A way of increasing voter turn-out could be to make every registered voter's vote go to the incumbent party. The voter has to actively change the ballot if he / she doesn't want their vote to go to the incumbent. This would impel most if not all people to make a decision, indeed, it still allows people to spoil their ballot if they don't like anybody, but it would at least stop apathy, whilst making everybody turn up!
I think a further refinement would be needed to stop the effect of say 1% of people forgetting to turn-up (or something equally ridiculous) making the incumbent win in a dead heat (maybe the final 1% of votes don't count if they are for the incumbent... ???).
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
Of course, the logic works just as well in the other direction. If the opposition received 100% of the vote then the voters would have to vote to keep the incumbent in. Since the voting that way would indicate approval of the incumbent's past behavior, that might be more fair.(Depending upon how much chaos you favored.)
I don't think it would work. Unless the people who normally wouldn't vote find the incumbant (or whoever the default vote goes to) incredibly offensive, they still won't be motivated to vote.
Why not instead offer a tax break for those who vote? Money is a much more powerful incentive than what the community will look like two or twenty years from now.
Aside from the chicanery that each side is accusing of the other, the problem confronts a basic failure of the democratic process. The solution offered is a way to stimulate the populace to vote which is, after all, not a privilege but a duty in a system which demands the participation of the entire populace to validate the system of government. Perhaps, if not a carrot, a stick might be more effective. A variety of sticks is available. A fine for not voting is used to effect in some countries. Perhaps a driver's license should become invalid if a voter does not vote. Perhaps a passport would be invalid without a voting stamp. There are many possibilities.The carrot might be a holiday created for voting day and sufficient voting facilities so that it takes only a few minutes to carry through the process.The mess in the recent election might be acceptable if the USA had become a democracy in the near past and nobody was familiar with the process. Considering the age and the experience of the country it seems to me it should have been a dire embarrassment.
How about interpreting a non-vote as a vote for "nobody". Candidates need an outright majority of all registered voters--if they don't get it then the office is not filled and that part of the government is shut down.
That seems to be the most fair interpretation of not voting -- the voter doesn't want government.