100% democracy The case for universal voting

The concept of universal civic-duty voting is an idea whose time is coming. True, it's a mouthful, but the notion that all adults should be required to vote in much the same way that they must pay taxes and serve on juries is not some pie-in-the-sky, left-wing woo-woo ideal conjured up in the wake of Trumpism and the adjacent extermination of voting rights. Plenty of democracies conduct their elections this way, chief among them Australia, and they have managed to not fall down the rabbit hole of liberalism run amok. Washington Post columnist Dionne and political advocate Rapoport coherently and assertively present the grounds for and anticipate the arguments against such a radical change in our election system. Key among the defenses of required voting is the subtle but crucial distinction between mandatory participation in elections and mandatory voting. In an era when most states have introduced some type of legislation restricting voting, empowering citizen participation must be protected as the cornerstone of democracy. The authors' justification for inclusivity is potent and timely.

Washington Post columnist Dionne (Code Red) and Harvard Kennedy School fellow Rapoport present a persuasive argument for mandatory voting in the U.S. Universal civic duty voting would "engage all American citizens in our democratic experiment," the authors contend, while deterring efforts--which often target communities of color--to restrict voting rights and eligibility. Dionne and Rapoport explain how expanded mail-in voting, the loosening of restrictions on absentee ballots, and other reforms made in response to the Covid-19 pandemic contributed to record levels of participation in the 2020 presidential election. Citing the example of Australia, where the country's universal voting system is complemented by the festive atmosphere of community events such as an election day sausage sizzle, the authors argue that making it easier to vote means that more people will do so, and that compulsory voting will lead to election results that genuinely represent the will of the people. Detailing how such a system would work in the U.S., Dionne and Rapoport propose small fines for failure to comply, incentives to encourage participation, and measures to prevent the accidental enrolling of ineligible voters. Backed by copious data and a firm grasp of the legislative process, this is a cogent call for rethinking the electoral process. (Feb.)