Answer:
Voter turnout in U.S. elections hardly inspires pride. The nation lags far behind most modern democracies in the percentage of its citizens who go to the polls. Even in presidential elections, only about 60% of voters show up; turnout for midterm elections is far lower — just 36% last fall.
Policymakers have tried for years to come up with ways to increase those numbers — early voting, same-day registration and voting by mail — but the impact has been small. President Obama provoked controversy last month when he mused about requiring Americans to vote, as is done in Australia and several other countries. The president was responding to a question about how to offset the effect of big money in politics. "That would counteract money more than anything," the president said.
In Australia, 90% of eligible voters go to the polls despite minimal enforcement. Registered voters who fail to vote get a form letter asking why; almost any excuse will do to get someone off the hook. Those with no valid excuse face a fine of about $20, which can escalate if someone refuses to pay, though that is rare.
But the idea is a non-starter in the defiantly individualistic U.S., for good reason: A nation predicated on personal freedom rightly forces its citizens to do only a very few things — pay taxes, serve on juries, educate children, be drafted and serve in some wars, and lately, buy health insurance.
Explanation: There's a compelling reason for each of those, but not to require people to vote. Low turnout, troubling as it is, doesn't pose an existential threat in a nation that has succeeded despite it, nor would forcing disinterested voters to the polls have much value.
If there is an exception, it's in local elections, for which turnout is generally dismal despite the high impact of local government.
