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.

Filling out the census is a duty we all must fulfill

BY ERIN K. O'NEILL

"Representation and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers. ... The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."  — Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States

You know you hang with nerds when filling out census forms is the talk of the town (it was all over my Twitter feed). The 10-question form arrived last week, and even after attempting to savor my first solo census experience, it took me all of five minutes. After all, there’s only one of me in my household. And I’m sure that by now my name, race, age and the fact that I rent my apartment are already back in the hands of the census people.

This is information that is not hard to find. And these are questions that have been asked of Americans every 10 years since our fine nation was formed — 2010's is one of the shortest forms in history (we don’t ask about slaves anymore).

“The genius of the Founders was taking a tool historically used for government oppression and making it a tool of political empowerment for the governed,” Census Director Robert M. Groves wrote on his official blog. “They accomplished that goal in 1790, and we’re about to continue that tradition in 2010.”

It’s Groves’ job to be pro-census. Complaints about an inflated budget of approximately $14.7 billion are not unfounded. But I happen to think the budget is justified, especially if Groves' claim of saving $85 million per 1 percent increase in U.S. households completing and returning the form is correct.

It is perfectly constitutional for the census to ask questions related to demography. It does not violate the Fourth Amendment (see Southern Texas district court case Morales v. Daily). In 1999, the Supreme Court went so far as to describe the census as the “linchpin of the federal statistical system … collecting data on the characteristics of individuals, households, and housing units throughout the country” (see the case Dept. of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives).  The idea that asking if citizens own their places of residence, or what races they identify with, qualifies as an invasion of privacy (if you consider the social construct of race to be an intrusive piece of data) is slightly absurd.

Moreover, the Department of Justice confirmed that not even the Patriot Act could override the confidentiality of the information gathered by the census. The government is less respectful in looking at what books you check out at the public library (see U.S. H.R. 3162, Public Law 107-56, Title II, Sec. 215.).

The census is the backbone of our representative democracy — not just a tool for states to pork-barrel the federal government (all members of Congress want more than their fair share of the $400 billion in federal appropriations sent to their districts based on the census). The writers of the Constitution said we needed two houses of Congress to balance the power of the more populous states with the smaller states. The makeup of the House of Representatives is absolutely dependent on the results of the census. It would follow that we need to know where the population resides. Not to mention, the requirement of a census is in the third paragraph of the Constitution — which implies that it’s pretty darn important.

Consider this a friendly reminder: Fill out your census form and send it in. It’s less painful than voting. Honest.

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, March 24, 2010.

NBC taking drama out of Olympics with delayed coverage

BY ERIN K. O'NEILL

I knew Lindsey Vonn won Olympic gold in the woman’s downhill ski hours before it aired in the perpetual present on NBC. I also knew Vonn crashed in the super combined way before NBC even pretended it happened. Sports are not fun to watch on tape delay, especially in the Internet age, where we technophiles are constantly jacked into a stream of news.

I would even go so far as to say that even if you are not emotionally attached to your laptop and Twitter feeds, there is no escaping dreaded Olympics results spoilers. Between word-of-mouth and incidental media consumption, news of the Olympics can't be avoided if you engage in the modern world.

NBC, the broadcast network home of America’s Olympic coverage for as long as I can remember (that would be the summer games of 1992 in Barcelona, Spain), has not adjusted at all to this new media landscape. Which is funny, considering NBC achieved the first live color television broadcast via satellite by airing the opening ceremonies of the 1964 Summer Olympics in Tokyo.

A typical prime time night of Olympics is a mixed bag of live and tape-delayed sports, with Bob Costas in a studio with a fake fireplace trying not to get excited when Dutch speed skaters beat Shani Davis. But most annoying, and not to mention borderline dishonest, is NBC’s insistence on not quite telling the viewer if the event is live or not. I was frankly unsure if Shaun “The Flying Tomato” White’s victory in the snowboard halfpipe was live until I heard some language that is sure-to-be FCC-fine-inducing.

The figure skating is sure to be shown live, and every now and again there is a small icon telling you the viewer that you're watching in real time. But the skiing, a glamorous and therefore prime-time worthy sport, takes place during the day in Vancouver, B.C., and if you just watched the nightly NBC Olympic telecast, you would have no idea. Perhaps daylight is a dead give away on TV, but if you're watching ski jumping at 7 p.m. CST, it is 5 p.m. in Vancouver and before sunset. There is no acknowledgment that the sporting events being shown took place hours before. Full and constant disclosure of whether the event is live or tape delayed is crucial.

Sports are inherently dramatic. And NBC is killing it. There is no suspense, no drama, no thrill of the win and no urgency when most of the audience already knows the results. The disconnect between the audience and the broadcast presentation is a serious detriment to the coverage.

I get the appeal, for NBC, of having prime events in prime time. But that is a very old media approach. And sure, even if I already knew Vonn bit the big one in the super combined, I still want to see it happen (and even in prime time). NBC Universal has tons of networks between its free-to-air and cable television holdings, and the potential to have beyond amazing Olympic coverage. What if skiing was shown live in the morning on CNBC or MSNBC, with a highlight reel in prime time? Or what's wrong with showing live events on NBC itself; can’t “Days of Our Lives” have two weeks off every two years? I am infinitely frustrated when I turn my TV to NBC to see soap operas when a real-life athletic soap opera is going on, unseen by American eyes.

The Internet could be utilized to a much greater effect. For the Vancouver games, NBC is live-streaming all of the hockey and curling and offering replays of other events. But frankly, the video site is much like the broadcast production: flashy and confusing. And the video player made me download a new piece of software. The site lacks the simplicity and elegance of Hulu, a free Internet TV site, also owned by NBC Universal.

The Olympics are the most exciting sporting event in the world, with only the possible exception of the FIFA World Cup. One Olympic flame; two weeks; 82 countries; and 258 gold, silver and bronze medals to be won. This is the stuff that dreams are really made of.

If only NBC treated it that way.

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

Published in the Columbia Missourian on Wednesday, February 24, 2010.

Statistics show progress, 'Pride and Prejudice' in the women's movement

BY ERIN K. O'NEILL

“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.” ~Jane Austen, "Pride and Prejudice," 1813.

Some interesting statistics came out last week regarding the strides women have made as economic forces in marriage.  “A larger share of men in 2007, compared with their 1970 counterparts, are married to women whose education and income exceed their own ... A larger share of women are married to men with less education and income,” according to the study “Women, Men and the New Economics of Marriage" from the Pew Research Center.

The study found that among American men and women ages 30 to 44, 22 percent of married men had wives who made more money in 2007, as compared to just four percent in 1970. The study also found in 2007, 19 percent of married women had husbands with more education, while 28 percent of wives had husbands with less education.

It may not seem revelatory today that women have gained so much ground from 1970 to 2007.  Of course, to truly understand the current economics of gender roles and marriage, we must look to the past. Before the Women's Movement of the 20th Century, the economic progress toward equality for women in marriage was tortoise-like.

To wit, I offer the case of Miss Jane Austen, whom published four novels from 1811 to 1817, and two novels posthumously in 1818. Miss Austen’s six novels centered around maintaining England’s social structure through marriage. While political action takes place off stage in the novels, the Napoleonic wars, the War of 1812 and the establishment of a regent at the head of the monarchy, were all causes of domestic unrest in Austen’s lifetime.

But, the “truth universally acknowledged,” is that young women were seeking a single man of good fortune in order to secure their own economic and social security (not the other way around; Miss Austen is a noted ironist). A woman could not inherit money or property, and upon marriage any assets she may possess became property of her husband. Divorce was nearly impossible, and mothers had no custody rights.

It is very little coincidence that many of the marriages in Miss Austen’s novels are not only for love or passion, but are also financially advantageous for the woman. After all, Mr. Darcy is worth ten-thousand pounds per year (the equivalent of $6 million today), while Elizabeth Bennet’s family is in danger of losing their land because the family had no male heir.

All of Miss Austen’s novels tend to paint a rosy interpretation of the marriage state in the nineteenth century. It helps that Hollywood and the BBC have made a specialty of filming these stories so they are particularly attractive to modern women; after all, Miss Austen was the originator of the RomCom. But modern audiences tend to lose sight of the basic fact that it was once a woman’s only destiny to be a man’s possession.

Miss Jane Austen’s world is fascinating, but it would be badly done to foster any desire to emulate it.

Which is why the statistics on modern marriage are so telling. Laws guaranteeing equality in heterosexual marriage have been established—it has been generations since a woman has been considered the property of her husband. But this change in law didn't have nearly the material effect on the economic power of women in marriage as a sea-change in cultural expectations. Once the popularly-held belief that a woman's sole purpose was to be a man's wife was expunged, rapid progress has been made.

“This reshuffling of marriage patterns from 1970 to 2007 has occurred during a period when women’s gains relative to men’s have altered the demographic characteristics of potential mates,” the Pew Research Center reported. Americans are marrying less, and at later ages, and more women are now graduating from university than men. The strides women have made in education certainly account for much of the economic gain, with and without marriage vows.

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

Published in the Columbia Missourian on Wednesday, February 10, 2010.

Benefits of constant media use far and few between

BY ERIN K. O'NEILL

We live in a media age. The young folks are submerged in a complex media landscape that involves being constantly connected to the Internet. Americans aged 8 to 18 years old spend more than 7 1/2 hours a day in front of a screen, be it television, computer, iPod or smart phone.

Ever watched TV and surfed the web at the same time?  According to the Kaiser Family Foundation study, since more than one medium is being used at a time, a person can actually pack in close to 11 hours of media and Internet time per day.

The Millennial Generation, or those among us who are somewhere between adolescence and late twenty-something, modus operandi is to be hyper-connected all the time. If I am in front of a computer I am also logged into Facebook, Twitter and  both of my e-mail accounts (at least). I often boot up my computer as soon as I wake in the morning, and it stays on and open until I go to sleep at night — closing only when I need to relocate to another class or Internet connection.

I have been wondering lately, however, if this normalization of absurd amounts of screen time is all that good. Sure, there are benefits to online attachments. I can find academic articles in moments for classes, and it saves paper to use electronic textbooks and consume news media online. I also talk to my sister a lot more often than I did before we were both on Facebook. But in all honesty, I am not doing any of these laudable things in 95 percent of my time connected to the web.

For example: have you seen Go Fug Yourself? Two chicks in LA make very snarky fun of terrible celebrity fashion. Could there be a more sublime time waster? Or, when I’m not spending time reading Texts From Last Night, where unfortunate text messages are revealed, I am perusing Overheard in the Newsroom, where journalists' unfortunate conversations are posted. I have more than one list of bookmarks in my net browser, organized by category, where more gems of worthless time suck can be found.

Maybe I just need some new blogs to destroy my days with, but this endless Internet routine is just plain boring. Nothing really exciting happens on the Internet — my friends make meaningless observations on Twitter, I get slews of emails from MU administration, and I obsessively read the New York Times (and not usually the really newsy part).

There is a social pressure not only to be constantly connected but also to be constantly seeking stimulation. There is no just having a coffee, you must be online and having a coffee, or texting and having a coffee. It is infinitely frustrating to want to sit and read a book but feel the necessity to check in online every hour. Nothing is really happening, no one said anything that can’t wait until the book is read, but it is imperative to be present online.

The Internet age has many advantages. An entire generation of Americans is dependent on portable communications devices to stave off the smallest amounts of ennui. The philosophical standard for existence is no longer “cogito, ergo sum” (not that this standard was ever the final word on the proof of existence). We now subscribe to: I am online, therefore I am.

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

Published in the Columbia Missourian on Wednesday, January 27, 2010.