What if We Had to Vote?

Peter Orszag, former director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama administration, recently wrote an editorial in which he advanced the idea of making voting compulsory. Like many forward thinking commentators, Orszag laments the low voter turnout in the U.S. and sees it as diminishing democracy. The fewer the people who vote, the fewer the people who decide the direction of government and and the narrower policy becomes. To remedy the low turnout rates, averaging below 60 percent, (lower for state and local elections) Orszag advances the idea of making voting mandatory in the U.S. Orszag is one of those who see voting as not a right or a privilege, but a duty, and too many Americans are shirking their duty.

Those chagrined by the low voter turnout in the U.S. see it as undermining our democracy by leaving elections in the hands of a small slice of the American population. To the extent that elections are typically dominated by an unrepresentative segment of those eligible to vote, i.e. the White middle class, policy is often skewed in their favor. For those who perceive politics in the United States as a struggle of class, race, and gender, the scales have to be balanced, even tipped.

Orszag and others are correct. The more people who vote, the better our system works, but how do you get people who are disinclined to vote to go to the polls? You cannot throw people in jail for not voting. Pressure must be applied through other means. One method advanced by Orszag is to fine voters who shirk their duty. That is the stick. To soften the burden of mandatory voting some have floated the idea of adding a lottery funded by the fines placed on those who did not show up at the polls. By casting a vote voters would make themselves eligible to win a pot of money. That is the carrot. He suggests that the idea recently put forward by others that a cash incentive in the form of a lottery is worth consideration. Naturally the pot would be filled with the fines placed upon those who refuse to carry out their duty.

The flaw in this theory is that the quantity of votes cast is given greater importance than the quality of votes cast. Driving millions of unmotivated and uninformed voters to the polls will do nothing to improve government. Many would vote by lists given to them by special interests with little or no thought to the issues. Some would likely vote straight tickets out of reflex or simply to save time with little thought given to the candidates or understanding of the issues and only the vaguest understanding of policy. Free health care is good. Candidate Smith supports free health care. So a vote is cast

Orszag asserts that by compelling people to vote we can achieve two laudable objectives: it would decrease the influence of money on elections and ensure that winners would elected by a true majority. Secondly, any money spent to discourage voters from showing up at the polls to support your opponent would be wasted. Obliging people to vote would greatly reduce the effect of special interest groups in getting people to the polls. Since everyone would have to vote there would be no point in spending millions to get sympathetic citizens to turn out on election day. Any weight added by the increase of numbers would be problematic. It would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to sift the informed and motivated votes from the random and coerced ones. 

There is absolutely no reason to believe that our republic would be better off if people were driven and enticed to the polls. Padding elections with millions of uninformed and unmotivated votes would amount to giving winners a blank check. Politicians would claim that their positions were vindicated by the thousands and millions that cast votes for them when in truth it would be nothing of the sort.

Coercing people to the polls will not make our country or our government any better. More than likely it would make things worse. Who would they vote for? On what basis would they choose one candidate over another? Adding millions of uniformed, thoughtless, and reflexive votes would have the effect of writing government a blank check. There would be no additional scrutiny of politicians' actions or examination of policy. There would be no increase in voter awareness. There would simply be more votes cast.

Orszag concludes by stating that compulsory voting would "make our democracy work better" because it would be "more reflective of the population at large." It is unclear what he means by that. If he means ethnically, racially, and sexually his argument is based on a disturbing assumption. Such an argument presumes that each demographic has a peculiar and exclusive interest that can only be represented by politicians who share that distinction. If he means to ensure that the electorate be accurately represented by class and economic interest, he is flirting with a Marxist concept of class struggle except that, unlike Marx, he believes that some sort of compromise between competing interests can be found. That compromise might be construed as a "common interest", but it might also be little more than a demarcation line. Once the balance of power shifted, the struggle would begin anew.

There is a great deal of rhetoric about voting being a solemn duty. The fact is, it is not. It is a right and a privilege. As such, people are free to choose whether they want to claim their privilege and exercise that right. The choice is theirs.

Compelling and bribing people to cast a vote will not make our democracy work better. It would only make it look better.

It is not Prejudice. It is Prudence

To the indignation of many, the Boy Scouts of America continues to resist lifting its ban on openly gay and lesbian adults being scout leaders. However, with the decision by two high level scouting commissioners, James Turley and Randall Stephenson to oppose the policy, Gay activists are encouraged. The wall is cracking.

Much of the opposition to gay (open or otherwise) service in scouting is framed in terms of morals. Advocates on keeping the ban in place frequently point to the requirement that scouts be "morally straight". Others cite the right of private groups to determine who is eligible to be a member of that group and who is not. As opponents to gay scout leaders are finding out, both of those are losing arguments. Privacy is a flimsy argument for a group as large and as public as the Boy Scouts of America. Morals are seen as too subjective and too capricious to carry any weight in public. By the lights of these arguments, the BSA's ban on gay scout leaders is doomed. It is only a matter of time and money before they yeild. Interestingly, the most potent argument for keeping the ban in place is the one most frequently ignored: the argument based on common sense.

Even the most cursory of glances across the public landscape reveals a distinction that is so common it is rarely, if ever noticed. Mixed gender groups and activities involving children go to great lengths to restrict and regulate the interaction between adults and children of the opposite sex in any potentially intimate situation. As a society we have concluded that in many circumstances it is unsuitable for adults of one gender to supervise children of another because of the sexual ramifications apart from simple biology. We refrain from allowing adults and children to shower with each other or sleep alongside each other if they are of opposite sex and not related, even then we place restrictions on it. We do not allow adult men to escort young girls into the restroom or change alongside them at the swimming pool. It is usually a matter of policy to segregate the sexes where there is the opportunity for mischief. As history has shown time and again, scouting is an opportunity for mischief.

Keeping adults and children apart where there is an enticement to abuse is common sense. To do otherwise would be reckless. Naturally, gay activist groups bristle at the notion that homosexuals are more inclined to child abuse than any other group. Statistics bear them out on this. However, sexual orientation should not be the Scouts primary concern, abuse should.  The occurrences of adult men, of any sexual orientation, molesting children are few. Nevertheless, they do occur with alarming frequency. Even if the odds of any particular man being a sexual predator are small, it is significant enough that the possibility must be taken into account. The occurrences of adult women molesting children, while spectacular when they occur, are so statistically rare as to be hardly worth mentioning. Nevertheless, it too does occur and because of that, provisions have to be made

The issue is not whether gays and lesbians are capable of being scout leaders.  Of course they are. One does not have to be heterosexual to teach someone how to build a good Soap Box Derby racer or start a campfire. It is about the close quarters and the intimacy of scouting life. The prospect of sharing a shower, a room, or a tent with someone who may be attracted to you and find you sexually appealing can be uncomfortable and unpleasant, especially for a child. How many women (even liberal women) would feel comfortable letting their daughter dress, shower, and sleep among men even if the chance of molestation were negligible? Very few I imagine. That is why men and women have separate showers, bathrooms, dressing rooms, and barracks. When it comes to our children, thoughts and glances can be as alarming as anything else.

Wanting to avoid intimate situations involving children and adults who might find them appealing is not prejudice. It is prudence. The fundamental problem is that is is easy to make accommodations for gender. It is near impossible to do so for sexuality. Such concerns will naturally be brushed off by those in favor of lifting the ban. As far as they are concerned, guidelines and policies will be enough to keep everything above board and the children safe. It is believed that reason and rules will be enough to keep human inclinations in check. Even the Catholic Church has failed to quash human nature. It is unrealistic to believe that the Scouts will do any better.

The issue is not about the Scouts banning gay people from leadership positions . It is about banning openly gay people from leadership positions. There is a difference. If the kids don't know their scout leader is gay, their scout leader's sexuality is not an issue. The issue is about what kids should be taught about homosexuality. Many feel that openly gay scout leaders would be a valuable "learning opportunity" for kids. That may be. But the peculiar nature of the scouting experience due to the opportunities it provides for intimacy along with the importance of role models and bonding make it ill suited for a class on human sexuality.