Turnout in the 2020 presidential election was exceptional — the 62.8% of voting age Americans who cast a ballot marked the highest level in decades. From an international perspective, however, this record participation looks less impressive. In a recent comparison of voter turnout in national elections in 49 countries, the U.S. was 31st, between Colombia (62.5%) and Greece (63.5%).
As (some) Americans head to the polls today, considering other models from around the world suggests several policies that could make American elections more democratic and fair.
Mandatory Voting
Voting has been mandatory in Australia for a century. Failure to vote results in a small fine, but there are carrots as well as sticks. For one thing, voting day is on a Saturday, decreasing the odds that work or school commitments will interfere. In a 2022 census survey, the most common reason given by registered American voters who did not vote was: “Too busy, conflicting work or school schedule.” Another Aussie inducement is the “democracy sausages” served with grilled onions and white bread and sold near polling places. Voter turnout in Australian elections is typically over 90%.
Roughly two dozen other countries around the world have some form of mandatory voting, and it has also attracted support throughout American history, including from former President Obama.
Democracy Vouchers
Even near-universal voting has limited value, however, if billionaires and corporations dominate campaigns through large donations. Kamala Harris has surpassed the record-breaking sum of $1 billion in campaign fundraising since the start of her presidential bid in July, while Donald Trump has raised hundreds of millions of dollars. Whatever your political views, American elections can feel like proxy wars between small groups of the very rich. Polling from Pew Research has found exactly that frustration: Since the 1970s, a majority of Americans have said that the government “is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves,” not for the benefit of all.
In 2015, Seattle became the first city in America to experiment with a uniquely participatory form of public financing for elections. Voters that year supported a “democracy voucher” program meant to make election finances more transparent and democratic. In 2024, voters in Seattle can receive two $25 vouchers to contribute to a candidate of their choice. Candidates must observe total spending limits for their campaign to be eligible for these funds.
Many countries have somewhat similar campaign finance regulations. France, Israel and the U.K. are among the countries that limit total campaign expenditures. Even with such limits, candidates who can attract large private donations still have an advantage. Combining expenditure ceilings with public reimbursements of campaign spending, as Italy, South Korea and Canada do, can shift power to a broader range of candidates. In the United States, the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allowed corporations and individuals to spend unlimited sums on elections. This controversial ruling would complicate efforts to reform campaign finance in the U.S.
Shorter Campaigns
Longer campaigns typically cost more money, so limiting their length is another way to curb the influence of money in politics. Many countries do just that. In the U.K., campaigns last for less than six weeks. In Japan, the campaign for the general election this fall lasted just 12 days. At over 100 days, Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign will still be quite short by modern American standards; Donald Trump announced his run almost two years before the November 2024 election.
Unusually long campaigns not only favor candidates backed by wealthy donors, they exact a psychological toll on the public. A recent survey by the American Psychological Association found that 69% of Americans feel the presidential election is a significant source of stress.
Eliminate the Electoral College
America’s Founding Fathers adopted the Electoral College system due in part to “the hurrying influence produced by fatigue and impatience,” according to James Madison. Another factor, as Alexander Hamilton wrote, was fear of men with “talents for low intrigue and the little arts of popularity,” who might beguile the population in contests decided by popular vote. The U.S. is the only democracy in the world today where candidates can lose the popular vote and still win the election.
Perhaps unsurprisingly for a system with origins in the method used to select emperors in medieval Europe, many people see the Electoral College as an outdated obstacle to a functioning democracy. According to a recent Pew survey, 63% of Americans want the person who wins the presidential election to be the candidate who wins the most votes.
At a fundraiser earlier this fall, vice presidential candidate Tim Walz agreed with the majority of Americans: “I think all of us know the Electoral College needs to go,” he said, though the Harris campaign later clarified that this was not its official position. And this strategic retreat was an understandable tactic; in a nation with almost 250 million eligible voters, they couldn’t afford to alienate anyone in an election that will likely be decided by thousands of votes in a few swing states.
