How do we increase voter turnout in the United States?


Voter turnout in the United States varies from state to state and, as a whole, is comparatively low with respect to other democracies. There are institutional as well as psychological factors that affect turnout. Institutional factors include voter registration requirements, timing and frequency of elections, location of polling places, and complexity of ballots. Psychological factors include political efficacy, interest and engagement of the electorate, and political party membership. Voter turnout in the United States can be increased, and I will propose two simple reforms that would increase voter turnout. I will also propose another more complex reform that would dramatically increase voter turnout but would be difficult to implement by the state governments.
Several institutional factors determine voter turnout. As each state has the power to hold elections, these factors vary across the states. The difficulty or ease of voter registration will have an impact on turnout. Minnesota has a very high turnout allowing same-day voter registration, while Texas has a low turnout and has a 30-day requirement. The day and time an election is also held matters. For example, the U.S. holds federal elections on a Tuesday in November during work hours which reduces voter turnout. The frequency of elections will have an influence on turnout. There are many elections per year in the U.S., and voters get fatigued and stop going to the polls. Voters are also less likely to vote if they don't have convenient polling places that are nearby and easy to access. Schools are the best and most accessible polling locations, but the U.S. holds elections on Tuesdays, which limits the availability of school space and parking. Lastly, complex ballots diminish enthusiasm and negatively impact U.S. voter turnout.
Along with institutional factors, there are psychological factors that control voter turnout. One of which is political efficacy which is defined in two ways. The first is internal efficacy which is how well you think you are able to understand politics. The second is external efficacy which is how well you feel the system responds to your input. Essentially, if you think you are smart enough and your vote "matters," you have high efficacy and tend to go to the polls. The next psychological factor is interest, which is a measure of how much you care about politics. If you don't care, it's highly unlikely that you will vote. The last psychological factor is partisanship. Are you a member of a political party? If yes, then it's more likely you'll go vote to support your party. 
By voting age population, turnout in the U.S. is around 53%. This shows the United States has a low turnout compared to other democracies and puts the U.S. 7th from the bottom when compared to 35 other democracies. Australia has the highest turnout, with just over 90%. The reason for Australia's high turnout is that voting is compulsory, with fines for people who don't vote. "Voting in Australia is like a party," with election day described as a country-wide BBQ with easy-to-access polling locations held on a Saturday. In Australia, "Forcing people to engage in the process increases their knowledge of the issues and candidates," thereby increasing Australia's political interest and engagement. By contrast, polls in the U.S. consistently show us that Americans don't know much about politics and are neither engaged nor interested in politics. Converse argues that people in the U.S. have low levels of ideological constraint and conceptualization. This shows that Americans have low political efficacy.
	In general American turnout is low, but Voter Eligible Population (VEP) turnout varies dramatically across the states. Hawaii has the least VEP turnout, with approximately 43%. To compare, the state with the highest VEP turnout is Minnesota, with 75%. Texas comes in 3rd from the bottom with 53%. Minnesota's high turnout is explained by "easy access to the ballot," "a sense of civic responsibility," "high rates of educational attainment and income," and "competitive and interesting elections." By comparison, the main reasons Hawaii turnout is so low are that it's "hard to register," voter disinterest and low efficacy, and it's a "one-party state". This combination of institutional and psychological factors, beneficial in Minnesota, and detrimental in Hawaii, has a significant impact on a state's turnout. 
	I propose two simple solutions to increase voter turnout. The first would be to move elections to the weekend or require that companies give employees the day off to vote. Sunday is the most common election day in the world outside the United States. I believe this would be a beneficial institutional factor that would increase voter turnout because the majority of other countries have higher voter turnout than the United States. Unfortunately, the chances of this happening are slim as Congress has proposed bills to move elections to the weekend or have a Federal holiday for voting, but these bills have never moved out of committees.
	The second simple solution would address the institutional factor of registration requirements by implementing same-day voter registration in all 50 states. Minnesota allows for same-day registration, and its turnout is around 20% higher than Texas, which does not allow it. States that have implemented same-day voter registration have seen an average of a 5% increase in voters ("Same Day Voter"). To prevent voter fraud, systems should be put in place to make sure the voter hasn't already voted and to check for valid identification showing the voter is a resident of the state or county. Another deterrent to committing voter fraud would be criminal penalties, including jail time and fines. Enacting legislation in each state to implement a system to handle would take time, but I think it's possible as currently, 21 states allow same-day voting registration ("Same Day Voter"). 
	The third solution I propose would address most of the institutional factors. This would be an online/app-based voting option. The vast majority of Americans these days have mobile phones with internet connections. Those that don't would still have all of the current voting options, such as polling locations and mail-in voting. Security and verification would combine blockchain (similar to Bitcoin identities), biometrics, and facial recognition artificial intelligence. When registering to vote, a state agency would create your blockchain voter identification, fingerprint, and take a LiDAR(Light Detection and Ranging) 3D map of your face. These three technologies would ensure one vote per person. Also, this technology is all readily available and, while complex to implement, would provide several advantages over our current voting system. It would eliminate the need for convenient polling locations, as you can vote anywhere. The timing of elections would be fine, as you could vote during a work break. The frequency of elections would also be less of an issue because you wouldn't have to go to a polling location. The complexity of the ballot could be addressed in the application, which would allow links showing descriptions of candidates and issues.
	While voter turnout in the United States is low compared to other democratic countries, there are both simple and complex solutions that can increase voter participation. States with high voter turnout should be models for other states to follow as they have implemented practical reforms like same-day voter registration. The United States can then look to other countries and enact common sense solutions like voting on the weekend or on election holidays. Finally, we can use technology safely and responsibly to take voting into the 21st century and remove all the barriers to voting that our existing system places between the voter and the ballot.