
U.S. trails most developed countries in voter turnout (2018) - wickedwiesel
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/21/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/
======
docdeek
Interesting that % of registered voters that vote in the US is incredibly high
(86%) even if the number of registered voters is low (hence the low % of
eligible voters actually voting). 86% is right up there with countries like
Belgium and Australia where voting is compulsory and the obligation to vote
(or turn up at a polling place…) is enforced.

Switzerland seems odd on the face of it to me - what explains low turnout for
registered voters? Too many elections/votes? Voter fatigue?

~~~
stefan_
It's hilarious how deeply ingrained the insanity is. _Registering to vote_ is
just not a thing outside the US. The percentage of people who come to vote,
then vote is _all of them_.

~~~
Someone
That’s because the USA doesn’t have a formal registry of where its citizens
live
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_registration#United_S...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_registration#United_States))

They simply cannot send every citizen a letter (or email).

(The UK is in the same boat)

~~~
unishark
Both are of course among the word's oldest democracies so were set up when
just convenient ideas like maintaining a big book of everyone's names or
mailing ballots to everyone was surely impossible.

There have been lots of updates though. Several states allow same-day
registration and at least one state does not require registration at all.

~~~
Someone
For the USA, I’m fairly sure it’s more the idea that it’s not the government’s
concern where people live. Why would free citizens have to tell the government
where they live?

For the UK, it might be more the UK mantra “if it ain’t completely and utterly
broke, don’t fix it”. They tend to love traditions, even if they have become
somewhat impractical.

For the UK, keeping a central register also was a bit easier than one would
think, as women and most men didn’t have the right to vote until the
middle/late 19th century.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1867](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1867):

 _“Before the Act, only one million of the seven million adult men in England
and Wales could vote; the Act immediately doubled that number. Moreover, by
the end of 1868 all male heads of household were enfranchised as a result of
the end of compounding of rents.”_

(If I understand it correctly, “compounding of rents” is where landlords pay
the property taxes that renters have to pay, increasing rent accordingly.
Because only those paying property tax were eligible to vote, a side effect
was that many renters weren’t allowed to vote)

------
wickedwiesel
Given the current discussion on political apathy in the US I think this data
fits well into this pattern.

Looking at the voter turnout for United States (2016) of the of voting-age
population you have merely 55.70% voting. (For comparison, the scale goes up
to 87.21% in Belgium). Only roughly HALF of the population casts their votes
in federal elections. Since a lot of the current policing decisions are made
on a state or local level where voter turnout is even worse, this is a
democracy in crisis.

What could be the drivers for this? I think you get a hint if you look at the
other column, where you see the % of voter turnout based on registration. In
most countries listed here, these numbers are almost identical because you are
registered as a voter by default if you are a citizen. OR, if you are in the
US, the % climbs to a whopping 86.80%, illustrating what a negative impact
this system has.

Let people vote. Get rid of this ridiculus competition to cut and slice voter
districts to party needs (gerry-mandering) and stop suppressing voters by
other means if you want a system that actually allows politicians to work for
their voters and not for donors / special interest groups that keep you paid.

~~~
bildung
One easy change with major effects (that is law in almost all OECD countries
IIRC) would be to have votes only on sundays or official holidays. Having to
vote on a work day disproportionally disadvantages workers.

~~~
js8
Also, what's up with these horrible queues at polling places? In my country
(Czechia), I rarely have to wait when I come to the polling place.

We have one polling place (one ballot box, one comitee, about two places where
you're required by law to fill your ballot) per maybe couple thousands
citizens. These places are usually in a local school for the district. During
the election, they are open Friday afternoon till 8 PM and Saturday till 2 PM.
We have fully tabulated results by late Saturday. We don't have to register,
the verification is done through a central registry, we just have to prove our
identity at the polling site.

Frankly, I think U.S. deserves a comprehensive electoral reform. Americans
should demand it in a general strike.

------
zeveb
Is this really relevant, though? Republican democracy means that the people
are sovereign within the laws they themselves have set up and may change;
universal suffrage means that everyone[0] _may_ vote. But isn't the choice
_not_ to vote itself just as much of a signal as voting? I know that some
countries have compulsory voting, but that has always rubbed me the wrong way.
If someone simply wishes to sit out, that seems to me to be his right.

Given the reasonably-established effect of weather on elections[1], I am
uncertain that forced votes are particularly high-information votes.

0: well, not children or felons

1: e.g.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5463178/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5463178/)

~~~
wickedwiesel
In direct response to your first point, I would argue that it is you right to
not vote. That being said, as it is THE fundamental right in democracies, you
should not need to jump through any hoops whatsoever to vote. Especially as
evidence suggests this leads to the people in power making use of that to stay
in power.

On a side note: the idea that felons are unable to vote strikes me as totally
wrong. What's the reasoning behind that? Why on Earth would you do that to a
person? I cannot think of any scenario where this does not only have negatives
consequences (alienating convicted felons even further from communities etc.).
The only upside is pandering to those who feel that punishment is an important
aspect of criminal justice. (This in itself deserves debate.)

------
Synaesthesia
The US also lacks a broad based workers party like a Labour Party in UK or
Australia. The people that don’t vote probably would vote for such a party.

~~~
vinay427
If anything, the Democratic party is far too broad already even compared to a
modern Labour party. I think the platform is more alienating than the breadth,
in this case.

------
fallingfrog
It’s intentional, of course. Suppressing the vote of young or nonwhite people
is a well established practice in America. Oftentimes voting districts are so
gerrymandered that everybody knows which way the district will vote anyway so
why bother? And voter registration laws make it very time consuming to prove
residency for people who have to move often.

------
neallindsay
U.S. leads most developed countries in voter suppression

------
hanniabu
I can tell you the reason I don't vote is because of voter suppression and
manipulation.

