I want to make a prediction. Barack Obama is going to win the presidency next Tuesday. Hardly earth-shattering, of course, but I'd like to make a very precise forecast on the number of Electoral Votes Obama will win. I'll say more on that below.
The prediction is more of a sideshow in this op-ed, though. As we prepare to head to the polls on Tuesday, my thoughts turn to voter registration and turnout. Policy-makers and activists have spent years trying to design methods of voting that enhance turnout. It's appalling that turnout in the United States is so low?lower than most industrialized countries. Much of the answer from the policy world, however, has been about easing registration requirements. We can now register at the DMV when renewing our driving license, and many states?such as Maine?allow voter registration on Election Day. The media's coverage of early voting this year is another example of an attempt to ease the burden on voters.
I think this is all fantastic, and there is good empirical evidence to suggest that eased registration requirements enhance turnout. On the other hand, such evidence is not overwhelming. Turnout has not sky-rocketed in the 15 years since we passed the Motor Voter Bill (50 percent of voting-age adults cast a ballot in 1988, and 51.3 percent did so in 2000). Some estimate turnout next week to be between 60-65 percent (a very high number), but that still means 35-40 percent of voters will stay home.
Perhaps the answer for turnout lies in how we approach representative democracy. Two changes would go far in enhancing turnout. The first is a scaling back in our democratic choices. We simply vote on too many things. Just look at Maine this year. We have to vote on two important ballot referendums, which are very complicated. One is a People's Veto on the beer, wine, and soda tax. The other is a Citizen's Initiative for a casino in Oxford County. There is also a third question on a bond to support drinking water programs. More still, we are asked to vote for candidates in a variety of county and town positions, many of which we know nothing about. Some have called this hyper-democracy, and I agree. The problem is worse in other states. Colorado has 14 ballot questions; California and Oregon each have 12.
I would push for an end to most if not all referendums in local and state elections, and I would consider seriously whether certain local and state offices are better served as appointed positions. Too often, citizens either skip voting altogether or skip voting for certain races (or ballot questions) because the informational needs for good decisions are too high. Less democracy is obviously controversial, but a simplified process should enhance voter interest.
Second, I would strengthen the Democratic and Republican parties. I know parties are often considered the boogeymen of American politics. If we changed campaign finance rules to enhance party organizations, however, I think we might see turnout go up. For example, we could provide free air time to the state and national Democratic and Republican parties. The airtime would be optional, and not take the place of purchased advertising, but the requirement on using the air time would be a discussion of the party's platform or agenda for the next two years. We could also mandate that the broadcasts feature the candidates for statewide and national office, all in the same place at the same time. Finally, we could change the rules to allow parties and candidates to cooperate on fund-raising and messaging without expenditure limits (as currently exist).
The result might be a better sense that elections are about two teams, and less about the individual candidates. American politics has moved away from the idea that elections are about a choice between two broad ideologies, and candidates have often avoided their own party's label in running for office.
My recommendations are premised on the notion that democracy is enhanced when the choices are simpler. Ask yourself that when you get in the voting booth next week. Do I really know what Judge of Probate does? What are the consequences of the bond issue? Which candidates believe in their parties' general philosophy, and which are "mavericks"? The less we know, and the more that is asked of us, the more likely we'll choose to skip the process.
And now, back to my forecast. Using a model developed by others, and for presidential elections between 1948 and 2004, I estimated the relationship between the election outcome and the popularity of the incumbent president and the state of the national economy in the summer of the election year. The model predicts Barack Obama will win 393 Electoral Votes and 55 percent of the popular vote. These numbers seem a bit high, but not outside the realm of possibility. Furthermore, the results are based on Bush's popularity and the state of the economy in July of this year?an extremely simplified model.
If the numbers are right, or even close, that would imply that all of the excitement of the fall campaign (the conventions, the debates, the vice presidential selections, SNL skits, and the economic bailout) hardly mattered in influencing the outcome of the election.
Michael Franz is an assistant professor in the government department.