Should Everyone Be Required to Vote?

Dr. Lisa Hill: I teach a course every two years to the Electoral Commission staff about compulsory voting and other stuff like that. I was telling them how I was at a European Consortium of Political Research conference recently talking about compulsory voting, and a European scholar asked me, “But aren’t you worried about the problem of over-inclusion?” Which is an issue–

Amanda Renteria: [laughs]

Dr. Lisa Hill: Yes, you’re laughing too. Which is an issue in political theory and democratic studies. The Electoral Commission staff just burst out laughing. They thought I was cracking a joke, but everyone in this room was dead serious, like, yes, you could have too many– what? Too many poor people in there? Too many people with English as their second language? Too many unhoused people? They’re the people we want.

[Theme music fades in]

Amanda Renteria: Here on The Government Fix, we often explore how to make big, challenging bureaucratic processes easier. How do we use tech and other resources to give those who need it the most access to what our government has to offer?

Today, I want to talk about voting. Whether it’s long lines at poll sites, trying to dip out of work on a busy Tuesday, or how switching your voter registration can so easily fall off the to-do list, I’m curious, what would happen if we removed all barriers to voting? What would that look like? Who would it serve? What if we turned the hard stuff about voting into an easy action of responsibility, even a sense of pride in having your vote count towards something greater?

Here in the United States, only about 74% of eligible Americans are registered to vote. Of those registered, only about 65% actually cast their vote in the last presidential election. That number is even lower in non-presidential election years, with turnout for midterms hovering around 50%.

On the other side of the world, in Australia, they’ve come up with a solution for the issue of low turnout: compulsory voting. This means voting is not only encouraged, but required, and over there, voter turnout remains consistently over 90%. Get this, they’ve been doing this successfully since 1924. That’s over 100 years of mandatory participation in elections.

I wanted to know, how do we enforce voting policy? How do we make it easier, more inclusive, and even more fun? I spoke to expert Dr. Lisa Hill about how this process actually works. She’s a professor of politics at the University of Adelaide and co-author of Compulsory Voting: For and Against.

Here at Government Fix, we’re interested in how governments are designed to actually help real people. Australia has an interesting model for voting. I can’t wait to get into this topic because, well, we’re all talking about voting these days. 

[Music transition]

To start, Lisa, I think folks would benefit from really hearing from you how voting works in Australia.

Dr. Lisa Hill: Well, we have a federal system like you do. State and federal elections are compulsory. Now, almost all local elections or council elections are compulsory too. We have three lots of compulsory elections. We have turnout of between 90% and 95% routinely. It’s very easy to vote here.

Our electoral management leads the world, which means there are very few opportunity and transaction costs for voters. It’s super easy to vote. There’s always a polling booth around the corner. You can do pre-polling, mobile polling, postal voting, all kinds of different voting. That’s why we’re able to maintain high turnout.

Voting day is a festive occasion. It’s called the Democracy Sausage. You have a big barbecue there, people selling sausages to raise money. It’s not full of aggrieved, scary people. It’s just people having a chat and quite happy to vote, not feeling it’s a burden or anything like that because there are no real queues. No one ever runs out of ballot papers.

Amanda Renteria: Is it all just in one day or is there a range?

Dr. Lisa Hill: It used to be in one day, and now they’ve moved to what they call convenience voting. You can do a postal vote if you want. You can vote two weeks before the election. You can go to the polling booths and cast a pre-poll, which I’ve done that.

I like voting day because I like the feeling of being in a democracy where everyone’s voting, and where it’s still considered a fun thing to do and people have a strong sense of civic duty. It’s always on a Saturday.

Amanda Renteria: It’s on a Saturday. That’s fantastic [crosstalk]–

Dr. Lisa Hill: Of course. I don’t know why you should be surprised, why you have it on a Tuesday, but yes, it’s a Saturday. Everything’s done to make it super easy for people to vote.

Amanda Renteria: What does it feel like? It’s Saturday. Is this like here in the States, like 4th of July? Or is it just a holiday weekend or is it just like any other weekend?

Dr. Lisa Hill: It’s like any other weekend. There’s a lot of campaigning, of course, up to the moment of the election, but it’s not to the same degree of hysteria that you might see in the States because people are already mobilized. You’re not trying to stop certain people from voting or scare them out of voting, and you’re not trying to encourage them to vote; they just will vote. People are quite attentive to the campaigns because they know they have to vote. We know from studies that they actually are more attentive.

Then on the day– I have a lot of photos, when I give a talk on the topic, of people in their bathers, in their bathing suits, or people in their footy clothes doing up their shoes on their way to a footy game, because it’s not like you’re going to stand in a line in public for a long time in your bathing suit. It’s something you can do on the way to the pool. I’ve got one where it’s obvious that the pool lifeguard has hopped out of the pool, run down, voted, and then gone back. It’s a very quick thing.

The Electoral Commission makes sure you’re enrolled. They send you reminder letters. They do everything they possibly can to make sure you can vote. If you are working on an Antarctic supply ship, they’ll ship stuff down. They ship three tons of material to the Northern Hemisphere to make sure the diaspora can vote. They send stuff out to prisons. They’ll go into maternity hospitals and nursing homes. They do everything they can. This is why people are so okay with it because all the work is on the other side. To me, elections are a nice day and a festive day.

Amanda Renteria: Yes. I love that it’s joyous and that people– On the one hand, it sounds like it’s joyous and it’s kind of part of what you’re going to do that day. It’s responsibility and fun.

Dr. Lisa Hill: That’s right.

Amanda Renteria: Sometimes those don’t go hand in hand. This is not a new thing, but how did Australia get there? What was it about the 1920s Australia that allowed the country to move to compulsory voting?

Dr. Lisa Hill: You’d be surprised how easy it was. Australians are people that will always try new shit. It’s just like we were the first country in the world to ban social media for young kids, and now everyone else is starting to adopt it. I think this is because politicians and parties are quite responsive to voters because they’re compulsory, but it wasn’t compulsory when compulsory voting was brought in.

It was originally brought in by some states who thought the turnout was a bit low. Then in the 1920s, gradually the states started bringing it in, and then the federal government thought, we should give that a go. There was 15 minutes of debate in the federal parliament. It was brought in. No one thought it was a controversial thing. It’s like, “Yes, good, everyone voting. That’s a nice idea.”

Then turnout, by the time the next election came around– so that was in 1922. In 1924 was the next federal election. Turnout jumped. Our turnout was in the high 50s, but we thought that was shocking, so we did this. Then it jumped by 30 percentage points, and then it stayed there. Not only does it have this immediate effect, but it has this enduring effect.

It’s very, very effective. It’s the most effective way to get high, and socially even, turnout. By that I mean all different strata of society. Because in voluntary systems, you only get certain kinds of people voting: usually, the educated people, the well-off people, the whiter style of a person, the majority-language person. You will not get new immigrants. You will not get the poor voting, especially if your voting is on a Tuesday.

This system allows everybody to vote. We’ve always had the unhoused voting in this country, people who were ill, people who were shut-ins. Anyone with any kind of disadvantage will still vote here.

Amanda Renteria: How do you do verification? There’s a lot of talk of that here in the States. How does that work in Australia?

Dr. Lisa Hill: I don’t know why there’s a lot of talk about verification there because voter fraud is pretty nil there. Anyway, people do talk about it as a way of bringing in measures to make it harder to vote. No verification here. You turn up. You say your name. They cross out your name. They say, “Is it this address?” “Yes, that’s me.” It’s an honest system.

Afterwards, the Electoral Commission carefully checks, and they have very good verification system post-voting for multiple voting, which almost never occurs. Occasionally, it does. It’s immediately referred to our federal police who follow up. The vast majority of cases is an elderly person that voted in the nursing home, and then when their children came around and said, “Do you want to go out and vote?” “Oh, yes, I’d like to go out.” [laughter] They either forgot or they just did it on purpose to have an outing.

Amanda Renteria: Has there ever been a worry– because it seems like it’s gone so well, but over the course of history, was it ever questioned by the Australians?

Dr. Lisa Hill: No. There used to be a time when the Liberal Party, which is the opposition party, which isn’t liberal, it’s more conservative liberal; they had it as their official policy to get rid of it, and then they abandoned that. They didn’t think maybe that was such a good idea. In terms of things going wrong, no.

I work with electoral commissions on research projects, so I get a real insight, and they can be quite difficult to work with because they won’t let you try stuff or even use certain language. They’re really, really careful. Occasionally, electoral officers lost ballots. The only time when that was really a significant event, about 1,200 ballots were lost; instead of going, “Oh, oh, oh,” it wouldn’t have affected the election really, but they ran the entire election again.

Amanda Renteria: Oh, wow. [chuckles]

Dr. Lisa Hill: Yes. Of course, the Electoral Commissioner had to resign. When that happens, that occasionally happens and measures put in place, that’s considered a shocking scandal. I’ve got a PhD student. When we were working with the Victorian Electoral Commission, who are fantastic, she wanted to go on an internship there. She said, “What should I do for my project?” I said, “Well, let’s see if they’ll let you follow them around through a whole election and track the ballot journey and see how they manage ballots.”

I wasn’t sure they’d go for it, but they did. They made her a member of staff because they’re really particular. I mean, I can’t go where she went. I can’t touch a ballot or anything when I do research with them. They have to do all that for me. She was accompanied at all times by a member of staff to make sure she wasn’t doing anything she shouldn’t do.

We’ve just written an article about the ballot journey and all the measures they put in place. Actually, it’s very complicated and quite boring to read, if I’m honest, because there’s so many safeguards. Then there’s a bit where, Katharina Kretschmer is her name, she reported that they lost a couple of informal ballots, like valid ballots, and I went, “Oh, oh,” but then we found them. Using the protocols they had, they found them.

It was very reassuring to see all the different measures they had in place to make sure nothing went wrong, and nothing did go wrong. She was there over three months watching everything they did and moving all around to the ballot places, the storage places, the counting places, and observing everything. Look, sometimes things do go wrong, but they’re not biggies.

Amanda Renteria: What happens to the people in Australia that don’t end up voting? Does somebody come knocking on your door, or do people say, “Hey, 5%, not bad.” We know there’s going to be some folks who just get sick or can’t go or forget.

Dr. Lisa Hill: Compulsory voting would never work unless there was a sanction and unless the sanction was enforced. You must have enforcement. However, from what I can see, the enforcement has to be done in a certain way. Otherwise, the public won’t tolerate it. They’re not treated like criminals. They’re sent a very polite letter saying, “I noticed you didn’t vote,” and then they ask you what’s your reason.

If you give a reasonable reason like, “I was sick,” or, “My car broke down,” or, “I was more than eight kilometers away from a polling place,” which is grounds for exemption, they just drop it. If you write something expletive on it or don’t respond, a fine of $20 is imposed at the federal level. Then if you don’t pay that fine, it escalates to a fine of $50. Then if you don’t pay that fine, it’s put into the hands of the courts for contempt of court, but hardly anyone’s prosecuted. People just send off the letter– they either vote, or they just send off the letter saying, “Yes, I was sick that day.” I was sick once, and I did that for a local election. I had to say I was ill, and then the matter was dropped.

I think this is what happens with an honest system. If you want people to be honorable, you have to treat them as honorable people and not treat them as criminals. It’s not like they’ve committed a crime, even though it’s the law to vote [crosstalk]–

Amanda Renteria: Some things are so simple, right? Some things are so simple. If you want to treat people- if you want to be treated well, you’ve got to treat them well.

Dr. Lisa Hill: Exactly. The Electoral Commission treats voters with the utmost respect and consideration because the Electoral Commission staff, I work with them, they’re so sweet. They love voting. They love voters. They love voting inclusion. I teach a course every two years to the Electoral Commission staff about compulsory voting and other stuff like that.

I was telling them how I was at a European Consortium of Political Research conference recently talking about compulsory voting, and a European scholar asked me, “But aren’t you worried about the problem of over-inclusion?” Which is an issue–

Amanda Renteria: [laughs]

Dr. Lisa Hill: Yes, you’re laughing too. Which is an issue in political theory and democratic studies. The Electoral Commission staff just burst out laughing. They thought I was cracking a joke, but everyone in this room was dead serious, like, yes, you could have too many– what? Too many poor people in there? Too many people with English as their second language? Too many unhoused people? They’re the people we want. We want them all.

I’m always doing projects with the electoral commissions on how to get better inclusion. I’ve done projects on Indigenous Australians and getting them included, unhoused Australians, and at the moment, the poor, the disadvantaged, English as a second language, that sort of thing. They want your vote. 100%. That’s their dream. Their dream would be 100% inclusion.

Amanda Renteria: I suspect you have to spend time really understanding what’s happening on the ground, and know the work we do and benefits to try and reach people where they are, it really is walking in their shoes to figure out where they are. How does this work in Australia for voting in some of these very hard-to-reach places or folks who feel disconnected?

Dr. Lisa Hill: Yes, like in Victoria, a quarter of the households speak a language other than English, so you’re trying to reach very hard-to-reach populations. The project I’m working on now, I’m working on two with the Electoral Commission of Queensland and the Victorian Electoral Commission, and it’s on informal or invalid voting, and that is rising.

That’s one of the downsides of compulsory voting; you’ll have higher levels of invalid voting because you get people who find it harder to vote inadvertently casting an invalid vote. Now, it’s rising, and so is intentional invalid voting, which is a worry.

What the Victorian Electoral Commission did for us, they got every single invalid vote. They put them in piles according to my taxonomy. Then within that taxonomy, they started– There was a pile full of scribbled-on ballots. Then within that, a taxonomy of expletives, forget that; political commentary, whatever. Then from these ballots, we were able to work out what was going wrong here. We were able to work out where people were writing disaffected ballots, where they were putting in blank ballots.

That actually feeds back a lot of information to us. I’ve just looked at millions of these, and they’re going to do it forever now with that invalid voting. This is a way of increasing the voting inclusion of people that find voting so difficult or so disaffected that they cast an invalid vote. Then this will tell us how to target voting education to those populations.

Amanda Renteria: The data is giving you the segment of the folks who feel disconnected. You’re able to see it because everybody’s in the pool. In a way, that’s remarkable data to be able to use when you think about how do we make sure people feel connected to a country or its values or what’s going on out there.

One of the questions I have, as this all gets put together, is, how does it actually affect? The fact that people are joyous going to vote, how does it affect the way people campaign? We’re dealing with a lot of strife here, and you begin to see that the way people run, the difficulty of voting adds to the frustration and the intensity of trying to vote. I think that really does leak into the politics of things.

Do you see the opposite occur? The bikini-wearing, the sausages, the barbecue-like voting, do you see that same thing with candidates and policies and that tone go back and forth in the way people campaign?

Dr. Lisa Hill: Well, Amanda, I should stress, not everyone’s as joyful as me. Some of them are looking bored [crosstalk]–

Amanda Renteria: [laughs] Fair enough. It is a democracy, right?

Dr. Lisa Hill: Some of them are bored, but usually it’s people smiling and getting on with it and thinking, “I’m in a democracy.” It doesn’t have that sturm und drang. It doesn’t have that kind of tension. It doesn’t have the aggravation and frustration because of the queues, because people are on their lunch hour because they had to leave work, and they’re losing money because they’re voting. Or the opposite: they’re not there because they can’t leave work, and they feel excluded, or they’re at home with children or people they’re responsible for.

We’re getting all the problems that America and other advanced democracies are having now with disinformation, polarization, extremism, voter denialism, and conspiracists. We’re getting all that, but to a lower degree. It is worrying me, and I’m working on it all, but it just doesn’t have the same degree of aggravation.

In America, as you know, the FBI actually has an advertising campaign. It is illegal to threaten an election worker. When I show that to people here, they go, “Duh. It’s illegal to threaten anybody.” To have to have a campaign. You’ve had 25% of your election workers resigning because of threats and the danger. Now, in the States, you’ve got people committing violence; shooting candidates that won or shooting members of the party or election officials or sending them death threats because they lost an election, and taking the law into their own hands, trying to break into election offices to check the records themselves, and they’re trying to break into the machines.

We haven’t got that here. We see a little bit of it, but it’s just not like that here because everyone can vote. Nobody is excluded because of some specious claim that their ID is incorrect. By not having the ID requirement– Sometimes that’s just going to be an innocent mistake on the part of the polling person, the person running the polling booth. Once you start having all these elaborate ID requirements, then you’re going to get misinterpretation, or then you’re just going to get people that don’t have the ID.

Amanda Renteria: We just talked about American sentiment around this. It sounds like for a long time, Americans have been against it. It sounds like there’s new data that now they’re for it. I would love to hear how you’ve been tracking this, and what you’re seeing in America in terms of mandatory voting.

Dr. Lisa Hill: Well, historically, Americans, they don’t like being made to do anything, as you know. People always think Australians don’t mind being told to do things. Australians don’t have this hostile attitude to the state because our country wasn’t born in that way. We thought the state was there– We were convict settlements. We thought the state was there to get us stuff and to do stuff for us. Of course, because we all vote, the state does do stuff for us because they know-

Amanda Renteria: No, that’s true. Yes.

Dr. Lisa Hill: -they’re going to be punished if they don’t. They know that everyone can turn up. They can’t game the vote. We’re all poised, waiting to punish or waiting to reward. America, historically, has not liked that idea, but gradually– According to the Pew Center’s research, they think that around 51% of Americans think it’s not a bad idea. You’ve got about 65% of Germans that think that. Over 60% of French and British people think it’s not a bad idea. Americans are coming around to it.

I find the findings hard to believe. It’s not my impression, but we can’t go on impressions. I honestly think, and Obama used to talk about this, this could cure a lot of problems that America has. For example, there are lower levels of corruption in compulsory-voting regimes. You have lower campaign finance problems because you don’t have to have this competition for money just to mobilize people; they’re already coming.

Amanda Renteria: We see this across the benefits work that we do. The simpler the process, the more people trust it because people can see the transparency of it. So much of everyone is doing it, all on this day, or you can, we’re making it easy. Just that message of government saying, “We want to welcome you to vote. We’re going to try and make it as easy as possible. No matter who you are or where you are, we’re going to find you and make it possible.” People really do want that.

It does send a message that not only do we want you a part of it, but we want you to help shape where this country is going. I think that’s the part that when I think about what you are doing, what Australia is doing, and why I do think it’s a winning argument, and why I do think Americans can come around, especially a younger generation that likes to do things a little differently, I go back to your first comment when you said, “Well, hey, we sort of said, let’s try it.”

I think here in America, we’re getting to a point where we’re having a new generation come in. We’re starting to see young mayors in New York City not only run, but win. You’re beginning to see this kind of style. I’m excited. The reason why we’re talking is because it allows us to start talking about these things that other countries are doing now that we can learn from, and maybe we will be able to try it out.

As I think about that, and even thinking about this in this time and space right now with all the mis- and disinformation, what advice would you be giving if we were sitting here talking to a couple of legislatures of a new generation and say, “Okay, let’s put this on the radar, but here are the things you really need to think about right now in this space of mis- and disinformation”?

Dr. Lisa Hill: There’s two Australian jurisdictions that have introduced truth in political advertising legislation. We have it here in South Australia where I live. It is illegal for politicians to lie. If you lie, the Electoral Commissioner investigates it. They hear a report– They don’t go around looking for you. They’ll wait for a report from the public. Of course, parties have people that are constantly monitoring for lies on the opposition.

Then if it looks like a lie, the Electoral Commissioner follows up. If they think it really looks lie-like, they’ll get the Crown Solicitor’s Office, like the Attorney-General’s, to investigate. If they find that it’s a lie, they’ll ask the politician to print a retraction and an apology in the form that the Electoral Commissioner asks for. If they fail to do that, there’s a hefty fine, but everybody complies.

That legislation is now in the Australian Capital Territory where Canberra is. There’s been bills before the federal parliament that I helped design to the same effect for federal elections, to cover federal elections, but they haven’t been able to get up. To even think that a parliament would introduce it and nearly get it up, it’s like, sweet. [chuckles] That would be so good.

It won’t stop other people from lying, but we all know that the fish rots from the head. You should know that very well. The fish rots from the head. When leaders start lying, everyone else thinks, “Oh, well,” and pretty soon, people come not to care about the truth.

Amanda Renteria: I think your point about it earlier when you said, hey, listen, if you’re going to have compulsory, then you actually have to make sure it’s enforced. If you really want truth in our politics, then you actually have to enforce what happens when someone lies. I think these are all of the lessons that the United States is really learning right now. We don’t have the systems in place to really deal with mis- and disinformation.

I’m hopeful that a new generation who I know is struggling in these moments of figuring out, how do we have a joyful election? Because right now, it doesn’t quite feel joyful, right?

Dr. Lisa Hill: No.

Amanda Renteria: I remember when I was younger and the stickers felt like something, but even then, it wasn’t everyone voting. It was hard. Mom getting off work, trying to get us all so she can go vote in this one place, and running out and running back in, just trying– It was a scurry because it’s on a Tuesday, and we need to have dinner before we get to sleep. There’s so much now that I think about.

Dr. Lisa Hill: Amanda, the voluntary system evokes irrationality and rationality. It’s irrational not to vote and get your interests represented, but then if you think about it, you’re a poor lone parent who works three jobs. You probably know that other people in your position won’t be voting, so it’s irrational for you to be a drop in the ocean because you can’t form a voting bloc.

Here, the voting blocs are made. Other poor people know that the rest of the poor people, or the young people know that the other young people will be voting. They’re already formed into voting blocs, so it makes the voting more meaningful because they know that they’re going to be able to form critical mass.

Amanda Renteria: Yes, there’s something about seeing everyone’s doing it.

Dr. Lisa Hill: That’s right. It’s something we do together. It’s interesting that you mentioned disinformation in relation to the compulsion because also, if you’re going to compel people to vote, don’t make them vote in an environment when they don’t have robust information on which to base their voting decision because the voting choices will be faulty, and they might not be casting a congruent vote. They’ve been lied to that the politician says, “Here’s what I stand for.”

It makes sense to try and clean up the information environment because this is really the rust in democracy’s bones right now.

Amanda Renteria: I do think about the fact that it is everyone, really makes it effective when you can educate everyone, and it’s almost a responsibility to educate everyone because that is how you’re going to determine your leadership of your country. I think that’s an important aspect here, and one thing that I think is a huge opportunity for what Australia is doing, but for countries like the United States where there’s so much conversation around, “We don’t have enough civic education.”

Man, I think that equation changes when all of a sudden, you realize everyone is going to have a say. If folks aren’t educated about what’s on the ballot, about how our systems work, it has a much different, meaningful impact on who’s elected in the future.

Dr. Lisa Hill: Well, you know what happens, Amanda, because one of my interlocutors, Jason Brennan, and a few other people saying that it makes people intellectually lazy, politically lazy, and it dumbs them down. Then there were a few studies done on whether people in compulsory-voting regimes are more sophisticated or less sophisticated. It turns out they’re more sophisticated politically.

They just prick up their ears– knowing they’re going to have to vote, they pay more attention, as you would imagine, right?

Amanda Renteria: Yes.

Dr. Lisa Hill: They go, “I better think about this, who I want to vote for.” I’ve always thought apathy was a bad thing, but it turns out it’s a good thing in a compulsory setting because compulsory-voting regimes have lower levels of extremism and polarization because the median voter is kind of non-extremist.

The median voter is like, [mimics] “Oh, politics, I guess I should vote,” but they’re not extremist. Then this, “I suppose I should have– it better be a sensible policy. I’ll pay a bit of attention.” Then parties aren’t polarized because they’ve got to move to the middle to attract the votes of the median voter. The median voter is more reasonable, less extreme, less angry, and so you get less of the politics of grievance and rage and, unfortunately, violence as well. We have violence too, but it’s not around voting and democracy.

It has all these weird benefits that we never dreamed.

Amanda Renteria: I just think about the money to get people out to vote, to take away all the barriers folks put in place, like, what a waste of resources. Those resources could be put into educating people as opposed to just trying to figure out how to spend money on how to get a targeted person, to try and figure out how do you have cars to get you all to the polls, everyone to the polls wherever they are, right out of work.

All of those different obstacles on purpose. You see campaigns spend money to put in obstacles and then spend money to take them out, depending on who you want to vote. It just doesn’t feel right. It doesn’t feel like what it should be.

Dr. Lisa Hill: It dumbs down the campaigns as well, and it ramps up the bad-faith rhetoric as well because you’re just trying to get people– To mobilize people, you have to enlist their emotions. Australians always used to look at American campaigns with all the balloons and the hats and everything and just think it’s so undignified and it’s so silly, and all the patriotic rhetoric that you really get going on here.

Amanda Renteria: Yes. The reason why I love having these conversations is because it’s a way of opening up new ideas and dialogue, and the chance to learn from folks who are doing it differently, and so I remain hopeful. I do want your one piece of advice that you think would unlock this in the United States of America. What is keeping us from doing this?

Dr. Lisa Hill: It’s not your Constitution. I’ve looked at that. There’s nothing in the Constitution that would stop you from having compulsory voting. Your resistance will be cultural. I think if you moved away from Tuesday voting, people would be more open to this. Now their vote would mean something, and now they could actually go and vote.

Amanda Renteria: We’re at a time where there’s really discontent with both parties right now and a new generation coming up. When you look at it, actually, the folks who are calling themselves independent or declared to state– there’s all kinds of words for it in whatever state there is, right?

Dr. Lisa Hill: Yes.

Amanda Renteria: That’s the growing population. It’s not Democrat or Republican. It’s really this, “How do we get this thing back into shape?” And kind of, “I want to vote, but I don’t necessarily want to be part of these institutions.” I do think we’re at a time where voters are taking a look at different things.

Perhaps for the first time, at least in my lifetime, at least in my voting lifetime, do I see a lot more talk about, what are the different structures around the world? That’s why this conversation has been really wonderful to have. I’ve enjoyed both the joy and the ways people think about it, and really the kinds of things that change when you move to mandatory.

The last question we ask all of our guests is, if you could wave a magic wand and change one thing about how government works, what would you change?

Dr. Lisa Hill: Right now, I’d have truth in political advertising legislation everywhere at all times. I’d do something about disinformation, and at the same time, try and get the platforms in a stronger legal headlock. Because disinformation, as I said before, to me, this is the number one threat to democracy. Because through disinformation, this is where we get the polarization. This is where we get neo-Nazi parties actually being able to get a foothold.

Yes, I’d do something about disinformation, and I’d start with truth in political advertising for political actors and parties. That’s my wand. If you mean across the world; compulsory voting, get that.

[laughter]

Amanda Renteria: Something tells me I knew you were going to say that part.

[laughter]

Dr. Lisa Hill: Yes, it’s compulsory voting. I mean, what could possibly be wrong and lovelier than everybody voting in a democracy?

Amanda Renteria: I have wondered, though, when people hear compulsory voting, it might mean we need to call it something different. It might mean that we need a world party for voting. Something along those lines.

Dr. Lisa Hill: You’ve got that interest group you probably heard on America called 100% Democracy.

Amanda Renteria: Yes, I have.

Dr. Lisa Hill: It’s run by Miles Rapoport. I think that’s probably a better marketing. [chuckles]

Amanda Renteria: Yes, but whatever it is, it’d be fun to figure it out because I think that could catch on. If we just get the right names, perhaps that’s what we could do is-

Dr. Lisa Hill: Exactly.

Amanda Renteria: -finally, all of us at once, in the United States and around the world, all go vote. Maybe it’s actually a world party, which would be even better.

Dr. Lisa Hill: It’d be cool, wouldn’t it? Why don’t you lead it, Amanda? You’ve got the right look for it and the right rhetoric.

Amanda Renteria: [laughs] Let’s go. Listen, it’s been wonderful to have you here. I appreciate it. It was such an inspiration to talk about how voting happens in Australia.

Dr. Lisa Hill: My absolute pleasure.

[Music plays]

Amanda Renteria: There are a few things that really stuck with me after speaking with Lisa. First, that initial jump in turnout, when compulsory voting was introduced in 1924, from high 50s to over 90s, essentially overnight, and it stayed that way for a century. Still, there’s consistent iteration to get that percentage higher, whether that means strategically trying to find ways for unhoused and incarcerated folks to vote, or investing in research to see where the processes break down.

What also inspired me was how this mandate is enforced gently. Everything from moving voting day from a Tuesday to a Saturday and promoting postal voting, to those celebratory democracy hotdog stands, the positive reinforcement keeps driving voting success. Additionally, more inclusive and universal voting changes who politicians have to answer to.

Dr. Hill pointed to how compulsory voting correlates with less extremism and polarization. The system doesn’t just work in a vacuum. It must be championed in partnership with laws that keep corruption in politics at bay. Dr. Hill believes that the buck doesn’t just stop with compulsory voting, but that laws about campaign finance spending, truth in political advertising, and other similar regulations can bolster the integrity of the country’s electoral system.

I came away from our conversation feeling hopeful that an electoral process can inspire full participation and a sense of joy and pride all at the same time. That’s the kind of democracy I hope for, and I still believe is possible here in the United States too. That’s all for today on The Government Fix. Thank you for listening.

[Music plays]

Amanda: This podcast is brought to you by Code for America, the country’s leading civic tech nonprofit for over 15 years. We believe that government can work for the people, by the people, in the new digital age. We work with government at all levels across the country to make the delivery of public service better with technology. We partner with community organizations and governments to build digital tools, change policy, and improve programs. Our goal, a resilient government that works well for everyone. Learn more at codeforamerica.org. 

Want to learn more about how government can actually work for everyone? Like or subscribe to The Government Fix wherever you get your podcasts, or visit us at thegovernmentfix.org.  

If you liked what you heard and want to support our mission, visit codeforamerica.org/donate. We’re committed to building a future where government services are simple, accessible, and easy to use, just like you’ve been hearing about this season.

[Theme music fades out]