Compulsory voting for all

BY ERIN K. O'NEILL

Voting in federal elections should be compulsory for all eligible Americans above the age of 18. It should be illegal to not vote. Citizens should be made to vote. Not enough citizens are exercising their constitutional rights and voting.

Compulsory voting is not a popular idea. In 2004, an ABC News poll showed that 72 percent of Americans opposed requiring citizens to vote. It was also reported that Americans were similarly averse 40 years ago, when 69 percent of Americans voted nay to mandatory voting. Apparently, it would be too corrosive to our freedoms.

Although voter turnout increased by 5 million in 2008 compared to 2004, the actual percentage of eligible voters who voted remained the same: 64 percent. The 2008 elections saw increases in turnout among black, Hispanic and Asian voters, as well as voters aged 18-24, but turnout decreased or was stagnant among other demographic groups.  This may be considered an improvement from the 2000 elections, when overall voter turnout was 55 percent.

No matter how you slice it or spin it, 64 percent is not enough.

There are 21 nations worldwide that make voting in national elections mandatory for most people, according to the CIA World Factbook. Some of these nations include Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Egypt, Greece, Lebanon, Mexico and Thailand. It’s an eclectic list, including many South American countries.

Australia, my favorite nation and continent, made voting in federal elections mandatory in 1924. The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the federal Australian law in question, states: “It shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election.”

It was a fast road to compulsory voting for Australia. First, they made voter registration compulsory in 1911, and then the Australian state of Queensland made voting obligatory in state elections in 1915. Other states followed Queensland’s lead: Victoria in 1926; New South Wales and Tasmania in 1928; and Western Australia and South Australia in 1942.

Voter turnout in Australia has been above 90 percent in every federal election since 1924. In 2004, Australia’s federal election had a turnout of 94.34 percent. The rates of voter registration, called “enrollment” down under, are consistently above 95 percent. In 2004, of the 13,098,461 enrolled Australian voters, 12,354,983 turned in ballots.

Australia’s total population was 21,262,641 in July 2009. To have over 12 million citizens vote in an election in such a small country is remarkable. Out of the 21 countries that theoretically mandate compulsory voting, Australia is actually one of the few to actually enforce the law. There are small fines for not enrolling if a citizen is eligible, and the fine for not turning up to vote or turn in a ballot by various other means is $20 Australian, or $18.30 in U.S. dollars.

High voter turnout is not the only advantage of compulsory voting. For example, enacting compulsory voting in the U.S. could turn political dialogue away from the extremes of all sides. Political candidates could focus on persuading voters on the issues, and not spend all their time pandering to special interests and political bases in an effort to get people to the polls.

Moreover, incidents of voter disenfranchisement and voter suppression, in its many nefarious forms, could potentially become a thing of the past. Many cases of voter intimidation have been aimed at minorities and low-income areas, where voter turnout is usually lower anyway. Compulsory voting could have the ability to override these attempts to suppress voter turnout, making voting more accessible.

The Constitution of the United States requires citizens to pay taxes and submit census forms. We have laws that require children to attend school, and we require the fulfillment of jury duty. Voting is possibly the most important of these civic duties — and one that is constantly taken for granted by Americans. Making voting compulsory is not a detriment to our freedom; it is a method of increasing it.  A government that more accurately reflects the will of the people, and not just the people with the means and motivation to vote, would benefit us all.

Erin K. O'Neill is a former assistant director of photography and page designer for the Missourian. She is a master's degree candidate at the Missouri School of Journalism.

Published in the Columbia Missourian on Wednesday, April 7, 2010.

Health care’s better Down Under

BY ERIN K. O'NEILL

I have one overarching life philosophy: When in doubt, do as the Australians do.

The Aussies have fashioned themselves a very nice, if not perfect, health care system.  It merges the benefits of a government-run universal insurance and care scheme with the flexibility and choice of private insurance rather successfully.

The news media on this side of the Pacific Ocean have obsessed over the process of passing American health care reform through Congress but not the details of the actual bill. President Barack Obama’s remarks of late have been platitudes about lowering costs, giving everyone preventative care and stopping insurance discrimination for preexisting conditions. These are not things to which anyone objects. But how we are to accomplish these things is left unsaid in the debate.

So I propose we look to the Southern Hemisphere. According to World Health Organization statistics, the total Australian health care cost in 2006 was $3,316* per capita. Comparatively, the U.S. spent $6,714 per capita on health care in 2007. Meanwhile, Australia also enjoys a lower per capita government expenditure on health care: $2,227 in 2007, as compared with $3,074 in the U.S.

Medicare Australia is the government universal health insurance program.  Australians enjoy this lower expense through a network of public hospitals, which are free for all Aussies. Australian Medicare also subsidizes medical specialists, general practitioners, and prescriptions, dentists and participating optometrists. This is paid for by a 1.5 percent income-tax levy.

Australian Medicare also strongly encourages those who can afford it to buy their own private health insurance. Anyone who buys private health insurance is entitled to a 30 percent rebate from the government. And then there is the Medicare levy surcharge, to encourage better-off Aussies to buy private hospital insurance. So singles who make more than about $58,100 per year or families that make more than $124,500 per year can either buy enough private insurance or pay a 1 percent additional tax for Medicare.

Conversely, Australians with an income of less than $14,800 don’t have to pay the Medicare tax, and those under $17,400 pay a reduced tax. There are also reductions for seniors and pensioners. But everyone gets basic Medicare, regardless of income.

And because everyone gets Medicare, private health insurers need to stay competitive. The largest private health insurer, Medibank Private, is actually owned by the government but is subjected to the same regulations as non-government owned health insurance companies. A few health insurance providers in Australia, such as GHMBA and HCF, are even nonprofit.

The private and public health insurance systems working in tandem provide cheaper health care that avoids many of the common complaints about “socialized” universal health care. Because the wealthy are so strongly encouraged to have private health insurance, there are rarely wait times for procedures. And since all Australians are in Medicare, it’s good, efficient and cost-effective health care. While the government won’t cover everything — the basics are taken care of and subsidies keep patients' costs down — what isn’t covered isn’t all that costly.

I have lived in Australia and used its health care system. I had to buy international student health insurance through Medibank Private. I needed doctors to re-issue my American prescriptions, to update my tetanus vaccination and to fix a dislocated knee. The system works, in practice, much like the American system for those who have good health insurance. Only, instead of just working that way for the insured, it works that way for everyone.

It’s a good system. I suspect it’s such a good one because with the jellyfish, crocodiles, sharks, funnel web spiders, dingoes, six of the ten most poisonous snakes in the world and a giant hole in the ozone layer, Australia is hazardous to your health. But our fair American congressmen and congresswomen should take a lesson from the Lucky Country: Health care is better there, and America would do well to emulate it.

*All dollar amounts have been converted to U.S. dollars.

Erin K. O'Neill is an assistant director of photography for the Missourian and a master's degree candidate at the Missouri School of Journalism. She has lived in Australia on two occasions, for a year as a Rotary Youth Exchange Student during high school and a semester abroad in college.

Published in the Columbia Missourian on Saturday, August 1, 2009.