Voter suppression
Voter suppression is the discouragement or prevention of specific groups of people from voting or registering to vote. It is distinguished from political campaigning in that campaigning attempts to change likely voting behavior by changing the opinions of potential voters through persuasion and organization, activating otherwise inactive voters, or registering new supporters. Voter suppression, instead, attempts to gain an advantage by reducing the turnout of certain voters. Suppression is an anti-democratic tactic associated with authoritarianism.
The tactics of voter suppression range from changes that increase voter fatigue, to intimidating or harming prospective voters.
Impact
Some argue the term 'voter suppression' downplays the harm done when voices are not reflected in an election, calling for terms like 'vote destruction' that accounts for the permanence of each vote not being cast. Making it harder to vote for people who have been given the right, can lead to voter fatigue. Skewing the electorate jeopardizes the wisdom of the crowd, and the decision-making benefits it brings. Suppression does not require intent. Analyzing the turnout of eligible voters provides a partial way to study cumulative voter suppression impacts under specific conditions, though other avenues such as election subversion, gerrymandering, and corruption, cannot always be captured by voter turnout metrics. Additionally, some of the rules that end up suppressing votes can also be used as a pretext for throwing out votes, even when voter fraud is extremely rare.By type
Ballot design
A half-million Americans had their votes disqualified in 2008 and 2010 due to ballot design issues, including confusing instructions. The order of politicians on the ballot can also give one candidate an edge, while the length of a ballot can overwhelm voters, pushing them from the electorate for some or all races and increasing the wait times in lines for in-person voters.Day-of experience
Requiring people to travel long distances and/or wait in long lines, for example, suppresses voter turnout. Some parties in Europe that have less support among expats have made it much more difficult for them to cast ballots by removing vote by mail options, forcing some to travel hundreds of kilometers.Weekend, also contributes to higher turnout than weekday voting, maybe even more than having Election Day as a recognized holiday. A study in the UK found that when the sun sets later in the day, turnout tends to improve. In some countries elections are held over two or more days.
The Cost of Voting Index estimates how much more difficult the voting experience is on average in states around the U.S. 78% of respondents in one preferred vote-by-mail to voting in-person.
Frequent elections
Frequent elections increase the amount of time and attention required of voters, typically leading to lower turnout among certain types of voters. Two-round elections, recall elections, and off-year elections are some examples of elections that contribute to voter fatigue. For example, Japan, Switzerland and the United States have the lowest voter turnout rates among developed countries due to holding frequent elections.Identification
In the United States, photo identification requirements may suppress some voters, which may disproportionately affect the young, lower-income people, lesser educated people, Hispanic people, and younger white people. The Center for Democracy and Civic Engagement at The University of Maryland estimates that 15% of adult American either lack driver's licenses or state IDs or have IDs that may not meet strict photo ID voting law requirements. This is not an issue in countries that issue ID cards to all citizens.Again in the United States, the American Civil Liberties Union has argued that the implementation of signature-matching processes for mail-in ballots can suppress voters, and especially people with disabilities, trans and gender-nonconforming people, recently married women, people for whom English is a second language, and military personnel.
Information warfare
, disinformation, and the platforms that are incentivized to boost half-truths and lies are forms of information warfare that can be used to confuse, intimidate, or deceive voters. When misinformation and disinformation is amplified by the laundering of foreign money through domestic nonprofit organizations or other allied domestic actors, charges of treason can be brought against these actors for colluding with a foreign power.Common examples include undermining journalism, academia, political speech and other fundamental exchanges of ideas and information. Free or low-cost sources of information, such as through libraries, schools, nonprofits, public media, or open-source projects, have historically supported this key democratic prerequisite. For example, two-thirds of U.S. college students in one study cited a lack of information as a reason for why they did not vote.
Intimidation and violence
Intimidation can result from the presence of cameras or guns at polling places to ballots that may not be secret. Following-through on threats by physically harming or killing people can severely deter voter participation.Registration or enrollment
is an extra step in the election process creates extra work for voters, especially those who move often and are new to the system, thereby suppressing their votes. Registration has been the number one reason why citizens in the US do not vote, which is why most democracies automatically enroll their citizens. Same-day registration is another tool to make registration less of a barrier. In addition, the existence of the process itself opens up more opportunities to make the process intentionally difficult or impossible, including aggressive voter roll purges. The Cost of Voting Index quantifies some of the differences in voter registration experiences in US states.Party membership requirements
Another example where registration can suppress votes is requiring a declared party preference, which is required in closed primaries in the United States for example, dissuading voters who do not want to declare a party preference in order to weigh-in on who represents them. Open primaries allow anyone to vote regardless of party preference or affiliation. In some more authoritarian states, loyal party membership may be required to have a say, or even basic rights and privileges.Voter apathy
Voters may be discouraged from voting by weak cultural norms around voting. Countries without universal voting signal that voting is unimportant. A voting culture can be developed by reinforcing how voting is valued, expected and a centerpiece of a place's culture, as peer pressure and a sense of belonging are powerful incentives to do something collectively.Some proposals for reform include requiring that every selection have a 'none of the above' option, allow a wide range of valid excuses for not voting for conscientious objectors, and charging a low, non-compounding, non-criminal fee for those who do not vote or select a valid reason.
Wasted votes
systems, are especially vulnerable to weakening and wasting certain votes year after year. This phenomenon also suppresses turnout for that and other elections help simultaneously in states that are not competitive, suppressing the popular vote for president in the US, for example, while lowering turnout in a host of other contests. In contrast, a parliamentary system typically significantly reduces wasted votes, helping to ensure more vote equality and encouraging greater overall participation.Ballot referendum can also be a powerful avenue for changing political systems, for example, that are not as responsive to voters due to gerrymandering or other anti-democratic actions and policies.
By country
Australia
are expected to enroll to vote, and it is their responsibility to update their enrollment when they change their address. Even so, an estimated 6% of eligible Australian voters are not enrolled or are enrolled incorrectly. They are disproportionately younger voters, many of whom might neglect to enroll when they attain voting age.In 2006, the Howard government legislated to close the electoral roll much earlier once an election was called than before. Previously, voters had been allowed seven days of grace after an election had been called to arrange or update their enrollment, but new voters were now allowed only until 8:00 p.m. on the day that the electoral writ was issued to lodge their enrollment form, and those who needed to update their addresses were allowed three days. In Australia, the Prime Minister effectively has the right to determine the date of the election as long as constitutional rules regarding the maximum term of the parliament are adhered to. That measure was therefore likely to result in many newer voters being precluded from voting in the first election for which they were eligible because the time to arrange their enrollment once an election is called had been greatly reduced.
The measure was widely seen as an attempt at voter suppression aimed at younger voters since surveys had shown that younger voters are more likely than the general population to vote for the Australian Labor Party or the Greens than Howard's Liberal Party. The government denied that it was trying to suppress some voters and insisted that the purposes of the reform were a smoother administration of the elections and the reduction of the possibility of electoral fraud. However, the Australian Electoral Commission had requested no such reform, there had been no evidence of significant electoral fraud, and the Australian Electoral Commission had been dealing with hundreds of thousands of late enrollments without significant problems for decades.
In July 2010, the left-wing lobby group GetUp! launched a challenge to the law. The High Court of Australia expedited the hearing so that a ruling could be made in time for the 2010 federal election. The majority ruling struck down early closing of the roll and reinstated the old rule allowing voters seven days grace to arrange or update their enrollment.