Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Voting should be a mandate, not just a right, think tanks say

Mandatory voting
Alexi Rosenfeld/Getty Images

Americans shouldn't just have the right to vote, they should be required to, a group of prominent policy thinkers proposed Monday.

To be precise, the report calls for a mandate on participation in elections — because citizens would be allowed to leave their ballot blank or vote for none of the above.


The proposal, "Lift Every Voice: the Urgency of Universal Civic Duty Votin g," was issued by a group formed by two prominent think tanks, the Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at the Harvard Kennedy School and the Brookings Institution.

Among the 27 members are prominent liberal columnist E.J. Dionne of Brookings and the Washington Post, who was co-chairman, and Norman Ornstein with the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

The report argues that requiring people to vote could help reverse the downward spiral of declining trust that "breeds citizen withdrawal which in turn only further increases the sense of distance between citizens and our governing institutions."

But instituting mandatory voting will be no mean trick. Polling done as part of the report shows that nearly two-thirds of Americans oppose the idea and nearly half are strongly opposed.

The report notes that while voter turnout increased dramatically in the 2018 midterm election, the percentage of those eligible who cast ballots has stayed pretty consistent over recent decades: 57 percent for presidential elections and 41 percent for off-year elections.

By contrast, in the approximately two dozen countries that require voting, turnout is upward of 80 to 90 percent.

Australia, which mandated voting in 1924, is the country most highlighted in the report because it's the biggest democracy with such a requirement. People there face a fine — about $14 in U.S. dollars — for not showing up at the polls. Still, only about 13 percent of those who don't vote end up paying a fine. The report argues the mandate leads people to take the voting obligation more seriously and has turned Election Day into a day of celebration in Australia.

Mandating people to participate in elections but not mandating that they vote is a key distinction in ensuring the change would pass constitutional muster, the report states. That's because case law is clear that the government cannot mandate speech, which is how requiring voting for particular candidates could be interpreted.

A tougher nut to crack than passing constitutional challenges would appear to be public attitudes.

Besides asking about whether voting should be mandated, pollsters also asked about general attitudes toward voting: 61 percent said they believe voting is both a right and a duty, while 34 percent said it was merely a right and the remainder said it was neither.

The authors see hope in those numbers when confronted with the large margins who reject mandatory voting with a modest $20 fine for those who fail to vote.

They also note that young people appear to be more open to the reform.

In addition to recommending mandatory participation, the report also makes several recommendations:

  • Excluding partisan primaries from the mandate.
  • Providing incentives for people to vote, including tax credits, lower public fees and lotteries.
  • Creating a public education campaign.
  • Increasing funding for election administration.
  • Setting federal standards for elections.
  • Restoring the Voting Rights Act.

The authors emphasize that they don't see mandatory voting as a panacea for all that ails our democracy. But they conclude that "it can help rejuvenate our civic culture and expand confidence in our democratic system."

Read More

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Kevin Frazier warns that one-size-fits-all AI laws risk stifling innovation. Learn the 7 “sins” policymakers must avoid to protect progress.

Getty Images, Aitor Diago

When Good Intentions Kill Cures: A Warning on AI Regulation

Imagine it is 2028. A start-up in St. Louis trains an AI model that can spot pancreatic cancer six months earlier than the best radiologists, buying patients precious time that medicine has never been able to give them. But the model never leaves the lab. Why? Because a well-intentioned, technology-neutral state statute drafted in 2025 forces every “automated decision system” to undergo a one-size-fits-all bias audit, to be repeated annually, and to be performed only by outside experts who—three years in—still do not exist in sufficient numbers. While regulators scramble, the company’s venture funding dries up, the founders decamp to Singapore, and thousands of Americans are deprived of an innovation that would have saved their lives.

That grim vignette is fictional—so far. But it is the predictable destination of the seven “deadly sins” that already haunt our AI policy debates. Reactive politicians are at risk of passing laws that fly in the face of what qualifies as good policy for emerging technologies.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump standing next to a chart in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Donald Trump discusses economic data with Stephen Moore (L), Senior Visiting Fellow in Economics at The Heritage Foundation, in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Win McNamee

Investor-in-Chief: Trump’s Business Deals, Loyalty Scorecards, and the Rise of Neo-Socialist Capitalism

For over 100 years, the Republican Party has stood for free-market capitalism and keeping the government’s heavy hand out of the economy. Government intervention in the economy, well, that’s what leaders did in the Soviet Union and communist China, not in the land of Uncle Sam.

And then Donald Trump seized the reins of the Republican Party. Trump has dispensed with numerous federal customs and rules, so it’s not too surprising that he is now turning his administration into the most business-interventionist government ever in American history. Contrary to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” in the economy, suddenly, the signs of the White House’s “visible hand” are everywhere.

Keep ReadingShow less
Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

Hands holding bars over "Se Habla Español" sign

AI generated

Cuando El Idioma Se Convierte En Blanco, La Democracia Pierde Su Voz

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision from its “shadow docket” that reversed a lower-court injunction and gave federal immigration agents in Los Angeles the green light to resume stops based on four deeply troubling criteria:

  • Apparent race or ethnicity
  • Speaking Spanish or accented English
  • Presence in a particular location
  • Type of work

The case, Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, is still working its way through the courts. But the message from this emergency ruling is unmistakable: the constitutional protections that once shielded immigrant communities from racial profiling are now conditional—and increasingly fragile.

Keep ReadingShow less