot drop boxes, could work to reduce income biases in election participation.

Washington Center for Equitable Growth is non-profit research and grantmaking organization advocating evidence-backed ideas and policies to promote strong, stable, and broad-based economic growth.

US voters risk being left behind by today’s voting systems

It’s not a surprise to say that the majority of America’s existing voting machines are dangerously outdated. The nation is approaching the most important election in history and unfortunately the voting system is putting voters at risk. 

A recently Smartmatic research underlined the connection between inconvenient voting processes with outdated technologies and decreased voter participation. A stunning 81% of respondents felt changes needed to be made to the US voter experience and voting system, meaning that a majority view the current voting system as inefficient and discourages Americans from voting.

The same research also points out three priorities for voters, with 33% stating that the most needed change is to “incorporate online remote voting,” 28% declaring that “US voting technology should be updated to be ‘user-friendly,’” and 20% believes that “the voting process should be made more efficient by reducing the amount of time necessary to cast a vote.” Even President Obama himself referenced the challenges facing voters when he called for voting to be made easier, not harder, for all Americans, during his final State of the Union address.

Considering that the most recent presidential elections were all decided by margin points, a significant voter turnout can define the future of U.S. In fact it’s strange that in a country where you can do almost everything online, the voting system, a pillar of any democracy, still relies on outdated technology or even paper. So, it’s not a matter of if but when. The entire election process needs to be modernized and bring the U.S to the 21st century. 

Considering E-Voting in Saskatoon, Canada

Rolling out e-voting and Internet-voting based protocols in large cities and across large countries can feel like a daunting task for many a government official. There are many factors that must be considered before such a deployment and that is why it is of critical importance that election commissions select respectable vendors in the electronic voting space that offer transparency, robust audits and a proven track record in international elections.

And while it may feel simpler and easier on a smaller scale, running an election in smaller markets must also undergo similar considerations. Even so, this is where governments with more limited budgets can leverage the existing experience and expertise of elections that have already taken place with some form of e-voting technology and learn from them to implement the best possible solution. This is why conferences like EVOTE 2014 are so invaluable to the worldwide community. 

One specific example is the city of Saskatoon in Canada's Saskatchewan province. A journalist from The StarPhoenix newspaper is calling for the inclusion of Internet voting in the town's upcoming municipal election, which isn't scheduled to happen until October 2016. This should give local and provincial authorities ample time in order to prepare and launch a pilot project, overcoming any legislative boundaries that may currently in place.

While concerns about security, privacy and administration are certainly valid, the writer says that Saskatoon can learn much from the Internet voting experience in other parts of the country. A prime example is the town of Ajax, Ontario, which is just outside of Toronto. Ajax recently experimented with Internet voting and found that it was incredibly popular. Voter turnout increased by approximately 30% compared to the previous elections in 2006 and 2010. 

Improving voter turnout is easily one of the most appealing advantages to the implementation of an Internet-based voting system. It is also important to note that Ajax did not use Internet voting to replace all other forms of voting completely. Citizens still had the opportunity to vote via telephone or at the physical polling stations with computer terminals on Election Day. Internet voting is simply another option that should be brought to the table and it's one that can suitably be used in place of postal voting for absentee ballots. 

Internet voting continues to grow right across Canada with advance polls seeing a 300 percent increase in Markham, Ontario. In fact, some 25 percent of municipal elections in the province of Ontario offered online voting as an option in the local elections of 2014. That is nearly 100 municipalities in just one Canadian province. By working together with local authorities in these cities and towns, a more robust and secure system can be utilized by all.

Another major advantage to Internet-based voting is the cost savings that can be enjoyed by government commissions. There are many hidden costs to manual elections that can be overcome, minimized or even eliminated with an online option. With the example of Markham, Ontario, the StarPhoenix cites Markham city clerk and returning officer Kimberley Kitteringham as saying Internet voting in the town cost about 81 cents per voter. Compare that to the estimated $5.63 it costs to administer and process the vote from one in-person ballot. 

While the City of Saskatoon should not dive into e-voting and online voting with reckless abandon, it should give the prospect of Internet-based voting a very close look if it hopes to increase voter turnout, reduce costs and modernize elections for generations to follow.

Internet voting improving voter turnout and securing the system

The Internet is used for just about every aspect of everyday life and it has become an integral part of the modern lifestyle. Friends communicate online through e-mail, social media and instant messengers far more often than they would send a regular letter through the postal mail. Companies conduct their business online, buying and selling their products and services. And in many parts of the world, correspondence with government agencies can also be performed through the Internet, filing income tax returns and applying for employment insurance benefits. Why hasn't Internet voting become just as widespread and commonplace?

In the case of the town of Ajax near Toronto, Canada, Internet voting was incredibly popular in its recent municipal election. The election was held almost exclusively online and voter turnout, at 30.4%, was significantly higher than the voter turnout in the previous two elections: 23% in 2006 and 26% in 2010. There is still much room for improvement in terms of voter turnout, but the trend is positive and a full 92% of people cast their vote online. 

And while Internet voting does appear to have a positive impact on voter turnout, it should never replace all other forms of voting. The online system is convenient, to be sure, but Ajax supplemented that primary system with the opportunity for voters to cast their ballot over the phone or at one of 10 polling stations with computer terminals set up on Election Day itself. The goal of Internet voting is to improve accessibility, not hinder it. Internet voting is particularly effective in substituting for postal voting as the ballot can be received and tabulated instantly. This also saves significantly in cost, both for the postage and for the printing of paper ballots. 

However, not all systems are made equally. While the online voting experiment in Ajax was deemed a success, there were significant issues experienced by the nearby town of Innisfil, also in the province of Ontario in Canada. Voters were unable to access the Internet voting system “due to technical errors.” Reportedly, the top cause for the online voting issues was that some people typed the website code into a search engine rather than into the address bar. 

Worse yet, overall voter turnout dropped by six percent compared to previous elections in Innisfil. 

This demonstrates that Internet voting isn't necessarily the magic bullet for improving voter turnout and it is of paramount importance that municipalities and governments select reputable and reliable vendors to manage their elections. An adequate audit system needs to be in place and the i-voting infrastructure needs to be thoroughly tested. Estonia is perhaps one of the best examples of Internet voting done right with a high level of voter and ballot authentication. 

One issue that has been brought to light is that voters casting their ballot over the Internet can be coerced and their votes can be bought or sold. This is a problem inherent with any remote voting solution that is not supervised by election officials. However, this concern can also be remedied in a rather simple manner: multiple voting. By allowing voters to cast more than one ballot and allowing the latest one to supersede any previous ballots submitted, online or otherwise, even votes that are coerced or bought can be overridden by a newer ballot. This is how Internet voting works in Estonia. 

Online voting can be an incredibly powerful tool to improve voter turnout and to empower a democracy. However, it can and should not be the sole solution, as voters should have the option to vote in other manners. Regardless of which system is used, maintaining the security and integrity of the vote is crucial.

Mandatory voting should come with more voting options

In Abraham Lincoln's famous Gettysburg Address, he spoke about the importance of having a government “of the people, by the people [and] for the people.” That second aspect is positively crucial in a democracy, because it means that government officials and selected and elected by the country's citizens. While it may not have necessarily been the case in Lincoln's day, in a modern democracy, this also means that the government should not be elected by a select few, but rather by the population at large. Voters should come from all walks of life, from all sorts of demographics, such that all of their interests are suitably represented in government.

Gage Skidmore

However, a democracy is only as strong as the people who vote within it and low voter turnout continues to be a problem in many parts of the world. It was experienced in the recent European Union elections, just as it is a problem in the United States. In Canada, the federal Liberal Party is considering mandatory voting as means of eliminating the problem of low voter turnout. 

The idea of instituting compulsory voting was previously explored in this blog not that long ago. There are certainly proponents and opponents of such a system and both its merits and disadvantages need to be carefully scrutinized before mandatory voting is implemented in any democracy. However, if the law requires that all eligible citizens must cast a ballot in federal elections, then an infrastructure needs to be put in place to best facilitate the vote.

Traditional paper ballots submitted at traditional voting places that citizens must visit in person would likely not be sufficient and it would not be the most convenient. As many of these polling stations already struggle with efficiency and with the exceptionally long waits experienced in many parts of the United States, it is clear that managing a near 100% voter turnout under the current system would result in chaos. The logistics are not there.

In the case of Canada, voter turnout got as high as almost 80 percent in 1958, but it has since dropped significantly down to under 60 percent in 2008. By contrast, voter turnout in Australia is consistently around 95 percent and that's because mandatory voting has been in place in Australia since 1924.

Looking ahead to the future, election officials and government representatives need to consider more efficient and convenient voting methods. Direct recording electronic voting machines at physical polling places is a good place to start, as the electronic machines theoretically never run out of ballots and can handle a theoretically infinite volume. The electronic nature of these voting machines may also be more approachable by young people, who are far more accustomed to smartphones, tablets and other consumer electronic devices. 

Many other government operations that are mandatory among citizens can be completed in an efficient and secure manner through online portals. All citizens must file their income tax returns each year, for example, and Canadians can do so through the Internet. The same idea can be implemented when it comes to federal elections, utilizing similar or even more advanced methods for voter identification and verification. 

Online voting may not be the “magic bullet” for improving voter turnout, but it can provide a more easily accessible means for citizens to cast their ballot from the comfort of their homes, offices or even mobile devices. When everyone votes, then the government is truly elected not only by the people, but by all the people.

E-voting scores another triumph in Belgium

Since 1991, Belgium has been experimenting with voting technologies to automate their elections. And last weekend, the stage was set for another e-voting triumph as millions cast their vote electronically in the election with the highest turnout in the EU. A staggering 90% of the eligible voters headed to the polls, while the rest of the union averaged a mere 43%.

During the elections, Belgium elected three parliaments, the regional, the Federal and the European. To do so, over 1,000 polling stations in Brussels and Wallonia were set up using technology developed by Jites. Also, more than 3,000 polling stations across 153 communes in Flanders and Brussels used technology and services provided by Smartmatic (over 17,400 voting machines). In addition, authorities hired Stésud to deploy a system for the digital transmission and recording of results which is called CODI.

All voting systems and software programs were certified by an independent advisory body, PWC (Price Waterhouse Coopers) on the following dates:

Jites: April 4, 2014

Smartmatic: April 4, 2014

CODI (Stésud): April 30, 2014

Due to a change in Belgium´s voting legislation, it was possible to publish partial results of electronic voting. According to the IBZ website, once the results of 10 centers within a district were available, they were reported. Also, thanks to the digital transmission system, the election results were announced earlier this time around.

Some interesting facts about the election:

• The electoral roll comprised 8,000,458 voters. 7,871,504 residing in Belgium and the rest living abroad.
• Total number of electronic polling stations: 4,482.
• Total number of manual polling stations: 6,301.
• Municipalities took important initiatives to improve accessibility for disabled voters, such as:

            - Provision of priority parking
            - Customized access to the polling station
            - Guidance for using the voting booth

• Between 6.30 am and 9.30 am, while setting up the polling stations, there were 234 incidents requiring technical support. In 2012 -for the same time interval- there were 463.
• At 4.00 p.m. all electronic polling stations were closed. The traditional polling stations closed an hour earlier to start the manual count.
• A red pencil was used for manual voting. Red is considered by authorities to facilitate reading, and deter electoral fraud. 
• Paper ballots were produced using green energy (wind energy). A high quality paper that incorporates several safety features including a watermark with a Belgian insignia and a slogan was used for the ballots in manual precincts.
• All results were published in the website http://verkiezingen2014.belgium.be/nl/
• At 16.10 p.m., the first official results of the election regarding Belgians who voted in embassies abroad were known.
• European stock markets moved higher Monday as election results rolled in from the European Union and Ukraine.
• Despite numerous prior testing and certifications by PwC, a minor inconsistency present in the digital transmission and recording system was not identified until e-day. In consequence, the totalization of the preferential votes in several cantons using Jites voting machines was erroneous, causing the temporary suspension of the results proclamations. Stésud corrected the bug after a few hours.

Vote or be fined: Should voting be compulsory?

Image: www.bitetheballot.co.uk

If you’re like most people, you’d likely laugh off the idea of compulsory voting as completely strange if not downright preposterous. But you would be surprised to find out that many countries around the world are already penalizing citizens for not exercising their right to vote. Australia, in fact, has had compulsory voting for 101 years!

In an effort to curb voter apathy and increase turnout, the Australian Election Commission under has resorted to slapping election boycotters with fines. Although the 20AUD penalty probably won’t bankrupt anyone, it does goes against the common belief that exercising or not one’s right of suffrage is a choice which the voter makes all by himself. 

But why did high voter turnout become such a Holy Grail that Election Commissions are bending over backwards to achieve it? Why is it terribly important that a large numbers of voters cast their ballots? 

Low turnout equals a smaller mandate for the elected officials. With no overwhelming majority of the electorate casting their ballots, doubts could be raised about the elections not reflecting the actual will of the people. Needless to say, this is a situation that any Election Commission would rather not find itself in.

Aside from achieving high turnout, proponents of compulsory voting argue that is a civic duty very much like paying taxes, jury duty, or military conscription. Moreover, they aver that compulsory voting guarantees that the entire electorate is involved in policy formulation. Another important consideration is the way compulsory voting frees the candidates to focus on issues rather than encouraging voter participation.

Proponents also claim that since voting is by secret ballot, the voter isn't actually forced to vote for anyone and that no liberties are violated.

Opponents, on the other hand, argue that compulsory voting is undemocratic as it impinges on one’s liberty to decide on his own whether or not to exercise the right to suffrage. More insidiously, forcing everyone to vote means the ill-informed and those with terribly low interest in governance are also forced to participate which could lead to increased number of “donkey votes” and informal votes. Ironically, this could also result in an election that does not truly reflect the will of the electorate.

The voter turnout conundrum in America

Photo: Cayusa

Voter turnout is one of the main concerns of every electoral body when it comes to its democratic exercises. As stated in FairVote.org, a high voter turnout is an indicator of a healthy democracy, which is why every time there is an election there is also a wave of complaints about the low participation rate. However, believe it or not, the highest turnout in an American election was achieved in 1876 (81.8%), and even then we could not speak of real democratic participation, as women and members of the black community did not have the right to vote. This means that absenteeism is not a new problem in our society. What could be new, though, is the way to address it.

Many hypotheses have been offered on the cause for theseemingly unchanging electoral absenteeism in America. Francis Fukuyama affirms that the welfare state has made people comfortable, causing them not to vote. Others say technology is to blame, as people are excessively entertained by the gadgets they keep at home. Well, if technology is the enemy, why not use it to our advantage?

What analysts are deeming as ‘excessive comfort’ may actually be the sign that things have to change in order to engage people into democracy, as we are no longer the same citizens that voted in 1876. Our way of life has changed radically. No one would call us too comfortable or lazy because we don’t grow our own food or sew our own clothes. Our modern lifestyle demands speed and accessibility.

Over the years, manual voting has proved tremendously cumbersome. Identity theft remains rampant, printing errors in the paper ballots cost the government millions of dollars and cause people to vote mistakenly, and people with disabilities find it very difficult to cast their ballot. The 21st century has seen us adopt different automation mechanisms for other aspects of our life, so why not adopt them for democracy?

With its usability, accessibility and speed, e-voting comes out as the natural solution to the question of how to stop wrestling against technology to increase voter turnout. Venezuela, for instance, got an 80% voter turnout in its 2012 presidential elections, which were fully automated. Besides, the complete auditability of electronic voting platforms eliminates electoral fraud and boosts its reliability. 

The voter turnout conundrum is actually not a mystery at all. With technological tools available to encourage electoral participation and the acknowledgement from the President himself that waiting times for voting in the US need improvement, there is access to a solution that can help strengthen democracy by giving citizens an effective tool that will motivate them to exercise their right to vote easily and smoothly.

Promoting inclusion and participation with e-voting

Image: FreeDigitalPhotos

One of the numerous advantages of a properly implemented e-voting system is that it promotes inclusion and broadens the range of citizens that can partake in Democracy, since its technical characteristics make it easier for the electorate to exert their right to suffrage. Paired with educational campaigns, e-voting can help to increase voter turnout. E-voting’s achievement in encouraging inclusion and participation can be reflected in three important stages: implementation, registration, and the act of voting itself.

Successful implementation of a new electoral platform relies heavily on properly stimulating participation and overcoming resistance to change. Some people might find a new technology confusing and therefore not vote, but such an effect should disappear as soon as they become familiar with the new system. This is why it is vital to set up campaigns to familiarize the electorate with the voting technology and cast away myths or any apprehensions. The Philippines are a good example of a successful implementation campaign. In 2010, the country embarked on a voter education journey to familiarize the electorate with tits newly implemented electronic voting platform. The nationwide campaign permeated all media, both traditional (press, radio, TV) and new (social networks, cartoons), and it pointed at traditional Filipino cultural values to make citizens feel identified and included. This stimulated people to vote, as they felt identified with the new technology and did not perceive it as something incomprehensible and alien to them.

At the voter registration level, biometric authentication solves the problem of registration deadlines, which pose a significant barrier to voting. 87 percent of Americans live in states that shut down registration two or more weeks before Election Day. Some voters are completely unaware of these deadlines and believe they still have time to register and vote even as the polling stations close. With biometric authentication, voters just need their thumbprint to be scanned by the biometric device in order to enable their voting session. The use of biometric authentication also solves another critical problem at polling stations: the requirement for an ID for voters, which is considered a form of disenfranchisement for minorities.

Finally, when it comes to the act of casting ballots, no method equals e-voting in inclusion and equality. Some models of electoral technology nowadays are equipped with functionalities that enable suffrage for voters with sensory and motor disabilities. This guarantees that no voter is left behind for any reason.

A properly implemented e-voting system not only eliminates the risk of fraud, but it also ensures that Democracy is perpetuated. With e-voting, all citizens feel included and are thus compelled to participate more. This way, no matter the outcome, the whole country wins.

Election administration in the US and the challenges ahead

Image: PEW Website

Today it is no secret to anyone that the US election administrators have a daunting challenge ahead of them. Since the butterfly ballot scandal caught worldwide attention and surfaced the obsolescence of its voting systems, elections in the US have been surrounded by controversy.

Fortunately, the demand for better electoral processes is finding interesting responses from both, Government related organisms (Electoral Assistance Commission) and the non-government sector. The body of knowledge being developed by these organizations will certainly disseminate better practices and improve how elections are run across all states.

The PEW Charitable Trust is one of these organizations promoting clean, transparent and efficient elections. A recent research project by this ONG, labeled The First Comprehensive Assessment of Election Administration Across the Nation, pinpoints the obstacles in the road to better run elections.

One of the most interesting ideas emanating from that initiative is the Elections Performance Index (EPI). The EPI was developed with the intent to provide election officials and policymakers with a tool to help them benchmark their performance, as well as assess which policies are working effectively.

Using 17 criteria the EPI analyzed the 2008 and 2010 elections across 50 states. Factors such as wait time, lost votes, availability of online voting information, voter turnout, accuracy of technology, among others, allowed the to assess the state of the US electoral system, and indicate a path to improve election administration.

The results obtained in the study, and the obvious next steps emanating from this initiative, come at very important moment. With the next election two years away, and the re-elected president willing to endorse the necessary changes, the US is in an important position to face and conquer the challenges ahead.