Here in Canada, and I think in many US states, employers are required by law to give their employees a certain amount of time to vote on voting day.

+1 abge

That's how you deal with that. Voter repression is alive and well...

Requiring people to vote is foolish. Anyone who opts out of their franchise would likely cast an uninformed or a joke ballot. This would result in even worse governance. We need to move towards oligarchy, not compulsory voting.

I know in Michigan where I live that employers are required by law to give their employees time off on any day where there is voting.

Time off is often insufficient for employees who live in neighbourhoods where queues are multiple hours.

Hey mendax, should we let members of historically disadvantaged groups cast multiple ballots? Or maybe we should allow for communities to cast collective ballots?

I'm in favor of a paid holiday, but I think people gripe too much about how hard it is to vote.

Get an absentee ballot if it's such a hardship.

How about replacing voting day with voting week or voting month?

Working during election time? No problem!
Want to go on holiday during election time? No problem!
Sick? No problem!
Hungover during election time? No problem!
Dead? Resurrect in three days and your vote isn't lost!

Federal paid holiday on Voter Tuesday, $50 fine for an eligible voter that doesn't vote.

That should also solve the queues. Just don't go the first or last day I guess.

@y2kjbk:

Can you fine someone for not voting though? It's a right, not a duty, right?

For example with the right to believe what you want also comes the right not to believe at all.

Shouldn't it be the same with voting? With the right to vote also comes the right not to vote?

That'd also be unfair to people who just can't vote nearby. If you can vote nextdoor, you could just throw the empty ballot in the box and be done with it.

Do you really want the people who can't even be arsed to vote on their own to influence who becomes president, anyway?

People should vote because they want to have a voice in deciding who governs a country/state/province, not because they'll get fined if they don't.

They should institute satellite voting in order to make it easier for those who can't get to a poll (elderly, handicapped, those without transportation, or those without the means to wait for hours) to vote. If they won't do a day off, then at least do that, but Election Day should just be a national holiday.

In my opinion, one of the best ways to get voter turnout up is through education about the different parties, platforms, etc., starting at a young age.

One traditional argument against mandatory voting is that it will lead to mass vote-buying. If I don't care about the issues but have to vote, make me an offer! The Australian case has not born this out as anything like a major problem, to my knowledge.

I'm with abge. The best option is voluntary voting, accompanied by a national paid holiday and sufficient polling resources in all neighborhoods. Voting should be easy -- mail-in, weekends, evenings, online if feasible in terms of security, the possibility of voting well before the election . . .

We should also avoid having multiple elections a year, as we poor Californians are sometimes subjected to. Initiative backers love low-turnout off-season elections. Keep elections to one Tuesday in November every two years.

The national voting holiday has a distinct disadvantage in nations without fixed terms. A government that calls an election on a wet Thursday in November will suddenly find itself far less popular than one that calls an election in early August. I think you are also overestimating the desire of people to vote. My suspicion is that, given the choice between a day at the beach or a trip to a polling station, people will go to the beach. The actual voting will be reserved for the same couple of hours in the evening that they would have gone to before.

One day is all you need. Opening the polling booths early, and keep them open late, and allow postal votes for people who won't be able to make it. That is more than enough. Personally I am delighted when people who don't give a damn can't be arsed to vote because it means that the people who genuinely care have a bigger say.

"We should also avoid having multiple elections a year, as we poor Californians are sometimes subjected to. Initiative backers love low-turnout off-season elections. Keep elections to one Tuesday in November every two years."

Well, there are these things called primaries. :P Get used to two elections per year. That's not too much to ask.

However, I do agree that California should modify its Proposition system so that they only appear on ballots the same time as federal general elections (November of even-numbered years). That would reduce the attempts to game the system when there is traditionally low turnout.

"I do agree that California should modify its Proposition system so that they only appear on ballots the same time as federal general elections (November of even-numbered years). That would reduce the attempts to game the system when there is traditionally low turnout."

I agree completely. Let's start a petition drive to put this on the ballot!

I'd be OK with a voting holiday, though I don't think it's required. Mandatory voting is a terrible idea. Fortunately, it's also virtually certain to be found unconstitutional if anybody tries it.

Injector Topic: Les Matadors brought up an interesting perspective. He said to get "voter turnout up is through education about the different parties, platforms, etc., starting at a young age." My new question is, how do people feel about this? positives negatives, discuss.

@JK you know that the outcome of your proposition is quite the contrary to your (stated) intentions? Also, who would pay for all the trolleys voters will need to carry their of ballots to the box? Who wants to spend 6 hours in the ballot box to vote through all the propositions?

@CB: My wife is a researcher and expert on voters, voter turnout, and ballot design. (She was an advisor to the recent Presidential Commission on Election Administration Reform.)

She recently interviewed dozens of non-regular voters to learn what voter information they needed to help them decide to vote more regularly. She and her team learned that non-regular voters need a catalyzing issue to drive them to the polls, something that has close meaning to them.

So, it's not just education about the parties and platforms. It's education about issues central to their lives and well-being.

(Here's a press release about their recently published research: http://bit.ly/1F8laTb)

X3non seems to be a low-information voter. :P

Imagine how many people with NO IDEA what they are voting for would be deciding the fate of your nation. Should the ignorant masses be forced to spread their ignorance?

This is kind of like forcing plumbers to do brain surgery...if they can't handle it, don't force them to break the system worse than it already is.

Both plumbers and brain surgeons have a stake in our elections. Plumbers, actually, have more of a stake...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_Plumber

Australian here, and I'm an amateur elections nerd. We don't have compulsory voting. We have compulsory (subject to a small fine) poll *attendance*. These are not the same thing. We also have extremely rigorously conducted *pure paper* elections, highly scrutineered, and run by an independent electoral commission. We also use preferential-voting (or instant run-off if you prefer that name). These things *in combination* matter.

The point is to have a system which encourages the "least hated" candidates to win, because the "least hated" candidates are the ones most likely to actually be able to work with other people and get stuff done. And it mostly works.

Side note: We have no vote buying, because our paper elections are designed such that it is utterly impossible to verify what the actual vote you put in the ballot box was. You could trivially pretend to have voted a particular way you like to get bribed (including taking a photo of the ballot paper), then erase that ballot paper and put in your actual preferred vote to the ballot box. So there's no point.

Oh. And our elections are always on a Saturday. And if you can't make it, we have secure postal voting or pre-voting by paper also.

Oh, and to address the OP - we have two major political parties, just as you do, but we actually have multiple credible other political parties, that hold seats and influence in both the upper and lower houses. And over the century of our Federal parliament (since 1901), we've actually had significant change in which two parties were the "majors" a few times, and we've had minor parties rise to some power and go again also.

So, arguably, that's better democracy - political parties actually change, or are created and eliminated in response to the desires of the electorate.