Changing Democratic Incentives: The Case for Mandatory Poll Attendance

Voting location in Washington D.C. on November 8, 2016. Photo by Lorie Shaull.

As a way to explain the structural disincentives in our voting system, University of Chicago professor and Freakonomics co-author Steven Levitt tells a famous joke about two economists finding each other at the polls: 

"What are you doing here?" one asks.

"My wife made me come," the other says.

The first economist gives a confirming nod. "The same."

After a mutually sheepish moment, one of them hatches a plan: "If you promise never to tell anyone you saw me here, I'll never tell anyone I saw you." They shake hands, finish their polling business and scurry off.

Why should it be surprising to find an economist showing up to the voting booth? The answer, according to Levitt, lies in opportunity cost. Instead of taking the time to go to the polling station, wait in line, and cast your ballot, you could have been exercising, learning a new skill, or spending time with loved ones. Here, Levitt touches upon what political scientists refer to as the “paradox of voting,” which holds that the costs of voting probably exceed its expected benefits. The problem, Levitt explains, is that one’s vote only truly matters if it winds up being the deciding vote in an election. At least for presidential elections, this is highly unlikely—several estimates list one’s chances of casting the deciding vote as less likely than dying on the way to the polls. The truth is that the odds of gaining a direct political benefit from voting are unbelievably tiny. As Levitt explains, even without taking the cynical “politicians are all the same” approach, if one’s vote does not cause someone to gain a political office that they would not have won otherwise, then functionally, showing up to the polls was a complete waste of time. 

Of course, this argument only holds if one believes that, like Levitt, the benefits from voting are strictly limited to a vote’s political consequence. In reality, the factors driving people to the polls are far more numerous, including the desire to fulfill a civic duty, viewing voting as a form of self-expression, or wanting to comply with social norms. But even keeping with the idea that a vote must directly affect political outcomes to matter, there are still many ways for a vote to have real political impact without it being the deciding vote in an election. For example, one can think about a politician who wins an election by one vote versus one who wins in a 30-percentage-point landslide. Certainly, the one put in power by a single vote must work hard to appeal to independents and the opposition while in office, as their support is likely necessary for reelection. On the other hand, the candidate who won by a landslide knows that he or she is probably safe to ignore voices from opposition forces, as their support is not needed to re-secure the political seat. So even if a single voter isn’t choosing which politician gets elected, they influence political behavior by helping to determine how moderate or extreme a candidate can act while in office to maximize reelection odds.

While in theory, every vote does matter, the general premise of Levitt’s argument still rings true for many American voters. Even if one’s vote can affect the political behavior of elected officials, by how much can it in reality? Of course, a narrow victory may force a politician to make a compromise, vote a certain way on a bill, or appropriate funds to a different cause, but realistically, the chances that one vote will compel these changes are incredibly small. This perception affects what Americans choose to do on Election Day. As much as people claim to believe in civic responsibility, the U.S. has one of the lowest voter participation rates of any advanced democracy, with only 56% of Americans voting in the last presidential election. Many reasonable citizens, even those with strong political preferences, believe that taking an hour out of their day to cast a likely inconsequential vote just is not worth their time. The more economically disadvantaged an individual is, the more viscerally this reality is experienced, as going to the polls could mean sacrificing living expenses like food and rent. Unsurprisingly, low-income citizens are among the least likely demographics to vote.

The problem of low voter turnout is not uniquely American, nor is it solely related to issues like voter I.D. laws and gerrymandering—policies which are often enacted with the specific intent of disenfranchisement. Regardless of how it is done, voting takes time, and people are not wrong for believing that that time can probably be spent doing something more valuable. So how can people who believe that voting is not in their best interest be convinced to start showing up to the polls? The answer, in keeping with an argument from behavioral economics, is to change the incentive structure, and make it such that it is in one’s self-interest to vote. This is the logic behind mandatory voting, in which citizens eligible to vote are required to cast a ballot, and those that do not have to pay a penalty. For those unable to physically go to the polls, mail-in voting options allow for ballots to be cast by those with limited mobility. The policy has proven successful in increasing voter turnout, and is currently in use in several dozen countries around the world.

The system is not without its many critics, however. The main argument against its use is that, while voter participation rates go up, the increase is mostly due to apathetic and uninformed voters. Critics claim that these voters, who typically stay home, would now be forced to cast a random ballot for a candidate they know little about. Many like American political philosopher Jason Brennan therefore think America “should encourage citizens to vote well or not vote at all.” Other arguments against the policy stress that mandatory voting is antithetical to democratic values. If citizens do not wish to cast a ballot for any candidate in an election, they should not be forced to support someone that they do not like. Even if it might be in one’s  best interest to vote for whom they consider the “lesser of two evils,” a government should not mandate that citizens vote for candidates they find morally reprehensible.

Both of these arguments present compelling reasons for a democracy not to implement compulsory voting. Mandatory voting is inadvisable and antidemocratic, but the problem of low voter turnout in America still remains. This problem can still be solved—not with a policy of mandatory voting, but of mandatory poll attendance.  Critically, mandatory poll attendance would allow for a “none of the above” option on the ballot, meaning that people who don’t support any candidates or don’t want to decide between the lesser of two evils wouldn’t be forced to.  Meanwhile, all those wanting to vote for a particular candidate would arrive at the polls in higher numbers, increasing both voter turnout and political legitimacy.

But why is mandatory poll attendance better than the system we have now? What is the point of citizens showing up to vote if they are just going to choose “none of the above” once they get there? The point of the system is to change the incentive framework of going to the polls. As it currently stands, the potential benefits from voting do not seem to be worth its costs, and so many citizens who have a political preference do not demonstrate it through voting. With mandatory poll attendance, it now becomes in the voter’s best interest to go to the polls, as not doing so would result in a fine. And once at the ballot box, if voters have a political preference, then they will vote for it, and if they do not care, they can simply cast a “none of the above” vote. The key component of this system is that no one would need to devote any additional time or energy to demonstrate their political preference than they otherwise would, which in our current system is the reason why so many stay home on Election Day, creating governments that do not reflect the makeup and needs of the citizenry.

At first glance, it seems counterintuitive that a policy like mandatory poll attendance would help economically disadvantaged citizens. After all, if it is indeed true that the time spent voting could be spent working a job or completing an education, then poorer citizens would still be losing valuable time by showing up to vote. However, under our current system, low-income individuals are the most disadvantaged by voting, and as such their lower voting rates make them a weaker voting block relative to their share of the population. With mandatory poll attendance, the economically disadvantaged would become a much stronger voting block, with their turnout hypothetically skyrocketing in elections according to expert estimates. Whereas our current system disproportionately benefits the rich, mandatory poll attendance would work even further to eliminate the voter participation gap between the rich and poor: because upper-income citizens would care less about needing to pay a fine for not voting, low-income citizens might even eclipse the wealthy in voter turnout. Knowing that the poor are systematically disenfranchised, politicians can get away with ignoring their needs and still winning reelection. But because mandatory polling attendance would turn poorer citizens from a disenfranchised group to one of the strongest voting blocks in the electorate, politicians would be forced to do more for the most economically disadvantaged if they wanted to have any chance at winning reelection. They would, for example, feel intense pressure to finally pass a law making Election Day a holiday or mandating paid time off to vote.

Seen through a behavioral economics lens, mandatory poll attendance would result in more equitable voter turnout rates across socioeconomic lines, thereby motivating the actions of the elected to better match the needs of the electorate. While some might argue that a mandatory policy would chip away at the belief that voting is a civic duty which citizens should perform out of their own volition, there are plenty of actions we consider civic responsibilities that the government nonetheless forces citizens to participate in. Citizens can be called on by the government to report for jury duty, and all male citizens over 18 must sign up for Selective Service, without undermining our country’s legal system or weakening the credibility of our military. 

While compulsory actions are undesirable, they are critical for ensuring the strength of these institutions. Our trials cannot be fair without a jury of one's peers, and that jury can only reflect the makeup of our citizenry accurately if no citizen is more likely to appear in the jury box than any other. Our defense cannot be secured unless we know that if necessary, our government could call upon its citizens to ensure our national security. Likewise, our democracy is only strong when voter turnout rates are high. If voting truly is a civic responsibility, then the government should empower it through mandatory polling attendance, and ensure that voters reflect the whole of the citizenry. Of course, mandatory poll attendance would not fix all of the many inequities that plague America’s democratic institutions. But if we want to strive towards creating a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then mandatory poll attendance would bring us closer to that grand governmental promise.

Brian Perlstein is a staff writer for CPR and a first-year at Columbia College studying History. He is from New Jersey and enjoys visiting new parks.