Spin Control: Would Washington elections be better if voting was mandatory?

For much of the public, the only figures that matter in an election are who won. For political analysts, campaign operatives and nerdy reporters, there’s a second set to consider that involves how many voters actually cast ballots.

Generally known as turnout – a bit of a misnomer in a state where ballots are mailed out and turned in by mail or drop box – a high turnout is extolled and a low turnout excoriated, even in cases where the outcome was unlikely to have changed if the turnout had been different.

Washington’s voting rolls have expanded in recent decades, both from a growing population and an increasingly easier pathway to registering. But while registration numbers are a simple total, turnout is a division problem, the number who vote divided by the number registered. As we all learned in third grade math, when the denominator grows faster than the numerator, the fraction shrinks.

Some people even argue that turnout should be calculated as the number who vote divided by the number who are eligible to vote, regardless of whether they are registered or not. Because there are usually hundreds of thousands of eligible unregistered voters, that would make high turnout numbers calculated the old way pretty mediocre, and bad turnout numbers abysmal.

Having reached what may be the upper limit of boosting voluntary registration short of offering some sort of bribe, Washington legislators are considering a two-step plan that theoretically would add to the rolls and the number of ballots that come in.

Proposed laws in the Senate and the House would require every eligible voter in Washington to register or obtain a registration waiver, and require every registered voter to return the ballot they are sent for primary and general elections.

The proposals are modeled, albeit loosely, on laws in some other countries that have mandatory registration and voting. And no, not in countries like North Korea, where they get a 99% turnout for ballots where the only choice is Kim Jung Un.

New South Wales, a state in Australia, has had mandatory registration and voting for 100 years, Jonathan O’Dea, a member of that state’s legislature told the Senate State Government and Elections Committee. They made the decision after a poor turnout of about 59.4% in 1922. And by the next national election in 1925 they hit 91.4%.

“It’s about behavior modification,” said O’Dea, who testified via the internet. “With rights come responsibilities.”

Other states later followed suit, and it’s the norm in Australia now, O’Dea said. The laws Down Under have some teeth, and the penalty for failing to vote in a state election is about $20, and in a federal election about $40, although only a relative handful wind up paying the fine because they can get a waiver for illness, an accident, religious beliefs or a conscientious objection – although not for not liking any of the candidates on the ballot.

Other countries also have mandatory voting, although the penalties vary. In Brazil, for example, it’s about 25 cents, and some countries have no monetary fines.

The Washington proposals would have no penalty. They would allow anyone to refuse to be registered for any reason, and remain off the rolls. One wouldn’t have to mark a ballot to be counted as a voter, and could just return a blank ballot.

Still, as Sen. Phil Fortunato, R-Auburn, said, it would be “another requirement we are forcing on the electorate. This is the United States of America, at least for a little while longer. We shouldn’t be compelled to do something we don’t want to do.”

Miles Rappaport, an author who has written a book promoting what’s known as “universal civic duty voting,” said government forces people to do many things they may not want to do, like serve on juries, participate in the census or educate children to the age of 16.

While the proposal got support from some seeking to boost participation in elections, it also got some pretty harsh criticism from others. Andy Craig of the Libertarian leaning Cato Institute said America has a “long tradition of conscientious nonvoting” for philosophical or religious reasons.

“Some people are simply disinterested in politics, and view politicians with disdain – which is their right,” he added.

Spokane resident Mary Long, of the Conservative Ladies of Washington, also questioned the provision that would allow the return of blank ballots

Suzanne Rohner, who testified remotely but without a video feed because she said she wanted to “stay out of facial recognition databases” was pointed in her criticism: “Only an authoritarian government will force its citizens to vote.”

Not mentioned, although worth considering, is whether this would improve Washington’s government or its citizens’ feelings toward their elected officials. And with some skeptics already questioning the current results, would the addition of a new set of numbers for blank ballots cast be likely to soothe or inflame those suspicions?

Although not everyone is able to testify at a hearing, legislative committees have a signup sheet for those who are pro or con on a proposal. For this bill, the tally was 52 in favor, 599 against.

Last week, however, the committee voted to move the proposal to the full Senate for a possible vote on a party-line vote, with the four Democrats voting yes and the three Republicans voting no. If the Senate acts in similar fashion, the bill would head to the House, where a companion bill has been introduced, but has yet to be scheduled for a hearing.