Making Democracy Robust with 100% Voter Turnout

For so much of American history, the right to vote has been restricted—limited to landowners, to white people, and to men. Even after the 15th and 19th Amendments gave citizens of all races, colors, and genders the right to vote, politicians passed new laws to roll back access to the polls. Policies using literacy tests, felony disenfranchisement, and racial gerrymandering are shamefully aimed to create unequal access to voting. Even voter registration was introduced in the 1800s based on fears of newer, poorer Americans. Those legacies live on today, meaning we have never heard everyone’s voice in our elections.  

Approaches to Achieving Full Participation

In a new book, E. J. Dionne and Miles Rapoport call the idea of full participation “100% democracy.” It is an aspiration to the ideals of American democracy. Those who argue for Australian-style required voting, or “civic duty voting”, believe it will change the nature of election campaigns by turning out the base to appeal to a wider audience. 

Similarly, arguments for ranked-choice voting claim that it allows voters to make more nuanced decisions about candidates, rather than focusing entirely on who they predict will win in a polarized battle. Advocates for ranked-choice voting believe that it encourages more people to vote and produces greater campaign civility because candidates have to appeal to supporters of their opponents to gain a place in the ranking.

But to reach 100% democracy, we have to do more than remove barriers. We must actively invite everyone to participate by running elections that give everyone equal access. Rather than simply inviting more voters from a single category, we must invite every community. Instead of one group of habitual voters and die-hard partisans at the ends of a political spectrum, we must invite a more comprehensive range of perspectives and opinions.

The Guise of Voter Apathy and Disinterest

Too often, people who don’t vote are called apathetic. But in a recent Texas primary election, nearly 25,000 absentee ballots (approximately 12% of the ballots) were rejected. Here, voters made an effort to request a ballot, mark it, and mail it in. Early reports also suggest that those rejected ballots were disproportionately from communities of color. So much diversity of opinion was lost, preventing advocates and campaigns from considering them. Isn’t that more likely to increase polarization than to reduce it? 

Those voters—and so many others in our civic design research over the years—are likely to be exactly the sort of people who are accused of being apathetic. But we don’t believe that—they may be confused, disheartened, angry at being excluded, or simply discouraged, but they are not apathetic.

Other voters are called uninformed. One high school social studies teacher in California told us about teaching his students to understand what’s on their ballots, but he concluded that he himself never felt that he had enough information to feel confident voting on some of the issues come Election Day. Here is someone who cares about elections, teaches the next generation, and lives in a state that mails a voter guide to every voter. If he feels under-prepared, how many others feel even more so? Feeling unprepared is not the same as being uninterested.

When we read election information, we understand why people feel excluded. Election information uses arcane terminology and legal jargon. Our research on the complexity of signature forms on ballot envelopes shows how easily we could change this if we only had the will (and legislative authority) to write everything in plain language. Maybe if people could understand what they would be voting for, they would be more willing to vote. People who give up because they are stumped by legalese are not apathetic; they are shut out of the process.

Culture and communication also have a role to play. Social media and online news have no boundaries, so news travels widely. Rick Hasen points out that “stuck in the middle of these [partisan] voting wars are the voters themselves, who have become more polarized” as a result. In our interviews with New York City voters in 2020, stories from all the way across the country in Orange County, California about unauthorized ballot drop boxes made them anxious about whether newly introduced drop boxes in their city were safe to use. Those who hear misinformation and resultantly change their voting behaviors are not apathetic. Misinformation makes them distrust the election system and lose confidence that their voices will be heard. 

Transforming Interested Bystanders and Modernizing Voting Practices

Research by Kate Krontiris and colleagues on Understanding America’s “Interested Bystander”: A Complicated Relationship with Civic Duty suggests a different explanation for why many don’t vote. They suggest that almost half of potential voters are interested bystanders “paying attention to issues around them, but not actively voicing their opinions or taking action on those issues.” An interested bystander acts when civic actions are easy and align with one’s self-interest. They may not be focused on politics, but they are engaged in their communities. They volunteer, donate to causes, and report a wide range of neighborhood activities. Other research on civic identity suggests that it must be developed through practice and active social expression at many levels. Voters need to hear the echoes of their own voices in the election results and look for leaders who reflect—and listen to—their communities.

Turning interested bystanders into voters isn’t magic—it’s no surprise that when states make it easy to vote, people show up in greater numbers and from more diverse backgrounds. Minnesota and Colorado, two states with consistently high turnout, have a thoughtful combination of policies and a state-wide culture that supports voters. One of my favorite policies in Minnesota allows a registered voter to vouch for a neighbor for same-day voter registration. Colorado mails ballots to every voter’s mailbox, offers prepaid postage, provides convenient drop-off locations, and makes a point by calling their voting locations Voter Service and Polling Centers. 

Automatic voter registration (AVR) is perhaps the most effective modern practice for encouraging participation, even when the decision is made at the last minute. An analysis of Oregon’s AVR in a report by the Center for American Progress shows that AVR increased both registration and turnout among people who were “unlikely to have done so otherwise”—for instance, younger Hispanic voters and older rural voters. The result is a more representative, politically diverse, and less polarized electorate. 

Policies like these form the groundwork that makes full turnout possible. They enable a better expression of democracy, giving everyone an equal right and ability to vote so that all voices are heard—rather than deciding which voices are worthy of being heard. Higher turnout alone will not reduce polarization, but equal participation just might.

We have a lot of work to do to live up to the ideals of this country and invite everyone to bring their voices to the ballot box. That is reason enough to work toward the goal of 100% democracy.

This article was originally published on Divided We Fall. 3 authors explored the topic: “The Impact of Voter Turnout on Polarization.” To read the other perspectives, visit Divided We Fall.