On this week’s episode of Terms of Engagement, former Senior Practice Fellow in American Democracy at the Ash Center, Miles Rapoport, joins co-hosts Archon Fung and Stephen Richer to discuss the idea of universal voting in the United States.
This week on Terms of Engagement, Miles Rapoport joins cohosts Archon Fung and Stephen Richer to discuss universal voting in the United States. Rapoport is the co-author, with E.J. Dionne, of 100% Democracy: The Case for Universal Voting. He serves as Executive Director of the 100% Democracy Initiative and discusses its mission to promote voting as both a fundamental right and a civic responsibility. He also examines the outcomes of universal voting in countries where participation in elections is mandatory.
Voiceover:
You're listening to Terms of Engagement, a weekly show from the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at Harvard Kennedy School, featuring Ash Center Director, Archon Fung and Senior Practice Fellow in American Democracy, Stephen Richer. Now let's get to the show.
Archon Fung (00:31):
Hello everyone. This is Terms of Engagement. I'm Archon Fung, a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, and director of the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation.
Stephen Richer (00:41):
And I'm Stephen Richer. I'm the former elected Maricopa County recorder, and I am now a lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School, and a fellow at the Ash Center.
Archon Fung (00:49):
So, today we are pre-recording this show, but we'll be watching the comments. So, please comment in, although we won't be able to respond live. And if you are watching, or listening on a podcast platform and you have feedback, please send it to us at info@ash.harvard.edu.
Stephen Richer (01:11):
And as always, Archon, and I are speaking on behalf of ourselves, and only on behalf of ourselves, not on behalf of any Harvard University related entity. So, it is Tuesday, October 13th. We are now 21 days away from the midterm elections from November 3rd, the general election day. And hopefully you're excited about the upcoming elections. Ballots have gone out in multiple states. I've actually already filled out my ballot in the state of Arizona.
Archon Fung (01:42):
Oh, you mailed already. Or you voted already.
Stephen Richer (01:45):
Yeah, because I was home last weekend, and Arizona starts 27 days before the general election, and I am back here. And so I wanted to fill it out, and put my signature on, and then my wife will drop it off at a ballot drop box.
Archon Fung (02:00):
And not a mailbox. So, how does it work? The election directors have set up special ballot drop boxes that only receive ballots, and you can look those up on the website, and then people can drop off their ballots there?
Stephen Richer (02:16):
Right. So, mail ballots go out 27 days before election day. And then when you get it, and you fill it out, and you put it in the envelope, and you sign the envelope, then you can return it either through the USPS by putting it in a normal blue USPS box, or you can go, and deposit it at a ballot drop box either at a voting location, or at a different ballot drop box that's just anywhere in the county.
Archon Fung (02:41):
Got you.
Stephen Richer (02:42):
And if I mess this up, shame on me considering I did it for four years, and I always talked about how I ran it for four years, and I always talked about how easy and convenient it is.
Archon Fung (02:53):
And in Arizona, I know some states have this, but in Arizona, is there a way to verify that they've received your ballot? Do you have a number that you can kind of ballot track?
Stephen Richer (03:04):
Yes, it's a great question. You can go to vballotready.vote, and you can track your ballot all through the process. In fact, you have your own voter dashboard whereby you can see exactly how you're registered, which races you voted in, which elections you voted in, in the past. You can see a sample ballot online, and more all brought to you by the former Maricopa County recorder.
Archon Fung (03:27):
Oh, that's terrific. So, you've got peace of mind. You know that your ballot didn't just drop into a black hole, or fall out of the back of a truck, or whatever it is.
Stephen Richer (03:36):
And I should say that the vast majority of states now allow for mail ballot tracking. And so that is a feature. Not all of them are as robust as ours, but they do allow for mail ballot tracking. And it is exactly for that reason, both so that you can see if there's an issue, but also so that you can have peace of mind. And of course, election officials use that barcode to track your mail ballot as well, and to scan it in, and load a vote to your profile so they know that you're not voting twice. Because if you mail back a ballot, they scan it in, and then you can't just show up, and vote in person. You'll be given a provisional ballot instead.
Archon Fung (04:13):
Got you. And when you were creating the dashboard, was it on your mind to create a voting norm? Because if I logged on, and looked at my voter dashboard, and I noticed that I'd only voted in federal elections, but I'd missed three local off cycle elections, I'd feel a little bit bad about it, and try to do a little bit better next time.
Stephen Richer (04:34):
Yeah, I think there's a little bit of that, like the Uber score, everyone wants to know what your passenger score is.
Archon Fung (04:40):
Five star voter.
Stephen Richer (04:41):
Yeah. Yeah. But apparently in 2017 I missed one jurisdictional election. So, I have this otherwise perfect record of having voted in every election, but somehow I missed a jurisdictional election. I'm a little disappointed with myself on that. And so hopefully never again.
Archon Fung (05:00):
Next year, maybe do a little bit better. Very good.
Stephen Richer (05:03):
Get that up to 5.0.
Archon Fung (05:04):
Very... Voter rating.
Stephen Richer (05:07):
Anyhow, so we're talking about voting obviously today, and we've got a great guest to talk about the flip side to what we talked about last week. Last week, we acknowledged that only about 50% of eligible voters in the United States will participate in this November midterm election. And we asked, is that problematic? Would it be better if it was 60%? Would it be worse if it was 40%? Is there any social science literature suggesting that more people should vote, or fewer people should vote? How informed are people when they're actually going to the ballot box? And so today we're going to talk about another way of approaching that question, which is requiring people to vote as is done in Australia, and other countries. So, what would it look like if 100% of eligible Americans participated in this vote this next election? How would that change the political conversation?
(06:10):
How would that change our governance? And so to talk about that, we're going to bring in one of the foremost authorities on this topic, somebody who has now worked on this topic for a few years, and Archon is going to make that introduction.
Archon Fung (06:23):
Right. Great. Thank you, Stephen. So, our guest today is actually my good friend Miles Rapoport, who has spent his career on the voting issue, and problem from just about every angle. He served in the Connecticut House of Representatives, chaired the elections committee there, then became Connecticut's Secretary of State where he ran the machinery of elections. He was president of the think tank Demos in New York, and then president of the organization Common Cause with Rob Washington Post columnist E.J. Dion Jr. He has written a book which we'll be talking about today called 100% Democracy, arguing that voting should be a universal civic duty that every eligible citizen should be required to participate the way that we require jury service. He founded 100% Democracy a little bit later, which is an advocacy organization that works at the state, and local level to get the idea into law, and he is its executive director. I should disclose that I am on the advisory board of 100% Democracy, and that the idea began, Miles began the idea, incubated the idea when he was a senior fellow here at the Ash Center. Miles, welcome to the show.
Miles Rapoport (07:42):
Thanks Archon, and thanks Stephen. Delighted to be here with you.
Stephen Richer (07:46):
I didn't know that it was incubated while Miles was an Ash fellow.
Archon Fung (07:51):
Yeah, right.
Stephen Richer (07:52):
I'm going to have to tread carefully because now that's like the home team, got to root for the home team.
Miles Rapoport (07:59):
That's right.
Archon Fung (08:00):
Well, you're on the home team, too.
Stephen Richer (08:01):
Yeah, I know, but that's why I've got as well. But I do have some questions, and we'll get to those questions. But before we get to those questions, Miles, tell us more about how you came upon this as something that you wanted to dedicate your time, and energy to.
Miles Rapoport (08:16):
Okay. I'll try to do this quickly, but it's a three-part answer. What's the origin story of universal voting, and my involvement with it? Well, the origin of the reform itself, the first country to adopt universal voting was Belgium in 1894. Several other countries followed, and Australia adopted it in 1924. So, this is as my co-author EJ, by the way, who was a New York Times columnist now, not a Washington Post columnist.
Archon Fung (08:47):
Oh, that's true. He was a Washington Post columnist until last year.
Miles Rapoport (08:52):
Have to make sure we're accurate in his-
Archon Fung (08:54):
Thanks for the correction.
Miles Rapoport (08:55):
But anyway, as he said, this is a brand new concept with a... No, a brand new idea with 102 years of proof of concept. Anyway, so number two is that, so I have been involved with voting issues, and democracy issues for over 40 years. If you just go back to the time when I was in the Connecticut legislature, and chair of the elections committee, I've worked on almost every reform to expand voting, same-day voter registration, early voting, mail-in voting, restoration of voting rights for people with felony convictions, et cetera. And all those are important reforms, and they have moved the needle, but not very much. So, then coming to the full reason, in 2015, I read a piece that EJ Dion had written along with William Galston for the Brookings Institution, making the case that the United States should emulate what Australia does, and make voting a required civic duty.
(09:56):
And I really was sort of dumbstruck about it in the sense that after, on the one hand, this seems like a really interesting idea. And on the other hand, how is it that I have never, in the 40 years I've been working on these things, had a conversation about it? So, I decided, and Stephen, this was when I was an Ash fellow, that this is worthy of real study, and turned out that EJ Dion also had a Kennedy School appointment at that same time. So, we actually created a universal voting working group that was a joint project of the Brookings Institution, and the Ash Center. And it was a terrific group that included Archon, and a number of other voting rights advocates, scholars, former election officials, et cetera.
(10:42):
We put out a report in 2020 that was called Lift Every Voice: The Urgency of Universal Civic Duty Voting, which then led to the book, an invitation for us to write a book for the new press, and that became 100% Democracy. So, it's really about a 10-year effort of my involvement, but the issue, if you're not a US-centric person, has been around for over a hundred years.
Archon Fung (11:09):
Right. Yeah, go ahead, Stephen.
Stephen Richer (11:11):
You listed off a number of the countries. Approximately how many countries today require that their citizens vote?
Miles Rapoport (11:19):
It's 25, really. The majority of countries in Latin America use it. Implementation differs from country to country about what they do if you don't vote, or if anything. And then there are three, or four countries in Europe, Australia, most notably in there, and a couple of countries in Africa, and Asia. So, it's a pretty widespread group of countries on our website, which is 100percentdemocracy.org. We actually have a map of all the countries, all the democratic countries. I'm often asked if this is like what they do in North Korea, and I say no, and that is not on our list of countries that use universal voting.
Stephen Richer (12:04):
Yeah. Not only do 100% of the people vote, but then the fearless leader gets 100% of the votes.
Archon Fung (12:09):
They vote for fearless leader. Yeah, right.
Miles Rapoport (12:12):
It's not exactly what we're recommending.
Archon Fung (12:15):
No, no. So, I have a couple of things on background that just to explain my interest when Miles was pitching the idea. One is that the US voting rate by international standards is quite low. In 2024, about 65% of voting age citizens participated in the presidential elections. I don't have the most recent comparative statistics, but I think that puts us kind of 20, 25 down the list in terms of voter participation in major national elections. So, that's fact one, it's relatively low on benchmarks. Number two is, I really agree, is if we could wave a magic wand, and get all of the things, the main proposals that voting rights advocates want, same day registration, easy vote by mail, extend the early voting period, all of that, that might move, I don't know. I mean, I don't know that anybody's done an estimate. It might move at 5% maybe, right?
(13:24):
So, that would move us a little bit up the international league tables if you think more voting is better, but actually not that much. And then so when Miles was talking about this idea, I thought, wow, that's kind of a moonshot in voting. That's the language that we use that would be a moonshot if you could do it in terms of probably elevating the voter participation rates, number one. And number two, we haven't actually talked much about the Ash Center on the show, but one of the things that the Ash Center really tries to foster is we're a little bit of a lab. We try to foster ideas that are outside of the Overton window, and this is certainly one of those ideas.
(14:06):
Stephen, I think in some ways your reading MAGA group as one of those ideas is that people should take these ideas on the other side of the spectrum, people who aren't in that bubble seriously, and try to engage, and understand it. And so I really saw what became universal civic duty voting 100% democracy as one of these out of the box beyond the Overton window ideas that really merited some development and exploration.
Stephen Richer (14:33):
Yeah, I want to affirm what you said about the social science statistics on those, I would say, commonly discussed election reform. So, same-day voter registration, automatic voter registration, having a very robust early vote period, having a no excuse mail ballot program. It actually, you would think it would move the voter participation rate more than it actually has in that today in 2026, I just said that I voted about three weeks early, because I received my ballot by mail, but voter participation rates in 2026 are going to look pretty similar to what the midterm participation rates were in the 1980s, and '90s, despite all of those conveniences that are now afforded to us, despite the fact that you can register online, and so on, and so forth. And so yeah, I certainly agree with that, but bringing us up to the compulsory, I don't know if that's how you like to frame it, 100% voting, I guess what's the why other than Archon will be less embarrassed about the United States when looking at our comparative standing, and how many people participate?
Miles Rapoport (15:51):
Well, first of all, I think that's reason enough. But here's what I think. Let me just take the Australia example for a moment. They adopted it in 1924. They were about... I mean, it's hard to do cross-country comparisons perfectly, but they were about at our level of voting, about 60% voting prior to, and they have got 90% turnout in every single national election since 1925. It's an extraordinary thing, and it has had a number of side benefits, which is it has created a very vibrant civic culture. Election day is on Saturday. They have what are called democracy sausages where people set up booths next to the polling places, and everybody understands it is part of the culture. I do want to analogize it, Stephen, to the jury duty issue, that jury duty which you raised before, which is people may not want to serve on juries, but I've never had anybody say to me, "How dare they require me to serve on a jury?" Which is a lot more onerous of a requirement than voting.
(17:06):
So, I think it's a matter of what is in the culture. Here's why I think it would be better, because it's not just... First of all, it's the only policy that dramatically, and immediately raises turnout. But the second thing is that our turnout is not just low, it is also distorted, and skewed, which is that if you're an older, white, upper income, college educated person, you're voting already at 85%, or so. You know what I mean? But if you're an 18 to 29-year-old, and you don't have a college degree, you're down at 40%. So, I think the other thing that it does that I think is really important is it makes the electorate a true reflection of the population as a whole. And that to me is a fundamental social good.
Stephen Richer (17:54):
So, if you're somebody who says, "I don't believe that having a higher participation rate is in, and of itself a good thing," which incidentally I think probably describes me, you've listed two potential benefits. One is that it engenders this civic vibrancy of people showing up, and having their democracy sausage, and interacting with their neighbors, and feeling part of the Australian community. And then two is that it makes the electorate more representative of who actually lives in the country. I'm going to nitpick at one because I think in the United States, a lot of people would say, "Okay, well then the first thing you need to do is get rid of mail voting, is get rid of this grotesquely long early voting period, and have people show up in person on election day so that we can have our own American democracy dogs, or whatever we want to call them barbecuing outside of voting locations." So, what do you say to somebody who says that? And then I want to go want to do sort of what is the value of having a more representative electorate?
Archon Fung (19:01):
Yeah.
Miles Rapoport (19:02):
Okay. So, yes, if you did all those things, you would definitely reduce the number of people voting. If we go back to the idea that voting is a single day, and you're sick, or you're working that day, or whatever it is, you're out of luck. Right now, we have provided people with a large number of options that people, as you know, are using in great numbers. We're now roughly speaking about a third of mail-in voting, a third early voting, and a third on election day, which is quite extraordinary change. But to me, it's a fundamental... There is a little bit of a kind of moral, and philosophical issue here. If you believe in democracy that is ruled by the people, I think one is obligated to say, "Let's have as many of the people participate as possible." And to me, I think it elevates the culture. There are a couple of other benefits, but I'll get to you, but I don't want to jump on your question.
Archon Fung (20:09):
Yeah. Stephen, I think what you're pointing out is really important is there are different values at stake in voting. And one of them, I think the main one that drives the logic of voting rights activists is the right to be counted, to have your preferences counted in the political process. But there are other values, too. The democracy sausages part is not that. As you, I think, pointed out, it's the idea Emily Chapman, who's a political scientist at Stanford, pointed this out. She has written about this eloquently, is voting as a spectacle. It's like the one thing that we all do as 250 Americans together, the one kind of common act for the republic. And that's a different value than simply being counted, and also should be in the mix, I think.
Miles Rapoport (21:00):
I agree.
Stephen Richer (21:00):
And it's potentially conflicting. I'll say that one of my few misgivings with vote by mail systems is that we don't have that shared civic experience. And so all we're left with is the Super Bowl, really, in that something that all Americans-
Archon Fung (21:13):
Which is great, but...
Stephen Richer (21:15):
Yeah, it's the last thing that almost all Americans do, almost all on the same day, because as Miles said, about two-thirds of Americans will not actually be voting, casting their ballot on election day. And I do worry about that. But again, I want to point out that there's a potential tension there, and I want to point out that for all we say about we should have higher, higher participation rates, and that's why we support 100% voting, it also works in conflict with this notion of this shared civic experience.
Miles Rapoport (21:49):
Right. I want to mention one other really important benefit. I think there's a real issue around government responsiveness. Archon mentioned people wanting to have their voice heard, but I think it's an absolute value to say that government should be responsive to everyone. I think there's a vast amount of evidence that says right now that government is much more responsive to senior citizens. So, Medicare is untouchable, but Head Start is always on the chopping block. So, I think that there is a reason for the fact that communities who vote at lower levels get less responsiveness from government, and I think that's fundamentally wrong.
Archon Fung (22:31):
I want to add a couple more to the list that come up a little bit less often. Part of why I like it is I think it may help to channel the competitive energies of politicians, and political parties in a more constructive direction. And so there's two ways in which that might happen. Now, currently, an enormous amount of money and energy goes into getting out the vote, GOTV efforts, and the parties try to get out obviously supporters who are people they think are more likely to support them. And so part of my hope is that if there were universal civic duty voting, all of that money and energy instead of going into just GOTV would be going into political deliberation, and persuasion, and getting people to argue with one another. And then the other is that a huge amount of this, and this universal civic duty wouldn't be the magic wand, but it might do a little bit, is that a lot of energy goes into this kind of toxic effort to stabilize, and alter the shape of the electorate, and what the franchise is, at least effectively, if not formally.
(23:51):
A lot of this is redistricting, universal civic duty voting wouldn't really touch that part, but there are lots of other efforts to shape the electorate. If we said just the electorate was everyone, then all of that energy would be hopefully going into trying to seize more of that electorate to get them to support you rather than shaping it.
Miles Rapoport (24:10):
Let me rephrase that just a bit, and that is to say that what universal voting would do in campaigns is to change the incentive structure. Right now, the incentive structure is to get out your own vote. Some people might say enrage to engage, and secondly, to depress the opposing vote. If we were in a live audience now, I would say, "How many people have seen a negative commercial on television?" Well, negative commercials aren't to persuade anybody. They're just [inaudible 00:24:38]
Archon Fung (24:37):
If you're in Ohio, or Texas, you've seen a lot in the last five minutes, right?
Miles Rapoport (24:41):
And everywhere right? And it is to depress, and keep people to stay home. And if you can get one more of your people then, and one less of their people to vote, you win. But if everybody is going to vote, and you know everybody's going to vote, if you're a candidate, or a political party, you have to craft a message that will appeal to everyone. And that absolutely, I think, will bring in the toxicity, and the level of... Reduce, not eliminate, but reduce level of [inaudible 00:25:10]
Archon Fung (25:10):
So, Stephen being a politician has some skepticism about this proposition.
Stephen Richer (25:15):
I'm very skeptical of the first one. I appreciate what you said on your two points, Archon, of the second one, which is that we'll have fewer conversations about how does this minute election reform impact who participates if they're able to easily participate. If we take for granted that 90% plus of people are going to participate because it's required, that takes that off the table, and I think that would be a wonderful thing. Now, as far as what candidates, will they participate in more of a deliberative process, more of a rigorous intellectual exchange if they don't have to spend so much money, and time getting their vote out? No. There are plenty of candidates-
Archon Fung (25:54):
Nip at each other more.
Stephen Richer (25:55):
...who have plenty of money to get out the vote, and do other things. And when they have more money, what do they do? They run more advertisements. Now, I do think that there's something to be said. I don't know. There's presumably a body of literature on this. Are negative campaign advertisements, are those geared towards getting out the vote as opposed to persuading? And if that is in fact the scientific case, then yeah, maybe that will let me translate to fewer negative campaign ads. But I'm not familiar with that body of work [inaudible 00:26:30].
Archon Fung (26:30):
There is some work by Shanto Ingar, and some other people who... I don't know if they don't establish intention, but what they do find is the more negative advertising there is, the less participation there because people get turned off by the negativity. But I have no idea whether that's intentional.
Stephen Richer (26:49):
Okay. But I want to bring in Jason from last week, and this is sort of preposterous. I don't know if you would say it in a more sophisticated manner, but Miles, you're bringing in all these people who clearly didn't have much of an interest in the political process, and now you're asking them to vote. And in some states, you're asking them to vote not just on the presidential contest, but on 40, 50 plus contests. Who are you kidding that these people are actually going to be informed? And isn't that problematic?
Miles Rapoport (27:23):
Well, it goes to the question of why-
Archon Fung (27:25):
The quality of the vote. Yeah.
Miles Rapoport (27:27):
Yes. Actually, in the literature, this is known as the ignorant voter argument, and that is you're going to bring in all these people who are ignorant, and too lazy to vote in previous, as opposed to the intelligent, and thoughtful voters that we have now. So, one might question a little bit of that first premise, but I would say this, and that is that why is it that people who are not voting, why is it that they're not voting? There's a whole combination of things, right? And the Jason Brennan argument, again, not to oversimplify it, is that they choose not to vote because they're just not interested, and they don't want to bother. But it can be a lot of reasons. It can be the difficulty of voting in some places. It can be that people are fed up with the two parties. I mean, obviously, as we know, the two parties are at a historically low level of confidence from people.
(28:28):
It can be that they just feel like their vote doesn't count. I don't think you're diluting the vote. I think what you're doing is bringing in people who are less ideological, less fanatical, perhaps, you might say. I don't think that's diluting the vote in terms of its intelligence. In fact, I guess I would say that's a fundamentally undemocratic notion that fewer but more intelligent people should vote. Then we have literacy tests, or you need a college degree to vote, or you need this, or that. I think it's a slippery slope. So, I'm much more comfortable saying that everyone should participate. Everyone should be part of this self-governance.
Stephen Richer (29:18):
Yeah. I think it gets to what is your, again, as we mentioned last week, what is your end goal here? Is it to produce a government that works well, and serves its citizens well, or is the end goal to have a more representative demographic participating in the election process? If that's a goal in, and of itself, then certainly having more people. Although Jason said last week, maybe we should just randomize it, and have a random sampling of people vote. Yeah.
Archon Fung (29:50):
And focus on educating them. Stephen, I think that there's a little bit of a chicken, and egg thing in the Representative Electorate, and the kinds of decisions that government makes, right? Because I think part of the thought here is that if the electorate were more representative, then politicians, and leaders in campaigns would alter their arguments to appeal to the different kinds of people who are showing up.
Stephen Richer (30:21):
And I do think that what Miles said about it would be maybe a less fanatic voter who would be on average, especially in the primaries where primary turnout is 30 to 40% of the eligible voters are actually participating in. And these people do not necessarily have the same views as the median American.
Archon Fung (30:41):
I think we know [inaudible 00:30:42] that they don't.
Stephen Richer (30:43):
Which I guess gets me to a logistics question about the proposal. We often think about this as once every four years in November, but I mentioned that I missed the jurisdictional election in March of 2017. Would I have been fined under this proposal?
Archon Fung (30:59):
Would the election police come, and drag Stephen off?
Stephen Richer (31:03):
Yeah. I mean, I just confessed. I confessed, but you can't have ex post laws that get me in trouble. But is the idea that this would be for every election, or just for the presidential, or the general elections, or whatever?
Archon Fung (31:18):
Yeah, put some bones on it, like a flesh on the bones. How would this actually work?
Miles Rapoport (31:23):
Okay. So, first of all, in the book, I'm going back to the book, going back to what EJ, and I have recommended, we don't actually say that it should be utilized in primaries. I think it's hard to argue that you want to force people to vote in a party primary. And there's also an argument, which again, I think this would spur a lot of collateral reforms if we had a serious discussion about what it would take to make a universal voting system succeed. But I do think we should consolidate elections. It is absolutely true that the United States has massively more elections than many of the other countries where this is taking place. So, some consolidation, maybe having municipal elections take place on the even number of years along with the state elections would be a way to think about it. But yes, but I think it would be in national, and state elections, and significant municipal elections where there was a significant something at stake.
(32:27):
Again, it would be for each state because the states are different in how many elections they have, and how many bond issues they have to vote on, et cetera. I think that the legislature in a specific state would have to figure out what it should be, but it should be for the main elections, and hopefully it generates a conversation about consolidating the timing for elections as well.
Archon Fung (32:49):
And then what about the penalties for not voting, for failing to cast your ballot under your-
Miles Rapoport (32:59):
Well, yeah, we'll use Australia as again, our Petri dish example. Here's what they do in Australia. They do everything possible to get people on the rolls. Oh, by the way, I should say that in Australia, and in what we would recommend here, the requirement is for registered voters, not for everyone. So, if you're living under a viaduct, and you're not registered, this doesn't apply to you. But in Australia, the efforts that they have done have got 96% of the population is actually enrolled is what they call it. Then they do all kinds of things to get you to vote, mobile vans, et cetera, et cetera. Okay, so 90% of the people vote. 10% have not voted. What do they do then? They send you a letter saying, "How come you missed voting, Stephen, in this important election that you missed?" And you write back, and say, "Anything you write is acceptable. I was visiting my grandmother in Perth. I was working, I was sick." It doesn't matter.
(34:03):
They don't go, and check on what you give. If you don't respond to that, and that's probably making it down to 5%, they send you a second letter. And on the second letter, same thing. Anything you give is applied. And if you're among the two to 3% who are left, you get a $20 fine. So, it's a parking ticket enforcement. We call it kind of light touch enforcement. And it's actually about 13, or 14 US dollars. And again, in our recommendations, it could be satisfied by an hour of community service, or there could be waivers if it was impossible for you to do the service, and you couldn't afford it. Again, the point here is not to fine people, and punish people. The point is to change the incentive structure. And in fact, in Belgium, Greece, and Mexico, just to take three examples, there is no enforcement.
Archon Fung (34:55):
There's not even a parking ticket.
Miles Rapoport (34:57):
Not even a parking ticket, nothing. And it still raises just the fact that you're technically required, it still raises the participation. And we are actually, the truth is, people say all the time to us, "Well, what about an incentive-based model as opposed to a penalty-based model? Could you do a $25 property tax credit if you voted?" I think that's something we could explore here.
Stephen Richer (35:22):
So, why it's up here? I'm generally pretty skeptical of any mandates, or requirements imposed upon American citizens. I'm even a little bit uneasy with the notion of a draft. I'm a little bit uneasy with the notion of compulsory jury duty, but I get over it. And now we're talking about this, but as long as we're doing this, why not also mandate that they have to go to a crash course on who's running on the ballot, and how politics works? If our goal here is to have a broadly participate-
Archon Fung (35:57):
Like a gun safety course that goes along with your Second Amendment. Yeah, something like that.
Miles Rapoport (36:03):
Or driver education course.
Archon Fung (36:05):
Or driver education course.
Stephen Richer (36:06):
Yeah.
Miles Rapoport (36:10):
Honestly, Stephen, I would not go that far, but I do think that what does happen, has happened in Australia, A, people do inform themselves if they know they're required to vote. They do tend to inform themselves both about how to vote, and who to vote. And I should point out, I think it's sort of obvious, but you're not required to vote for, or against anyone. So, you can pick, they call it a donkey ballot in Australia. You pass in a blank ballot, you can disfigure it, you can write in your-
Archon Fung (36:39):
Yeah, that's really important, right? What you're required to do is cast a ballot, not vote for the particular people who are running.
Miles Rapoport (36:47):
And in Nevada, I sometimes say this about Arizona, but I know I'm wrong. In Nevada, there is actually a none of the above box that you can do. So, we actually would recommend as a way of making it clear that this is not a compulsion to vote for, or against anybody, that a none of the above box would be allowed. So, anyway, so I think that there's all kinds of ways to do it, but I do think that what would happen, Stephen, is that voluntarily, or in civil society as a whole, people would move towards, and institutions would move towards making this work. My best example is if I'm a superintendent of a school, and I know that every 18-year-old is going to be required to vote, will I make civic education a more important part of the curriculum? Well, I think I would.
(37:37):
And if I were an employer, a good employer, and I knew that all of my employees were required to vote, would I make sure that they had time off to do so? I think I would. I think without making the second part of the crash course mandatory, I think we would get a lot of the educational issues getting more emphasis.
Archon Fung (37:59):
And would election administrators be better funded in order to create the opportunities for... I mean, if it's a requirement, it has to be easy for everybody, right? There was an article in the New York Times about six, or seven years ago about an election in India, and the whole story was there was a remote place where one voter lived, and so these two election workers trekked by foot, and on animal back for two days, and they set up the voting booth hoping that this person would show up, not knowing whether they would, or not. [inaudible 00:38:34] A lot of that... Sorry, Stephen?
Stephen Richer (38:38):
A lot of that already goes on. I mean, elections is not a smart business from a cost benefit standpoint. In Arizona, for instance, there are people who take mules down the Grand Canyon to be able to service, I think it's about 27 people who vote for Havasupai Tribe, and they set up a voting location down in the basin of the Grand Canyon, and then go back up through by the path in order such that they can vote. And again, if you're penciling that out as a business, you're saying these votes cost us a few thousand dollars [inaudible 00:39:10] each benefit. That doesn't make sense.
Archon Fung (39:12):
But if there's a right.
Stephen Richer (39:15):
Presumably there would need to be a good deal more because you would be expanding the electorate by close to doubling it in some of these midterm elections.
Miles Rapoport (39:26):
No, look, I should mention that in Connecticut, there is a task force that has been created legislatively to look at how we can get closer to 100%. And one of the issues specifically that we are required to look at is the funding, and the assistance to local election officials in order to make this work. I mean, I don't know how you feel, Stephen, but I think that elections are vastly underfunded, and there's a lot more funding, and civic education, and voter education that could be done if we are trying to make sure that this works.
Archon Fung (40:03):
Good. So, before we move on to the state of play of actual reform, let's talk about what I regard as the main objection, which is a freedom objection, which is how can it be that we're layering on another requirement, and this legal requirement, and this one would apply to everyone over 18 in the whole United States, or every citizen over 18? Have you gotten that freedom objection, and what do you say? I don't know, is there anything to it? What do you think?
Miles Rapoport (40:38):
Well, yeah, I mean that is the principle objection that we hear. The two main objections, one is the ignorant voter argument that we talked about already, and the other is your basic libertarian argument, which is if this is excessive government coercion. And if you're really a kind of ultra libertarian, or maybe even a standard libertarian, you're probably not going to like this. I mean, I accept that people may... But again, you would have a basis of a conscientious objection. If people had a religious objection, or a philosophical objection to voting, they could do that. They can do that in Australia. But I think what I say in people who are not fundamentally opposed in that way is we ask people to do a lot of things for the public. We ask them to take a driver education course. We require them to have car insurance.
(41:31):
We inquire them to fill out the census. We require them to do jury duty. We require them to pay taxes. So, we are in a society in which some things are deemed as they need to be required in order for the good of the society. We have made that choice in regard to jury duty, and what's the philosophical reason for that? So, that the jury pool writ large reflects the jury of one's peers so that it's fully reflective of the community. I think we haven't made that jump to saying that about voting, but I think we could. But I think the basic argument is if you think about it, there are lots, and lots of things that are required of citizens for the public good. We think it should be one of them.
Stephen Richer (42:13):
Just because this was a legal issue at the time of Obamacare, which incidentally is a requirement just by merit of being in this country, and existing, a lot of those things are discretionary. You can choose not to drive, or not. You can choose to engage in commerce, or not. But we do require some things, including Obamacare, including a jury duty simply by being 18 years of age. Now, maybe it's like the military draft where if you have bone spurs, you don't have to get drafted into Vietnam, but there are a whole host of reasons you can have out, I suppose.
Archon Fung (42:53):
Yeah. So, Stephen, how much does this bother you as an infringement on freedom? It's like not that much.
Stephen Richer (43:00):
No, not that much. For the very reasons that Miles-
Archon Fung (43:02):
If that was the main objection, yeah.
Stephen Richer (43:04):
For the very reasons that Miles said. I mean, in the panoply of requirements and of government intrusions, this ranks awfully darn low. My only thing is I don't think we go higher up in heaven for the fact that 100%, or 90% of people vote. And I don't think that our politics will necessarily be any better. I guess I'm open to the idea that it will be a little bit different demographic, a little bit different electric, and therefore politicians will behave differently. But generally speaking, yeah, I just don't think that's a good... And in fact, I sometimes think that politics might be healthier if we have only 50%, or only 40% of people who are participating. Again, as I mentioned last week, it's going to be high participation for this midterm election. I don't think that's reflective of a healthy political environment right now. And another thing that maybe makes me a little bit uneasy about this is I kind of like when people aren't always thinking about politics, or people who choose to have nothing to do with the political dynamic.
(44:07):
Now you're sort of throwing it into their face, and now everyone's a political creature. It works a little bit better maybe in Australia where you vote every so often, but here in the United States where there's an election, my goodness, every few months, I was just like, I don't know. I celebrate people who are blissfully unaware of the political process.
Miles Rapoport (44:28):
Well, Stephen, I think what we need to do is perform a few experiments, and test this in the real world. I think that would be-
Archon Fung (44:36):
Right. So, let's move to that part.
Miles Rapoport (44:37):
Maybe Arizona would be a good place to start.
Archon Fung (44:40):
Or comb counties maybe. So, Miles, you've not only written the book with EJ that sketches out the proposal, but you created 100% Democracy, and you're out there talking to state legislatures among other things. And so how is that going? I want to tee that up a little bit. So, if you had to ask me, you do an opinion poll, how many Americans support this proposal? My guess would be very, very few, but UMass did a poll, I guess just a year, or two ago, and what they found is that there's not a majority, but there's a decent level of support for a voting requirement. And according to their results, their poll respondents, 46% support among Democrats, 42% among independents, and 41% among Republicans. My guess would've been way, way lower than that, but maybe Massachusetts is an outlier, I don't know. So, that's a little bit of public opinion evidence, but then you have the direct evidence of talking to people in different states. So, what's the traction like?
Miles Rapoport (45:56):
Well, I will say it is a heavy lift in the sense that this is something that at least in this country has never been discussed before. So, there's a little bit of someone has got to be the first person over the barbed wire to get the conversation started. What we have found is that in a number of states, there has been enough interest to have the legislation submitted. State of Washington in 2023, there was a bill that actually made it out of the elections committee, but then didn't pass in the rules committee. There have been bills in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and other places. The two places I would point out as having made the most progress, and it's still limited, are Illinois where there was a bill to require civic duty voting, again, without any penalty involved, just merely the declaration. And that actually had a public hearing, and had some support, and is going to be reintroduced in 2027.
(46:59):
There's a good coalition of groups that came together on it. And in Connecticut, which is where I live, and where I served as Secretary of the State, the legislature, after two years of discussion, created a task force to look specifically at how Connecticut could reach closer to 100% participation, including, and this is in the legislative language, studying the experience of jurisdictions where voting is a required civic duty. So, this is the first time that the actual idea of a required civic duty has made it into legislative language. And we're now in the task force phase. I happen to be a member, and co-chair of the task force, so we're going to seriously look at universal voting as well as many other things that we think could expand it, including lowering the voting age, or lowering the voting registration age at a minimum. Anyway, so we're getting it.
(47:51):
We've been at the National Conference of State Legislatures, summit conferences the last three years, a lot of legislators, a lot of interest, et cetera. We've got to keep going, but I think... Well, I'm hopeful actually, this is a little bit of a broader response, that if in fact the elections of 2026, A, if they go off smoothly, and I hope that they will, and B, if they produce in a political change, might open up the doors for a livelier discussion about election reforms like universal voting at the state level. I don't see it as a national debate at this point. So, we're going to keep going.
Archon Fung (48:32):
Is that because you think Democrats might be more open to it, or another [inaudible 00:48:36]
Stephen Richer (48:36):
I mean, you have a perception problem just even with the states that you listed. You listed Illinois, Washington, Connecticut, New York, all of which are deeply liberal states because there is this prevailing mythology that more people participating works to the benefit of the Democratic Party. Now, that was never well-founded in social science statistics. I would say it's increasingly unlikely given the changing [inaudible 00:49:03] demographics that the Trump coalition has brought in, but that is a real perception problem. And if some states like Arizona were to look around, and say, "Who are the states who are exploring this?" There would be a lot of people who would bristle just by looking at that list.
Miles Rapoport (49:19):
That's true. There was a bill in Utah. I forgot to mention that. No, but you're correct on both points, which is there definitely is a perception problem that this is a kind of democratic shill effort. But EJ, and I have insisted that that's not the case, that this is a pro-democracy reform. And I think, Stephen, what you said is that it's also true that it will advantage, or disadvantage people in very, very different ways in very different places, and that's okay. In other words, you're right, in 2024, I think the evidence is fairly clear that if more people had voted, more people, Trump would've-
Archon Fung (49:59):
Gotten more.
Miles Rapoport (50:00):
...gotten the majority of those votes. So, you can't do this if you're a legislator based on, "I think this is going to be good for us." You've got to do it based on, "I have a fundamental belief that a more representative electorate is good for democracy, and good for our state. And can we persuade people to do that? We're going to give it a try."
Archon Fung (50:21):
Yeah. So, Miles, on the politics of it, my gut usually for democracy reforms is that state legislators, all legislators really like the status quo electorate. And so the last thing they're going to go for is something that kind of shakes the snow globe on that electorate. So, what about just that status quo bias, and then if the status quo bias is real, then shouldn't you go for a referendum and initiative path rather than a state legislative one?
Miles Rapoport (50:55):
Well, two things. One, I think despite that bias of incumbents liking how they got in, a lot of legislative changes have been made at the state level. When I was in Secretary of State, there were six states that had same-day voter registration. Now I think it's 25. Universal mail-in voting was unheard of at that point, and now it's a lot of places. So, I think you can make some headway. You got to start the discussion. You got to persuade people at the community level, but I think you can also get legislators to see things differently, especially if it's not clear that it's going to advantage one party, or another.
Archon Fung (51:41):
Yeah. I think it's really not clear who it advantages these days.
Stephen Richer (51:44):
Oh, I agree 100% on that. I just find it so interesting-
Archon Fung (51:46):
Who's the low propensity voter, right? Yeah.
Stephen Richer (51:49):
I just find it so interesting that this provokes such emotion. If you go around, and you say, "We're going to have automatic voter registry," the average person would have very little idea of what you're even talking about. But if you go around, and say, "We're going to ask, sort of require that 100% of eligible voters vote," people have strong opinions on that. And maybe it's just the notion of just Americans bristle at the idea of anything that's compulsory, or Americans are excited about the idea of broader democratic participation, but it does evoke emotion, as I'm sure Miles can attest from his road shows.
Miles Rapoport (52:39):
Yes, yes. But both ways. I mean, I get a lot of people where we say we want to make voting a required ambiguity, and they say, "That's great. That sounds terrific." And then other people look at me like, "Are you kidding me? We don't do that here." That's sort of the first response. But what we have found overall is that if you can get over that first hump of like, "We don't do that here,", and you start talking about what the experience has been, and people are actually listening, the conversations tend to go fairly well. I feel like it's an uphill battle, but I also feel like it's not impossible, and that 10, 15 years from now we may look back, and say, "This is a good idea,", and the conversation started at the Ash Center.
Archon Fung (53:26):
Right. It's a moral proposition, right?
Miles Rapoport (53:30):
That's right.
Archon Fung (53:32):
Automatic voter registration is a technical proposition. It's not like a normative one.
Stephen Richer (53:39):
Some people view it as a moral proposition. But anyhow, okay. Miles, I know we've kept you for a while here. So, where can people go if they want to learn more about the movement, or about what you are up to?
Miles Rapoport (53:52):
Okay. Well, the book is certainly purchasable on Amazon, or anywhere you get your podcast, so to speak. Our website is 100percentdemocracy.org, percent spelled out, and there's a lot of information there, so I really would encourage it. And if you go there, you can sign up for our mailing list, which we send out periodic things about what we're doing. But I will say this, and I want to broaden this out just a little bit, which is there's no single... I don't want to use the word magic bullet anymore. There's no single solution to what ails American democracy, right? I mean, there are all kinds of issues about money, and politics, about the dissatisfaction with the two-party system.
(54:42):
I happen to be a supporter of fusion voting. I think it would be a really good idea, but the electoral college, there are all kinds of things that need examination. Universal voting doesn't solve all the problems. I don't want to over claim for it in the slightest, but in the lane of, do we want more people to participate? This is a game-changing policy, and I think it deserves some real conversation as we go forward.
Archon Fung (55:12):
That's great. Thank you very much, Miles. Thanks for this. This is a super discussion. We talked about a lot of different dimensions, and implications of it, and I hope people leave knowing a little bit more, and coming away a little bit more curious about this idea that is certainly out of the box if you're in the US.
Miles Rapoport (55:31):
All right. Thanks for having me. Thanks a lot. Enjoyed the conversation.
Archon Fung (55:34):
Yeah.
Stephen Richer (55:35):
Thank you very much. All right. We will see you all next week, Tuesday, our normal time at 12:15 PM Eastern Time, and thank you as always to the production team. And of course, thank you to you all for listening. And if you have any questions, or comments, please let us know. See you next week.
Archon Fung (55:50):
Great. See you next week, everyone.
Voiceover:
Thank you for listening to Terms of Engagement. Email us your questions, suggestions, or thoughts for future episodes. You can find an email address in the show notes below. See you next time.