100% Democracy: The Case for Universal Voting
- Downloads：4298
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2022-04-01 19:21:35
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：E.J. Dionne Jr.
- ISBN：B08TKPW1HV
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
A timely and paradigm-shifting argument that all members of a democracy must participate in elections， by a leading political expert and Washington Post journalist Americans are required to pay taxes， serve on juries， get their kids vaccinated， get driver's licenses， and sometimes go to war for their country。 So why not ask--or require--every American to vote？
In 100% Democracy， E。J。 Dionne and Miles Rapoport argue that universal participation in our elections should be a cornerstone of our system。 It would be the surest way to protect against voter suppression and the active disenfranchisement of a large share of our citizens。 And it would create a system true to the Declaration of Independence's aspirations by calling for a government based on the consent of all of the governed。
It's not as weird as it sounds: in Australia， where everyone is required to vote （Australians can vote "none of the above，" but they have to show up）， 91。9 percent of Australians voted in the last major election in 2019， versus 60。1 percent in America's 2016 presidential race。 Australia hosts voting-day parties and actively celebrates this key civic duty。
It is time for the United States to take a major leap forward and recognize voting as both a fundamental civil right and a solemn civic duty required of every eligible U。S。 citizen。
In 100% Democracy， E。J。 Dionne and Miles Rapoport argue that universal participation in our elections should be a cornerstone of our system。 It would be the surest way to protect against voter suppression and the active disenfranchisement of a large share of our citizens。 And it would create a system true to the Declaration of Independence's aspirations by calling for a government based on the consent of all of the governed。
It's not as weird as it sounds: in Australia， where everyone is required to vote （Australians can vote "none of the above，" but they have to show up）， 91。9 percent of Australians voted in the last major election in 2019， versus 60。1 percent in America's 2016 presidential race。 Australia hosts voting-day parties and actively celebrates this key civic duty。
It is time for the United States to take a major leap forward and recognize voting as both a fundamental civil right and a solemn civic duty required of every eligible U。S。 citizen。
Reviews
Austin O'Connell
，
In their book， bluntly titled 100% Democracy， E。J Dionne and Miles Rapport argue for mandated voting to achieve near full voter turnout in the U。S。 In making their case， the authors draw from electoral innovations across the United States and universal voting policies in 26 countries to support three main contentions:1）The authors argue that universal voting is needed to push state governments to liberalize voting laws because of widespread obstacles to the ballot box。2）The authors argue that re In their book， bluntly titled 100% Democracy， E。J Dionne and Miles Rapport argue for mandated voting to achieve near full voter turnout in the U。S。 In making their case， the authors draw from electoral innovations across the United States and universal voting policies in 26 countries to support three main contentions:1）The authors argue that universal voting is needed to push state governments to liberalize voting laws because of widespread obstacles to the ballot box。2）The authors argue that requiring everyone to vote would eliminate the incentive for politicians to find and mobilize their base， thus reducing political divisions。3）The authors argue that universal voting will lead to policymaking in the best interest of all eligible voters。The authors' first argument rests on the belief that there is widespread voter suppression that mandates universal voting as means to push states to liberalize their voting laws。 The authors correctly point out that a lack of electoral infrastructure to increase access to voting effectively functions like roadblocks deliberately put in the way of voting in that they both depress turnout。 However， they overstate their case by arguing that voter ID laws actively suppress the vote。 Incidentally， many universal voting countries， even ones poorer than the U。S， have voter ID laws。 Mexico， for example， implemented universal voting in 1953 but had one-party rule until 2000。 Mexico's adaption of the voter ID requirement to vote in the 1990s has been attributed to this landmark political shift。 In Mexico， the government provides a free ID to those who don't have one; in states like Georgia， voting is made even more convenient by allowing voters to use billing statements and government documents as a substitution for photo ID。 Thus， the judge who upheld the Georgia voter ID law said that the parties filing the lawsuit against failed to provide one example of the law preventing someone from voting。 A broader analysis from the National Bureau of Economic Research of voter ID laws across multiple states over a decade found， "voter ID had no negative effect on turnout or registration overall for any specific group defined by race， gender， age， or party affiliation。" Because the authors exaggerate the scope of obstacles to voting， they also overplay the need for universal voting to ease access to the ballot box for people who want to vote。The authors' second argument about universal voting decreasing partisanship also falls flat when looked at with moderate amounts of scrutiny。 For starters， about half of independent voters， the group the authors argue have been most disenfranchised by the current system， have a political tilt towards one party。 Though many voters like to identify as independent， very few are， making it improbable that increasing voter turnout would dramatically reduce partisanship。 Universal voting might even exasperate partisanship: a study cited in the book reveals that universal voting increases psychological attachment to a particular party， a likely outgrowth of voters needing some means of making voting choices without extensive political knowledge。 Finally， the authors are misguided in seeking to maximize political representation over good governance。 These objectives are， in fact， not one and the same。 Polling from the Washington Post， the Kaiser Foundation， and Harvard University's Survey Project show that average voters and economic Ph。D。's are divided over most key policy issues。 Economists tend to view the free market more favorably and government intervention more skeptically。 Since College-educated voters tend to vote more and have opinions more in line with economists than the average voters， U。S policy is better than predicted from public opinion polls。 For example， most voters often view free trade as causing jobs to be destroyed and shipped overseas。 Economists and College-educated voters tend to realize that free trade creates jobs since 50% of American-made products are made with foreign materials。 To the extent that globalization has hurt sectors like manufacturing rising incomes are to blame， not free trade。 The Cato Institute's Scott Lincicome found that the decline in manufacturing has happened universally and at the same rate across the OECD over the past few decades， regardless of whether a particular country had protective tariffs or other state-imposed industry protections。 Instead， Lincicome attributes the fall of manufacturing to the rising incomes that cause people to shift their spending from goods to services。 Therefore， the authors' complaints about College-educated voters being overrepresented in the electorate are misguided because they support better policy。Adjusting for economists' demographic and ideological characteristics only explains 20% of the gap between their views and those held by the general public。 Leaving tangible knowledge as the only culprit for economists' notorious contrarianism。 Thus， it is not the case that a more representative electorate would fair any better than the current one in promoting the common good， but increasing the influence of uninformed voters does jeopardize sound governance。 Sourceshttps://www。youtube。com/watch？v=oXIhU。。。https://www。youtube。com/watch？v=Vdbhi。。。https://press。princeton。edu/books/pap。。。 https://www。cato。org/working-paper/qu。。。 。。。more
Kathleen
，
An eye-opener for me。 I had never thought about universal civic duty voting。 This book outlines its importance in safeguarding the vote， preventing disenfranchisement。 A brief， powerful look at existing cases __ voting Australia is like a party __ and successful critique of counter-arguments。
Melissa
，
I got more out of this book than I thought I would--I was skeptical because it was so short， but they actually do cram in a lot of information that I wasn't familiar with。 I appreciated that they shared case studies from other countries who have experimented with "civic duty voting" （their framework that covers mandatory participation in elections， not mandatory voting）， though I would have been interested to hear more details about why it hasn't worked in other countries as well as it has in Au I got more out of this book than I thought I would--I was skeptical because it was so short， but they actually do cram in a lot of information that I wasn't familiar with。 I appreciated that they shared case studies from other countries who have experimented with "civic duty voting" （their framework that covers mandatory participation in elections， not mandatory voting）， though I would have been interested to hear more details about why it hasn't worked in other countries as well as it has in Australia， and what we can learn from the less successful attempts at universal voting。 I also appreciated that they touched on the potential legal challenges to this work， as well as the equity concerns about what it means to require participation when our system already does not serve many people very well and isn't accessible。 Of course the biggest immediate hurdle isn't legal， it's one of persuasion and mobilization--where is the movement to make that happen？ That isn't really covered in this book--maybe that'll be their next。 。。。more
（a）lyss（a）
，