If you are frustrated with gridlock and/or intransigence in your state legislature, as many voters are, one way to get your issue considered is to gather signatures and take your proposal directly to voters with a ballot initiative. But that grassroots process—which has proliferated in recent years, as you may have noticed by measuring the length of your November 2018 ballot—is becoming much more difficult in many states.

Currently, 24 states—mostly in the Western half of the country—enable citizens to bypass the legislature with ballot initiatives. Here’s a list of who allows what.

Requirements vary. In general, if you want the next statewide ballot to include, for example, an anti-gerrymandering proposal, or an increase in the tax on gasoline, or an amendment to your state’s constitution, you must get a minimum number of registered voters to sign petitions.

In most states where this direct-democracy process is available, the number of signatures required to qualify for inclusion on the ballot is pegged to the number of voters who voted in the most recent governor’s race.

And that’s the problem. Voter turnout is the key. Low turnout in a governor’s election makes it easier to get petition signatures in later elections. While high turnout—ironically, something that we normally view as a fundamental [small-d] democratic value—works against grassroots signature-gathering efforts.

Case in point: California

California offers an instructive example. To get an issue on the ballot in California, you must gather signatures equal to or greater than 8 percent of the number of ballots cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. In the 2014 election, only 30 percent of voters cast ballots. That meant that, in the next two election cycles (when there was no governor’s race scheduled), supporters of any ballot measure needed just 365,880 valid signatures. “The bar was so low,” reports The Hill, “that California’s ballots were inundated by initiatives: 15 citizen-sponsored ballot measures in 2016 and 8 more in 2018.”

But voters came out in much higher numbers in the 2018 election. “The result is that in 2020 and 2022, using the same 8 percent threshold, initiative supporters will need to collect more than 623,000 valid signatures, a 70 percent increase,” according to the Hill’s reporting.

Same story, different state

A similar scenario is playing out in other initiative-petition states. Here are some examples:

ARIZONA

• Valid signatures needed: 10 percent of votes cast in the previous gubernatorial election for initiatives that would change state laws; 15 percent for initiatives that would amend the Arizona constitution.
• Effect of 2018 voter turnout: 50% more voters cast ballots than in 2014. According to the Arizona Secretary of State, in 2020, initiatives for constitutional amendments will require 356,457 valid signatures.

COLORADO

• Valid signatures needed: At least 5 percent of the total vote cast for all candidates for the office of Secretary of State in the previous general election.
• Effect of 2018 voter turnout: 78 percent of registered voters cast ballots in 2018, compared with 54 percent in 2014. That huge increase means than more than 26,000 additional signatures will be required for future initiatives to make it onto the ballot in 2020. [Colorado had the second-highest turnout in the U.S. during the 2018 midterms.]

OKLAHOMA

• Valid signatures needed: 15 percent of turnout in previous gubernatorial election. [The state has one of the highest thresholds in the country, and allows only 90 days to collect.]
• Effect of 2018 voter turnout: 58 percent of registered voters cast ballots, the highest number in the past 20 years. The previous signature threshold was about 124,000. In 2020, petitioners will have to collect about 44 percent more signatures than before.

More signatures, more money

Getting signatures on statewide initiatives is not free. And the need for more signatures means a need for more money. According to Ballotpedia, the average cost to get one signature varies from state to state, but signature-gathering consulting firms [yes, they exist—it’s not all high-minded volunteers] charge about $6 per valid signature. So, for example, if you want to get signatures in Colorado in 2020, you’re going to need around an additional $156,000. [Most petition gatherers try to get approximately 75 percent more signatures than the requirement, in order to account for signatures that will inevitably be ruled invalid.]

The legislative-backlash factor

Some state legislators are ticked off about the uptick in ballot initiatives, and they’re working on placing more obstacles in the way. “What we’re seeing is death by a thousand paper cuts, says Lauren Simpson, of Americans for a Better Utah, “making it incrementally more difficult for citizens to pass laws on their own through ballot initiatives Our legislature, as a whole, is uncomfortable with citizen ballot initiatives.”

• In Michigan, a new law signed by the outgoing Republican governor limits the number of petition-drive signatures that can be collected in any single congressional district.
• In Ohio, state legislators have been trying, since 2017, to pass a resolution that would raise the signature requirement to 12.5 percent for a constitutional amendment, and from 3 percent to 3.75 percent for statutory initiatives, with a 60 percent super-majority needed to pass either.
• Florida is the only other state that requires more than a simple majority to adopt constitutional changes. Florida requires a 60 percent vote, according to the Columbus Dispatch.
• Another Ohio lawmaker recently proposed a bill that would require that petitions could only be signed during the winter.
• After three marijuana proposals passed in Utah in 2018, one state legislator filed a bill that would allow signature gathering and removal to go on simultaneously. Ballot initiative campaigns would have to turn in their signature packets every 14 days and county clerks would post them online.
• And then there’s Illinois, where the petition process is so restrictive that only one citizen initiative has ever passed.

But, while legislative ploys may be devious and undemocratic, and while increased voter turnout has had the unintended consequence of raising the bar for citizen initiatives, at least this trend is happening in states where citizens have the option to get needed changes by grassroots efforts. In 26 other states, there’s no option at all for ballot measures, and no sign that politicians are eager to create one. That’s the biggest hurdle of all.

The post Ballot initiatives: Downside of uptick in voter turnout appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Lose weight. Build muscle. Quit smoking. Drink less. Eat healthy. Buy less. Repurpose More. Travel farther. Do these sound familiar? Are any of these popular New Year’s resolutions on your list?

How about considering the one resolution that should be number one on the list but never even makes it into the top ten? My plea is that you write this resolution down before downing that first glass of bubbly and recommit to it even after the ball has dropped. Display the resolution somewhere prominent where you’ll see it every morning, and then do everything in your power to make good on your vow.

Fulfilling this resolution is simple. It doesn’t take months or years of grueling self-denial. It takes just a few hours or less. It doesn’t require shelling out hard-earned bucks for the gym membership, the weight-loss program, or the packets of nicotine patches, lozenges, or gum. It costs nothing. And, yes, the impact is huge. You could say it may be live altering.

And what is that resolution? To get out and vote in the 2016 election.

We all know that January 1st is the first day of resolution fever. Unfortunately, the sickness doesn’t linger for long. Statistics show that it takes only nine days for the majority of us to give up on the promises—mostly of the self-improvement sort— we make to ourselves at this time of year.

Voting simply cannot continue to be among those broken promises.

The shameful fact of our democracy is that among the developed nations, America’s voter turnout sits at the very bottom of the pile. According to U.S. Census data, a paltry 36.4 percent of Americans voted in the 2014 mid-term elections. Shockingly, of those voters just 13 percent were under the age of thirty—the group most likely to experience the long-term effects of political, economic, and judicial decisions made today.

And here’s another sobering voting statistic. In past election cycles, the median voter in terms of income level sat comfortably at the 66th percentile for the general population. With the wealthier among us dominating the voting booth, why should we be shocked that tax breaks benefit the wealthy at the expense of the non-wealthy, that income inequality is soaring to obscene levels, and that the interests of the middle class and the poor are ignored?

No matter what your age or economic status, think about the overall implications of the age and income gaps those voting statistics represent. If you’re among the 63.6–percent crowd who didn’t vote in the last election, take the few moments once you’ve recovered from the food, the drink, and the partying to sit down and ask yourself soberly why you made the decision to opt out of exercising one of the most important responsibilities—and privileges—you’ve been granted as a citizen of participatory democracy.

Then, when you glance in the mirror the morning after the revelries and every morning thereafter, take a few seconds before you brush your teeth or style your hair to think about the harsh truth that our political system has been hijacked for the benefit of the few and no longer represents the interests of the many.

And if the face you see in that mirror is the face of a non-voter, then isn’t it time to vow that 2016 will finally be the year you make good on the most important resolution of all?

The post The one New Year’s resolution you need to keep in 2016: Vote appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Ever wonder who shows up to a Presidential election? Here’s a breakdown of the 131 million Americans who voted in 2008.

The post Infographic: Who actually votes in America? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Researchers are using Facebook. Not just for posting pictures and playing Farmville though. They’re using the social networking giant for social experiments. And in a very interesting study they discovered that a single Facebook message can encourage Americans to vote. The experiment in question was on a congressional election day in 2010. On that day, sixty million American Facebook users received a non-partisan message that encouraged them to go vote. For some of the users, it showed pictures of their friends who voted, for others, it did not. The people who saw that their friends had gone to the polls were 0.39% more likely to go vote. I know it doesn’t sound like much, but that translated into roughly 340,000 more votes. Considering how many close elections the U.S. has (think Florida in 2000) those extra votes can make a difference. This experiment has other useful applications as well. New York University academic Sinan Aral says,

“But such interventions also have the potential to promote positive social changes, such as increasing the rate of HIV testing, reducing violence, improving adherence to exercise, or increasing political mobilisation and awareness,”

For more details on the study, click here.

The post Facebook + Peer Pressure = Voting appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Loud proclamations of the superiority of democracy.  Deep-pocketed commitments of American military might and treasure. Considering the enormity of America’s hopes for the democratic ideal around the world, one would assume that citizens here at home understand that democracy’s most sacred rite—voting—counts.  That assumption, however, turns out to be false. Look to the 2010 midterm elections for evidence: Only 41.6% of the citizenry bothered to show up.

In contrast, take a look at what is happening in the Middle East. Recently Egypt held a national referendum to amend its constitution—a referendum that represented the country’s first legitimate vote in fifty-nine years. Speaking with Western journalists as he stood in line, sixty-five-year-old Om Sayad explained eloquently,  “I am here for my sons and my grandsons. The country is finally ours and we will never let it slip again by staying at home when we should be right here, in line, to make our voices heard.”

That kind of passion was in evidence as well in the fragile democracy that is Iraq, where, in 2005, the country held its first free and fair election in forty years.  A whopping 72% of eligible voters left the polling stations and walked out onto the streets proudly displaying their blue digits.

In contrast, American voter turnout is suffering from a chronic case of anemia. And there’s no doubt that our political discourse and national priorities are skewed because of it.  Imagine telling a group of one hundred people that “we’ve got some tough problems here, and it’s just going to get tougher. But don’t worry. We don’t need fifty-nine of you because forty-one of us can make the decisions for all of us affecting job creation, taxes, wages, health care, military spending, energy, and climate change.”

And the low number of voters is not a new phenomenon.  Paltry voter turnout has been in evidence in the previous seven elections. Just take a look at the percentage of eligible voters who actually voted, and it becomes evident why many Americans feel government does not reflect their interests:

Even more damaging is that the banality of our national discourse and the increasingly outrageous claims of what the majority of Americans believe can be traced to the fact that politicians actually don’t know what the majority thinks. And why should they? The majority isn’t bothering to tell them.  This silence ensures that  opinions can, at the very least, be ignored and, at worst, be misrepresented and fabricated.

And our sister democracies?  The World Policy Institute’s 1995 sampling of voting rates demonstrates that Europe’s democracies are alive, well, and kicking.

One of the most successful remedies for low voter turnout turns out to be compulsory voting—the historical norm in twenty countries in Europe, South and Central America, the Middle East, and Asia.

Where voting is compulsory, it is considered not just a right but a civic duty—like  paying taxes or jury duty.  Studies demonstrate that compulsory voting increases turnout and decreases economic disparities in electoral participation. These same studies show that when citizens know they are required to vote, they pay closer attention to the issues and go to the polls better informed.

The poster child for compulsory voting is Australia.  There individuals over the age of 18—except those convicted of serious crimes or unsound of mind—must register and be present to vote on federal election days.  If not, an individual is subject to a fine of $20.  If the fine goes unpaid the voter scofflaw may be taken to court and fined an additional $50. The initial $20 doesn’t seem like much, but it gets the job done.  Since compulsory voting and the fine were brought into effect in 1924, the participation rate has come in at between 94 to 96%. Prior to 1924 the participation rate was closer to the American average at 47%.

And what happens in countries where compulsory voting was the historical norm but has in recent times been eliminated?  In two countries—the Netherlands and Venezuela—where voting was once compulsory but is now voluntary, the voting rate has plummeted 20% and 30% respectively.

Is compulsory voting the solution in the U.S.?  Polls consistently show Americans rejecting it.  Recognizing, however, that higher turnout needs to be encouraged, states have taken steps to increase convenience.  Early voting, election-day registration, longer hours at polling stations, and sample ballots mailed in advance are some of the encouragements.

These efforts have nibbled at the edges of the problem but hardly turned the corner on apathy. What will it take to get a majority of eligible voters to the polls when  appeals to the better angels of civic involvement have failed?

A more successful approach might involve behavior modification, a dose of positive feedback, or even an appeal to the fun factor.  Why not combine them all?  Remember Australia’s $20 fine for not voting? Let’s turn the idea around.

Start by converting our voting machines into something less boring and unprofitable. Splash on a bit of bright color.  Add some bells, whistles, and pop music video-game style.  And a coin slot—Vegas style.

Imagine it.  It’s 2012. Go to your polling place. Get in line. Close the curtain. Mark your ballot. Drop your vote into the color-splashed machine.  Hold out your hand as twenty shiny dollar coins drop down into your waiting palm while musical accompaniment proclaims you a winner. Then slip out from behind that curtain feeling satisfied that you—as a privileged American voter—can walk away with a little more cash in your pocket just for showing up for a few moments to exercise a right that you take for granted, but that others in far-flung places around the world are fighting and dying for.

The post Voting counts. Maybe it should pay, too. appeared first on Occasional Planet.