Galston: Mandatory Voting Would Loosen Partisan Gridlock

Political polarization is getting in the way of dealing with the nation's growing debt problem and other urgent issues, says William Galston, senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution. One way to loosen the partisan gridlock and facilitate a larger role for political moderates, he says, would be to require voting by all adult U.S. citizens. At least two dozen democratic countries have some form of compulsory voting. Galston sat down with U.S. News to discuss his proposal. Excerpts:

What would forcing people to vote do for democracy?

The evidence from other countries suggests that it would expand political participation dramatically. In Australia, for example, the election after a compulsory voting law was passed saw political participation rise from 59 percent to 91 percent. It's been around 95 percent ever since. And that means a couple things. First of all, everybody has a stake in their democracy. And second, the outcome isn't dominated by the people who are most passionate, who tend frequently to be farther from the center than people who are less passionate.

So that means less polarization?

My prediction, based on the difference between voters and nonvoters in the United States today, is that it would reduce political polarization. Absolutely.

A lot of people out there seem to be more interested in voting for an American Idol than for a primary candidate. Do we really want these uninterested people voting?

That question has been asked in many other countries. In Australia, the case that I know the best, these nonvoters who are being drafted into the political system were referred to pejoratively as "donkey voters" [who vote for candidates based only on their order on the ballot]. But in fact, once they have to vote, they may work a little bit harder than they would have otherwise to know what's going on.

There's evidence for that in Australia?

There's not a lot of evidence that many people are casting protest votes or intentionally foolish votes or are spoiling their ballots. That's about 2 or 3 percent of the electorate. Those are the free spirits who resent the law so much that they are protesting in the only way that the law provides. But by and large, for the other 91 or 92 percent, the system is working just fine.

What do you say to people who think that they have a right not to vote?

There probably are a lot of people who believe that not serving on juries is a right. But that's not how we see it in this country—it's a duty. So, the issue that my proposal puts on the table is: What are the responsibilities of American citizenship? That's a matter that we can decide collectively.

What would be the penalties for those who don't vote?

In Australia, the penalties range from $20 to $70, if you don't show up and then can't show afterward that you're a member of one of the categories of people that are exempted from the law. For example, if you have severe health problems or a family emergency or you are a conscientious objector on religious grounds, then you don't have to show up. We can come up with a reasonable list of acceptable excuses for nonvoting as well.

Won't making voting easier, such as making Election Day a national holiday, accomplish the same thing?

What we know is that steps to make voting easier can take us some distance down the road, but they won't get us anywhere near the rates of political participation of countries with mandatory voting.

There was a poll a while back that found that more than 70 percent of Americans opposed a compulsory voting system.

What we do know is that Americans over time change their minds on very fundamental questions. If you had polled Americans 50 years ago on interracial marriage, you would have found a majority opposed, but the Supreme Court acted nonetheless and now you have overwhelming majorities in favor. Once a conversation is started, if there is some intrinsic merit to the argument, then public opinion shifts over time. In my own view—which reflects a constitutional necessity since the electoral laws are largely determined by the 50 states—it would probably be a good idea for a handful of states to try mandatory voting for a couple of election cycles and see what happens.