|
One of the greatest points of pride for many Americans is our nation’s position as the longest-lasting continuous democracy in the world. The essence of democracy is the “consent of the governed,” and that requires wide participation by the people whom the government is elected to represent.
The responses to November’s election nationally and in Connecticut among election observers were generally celebratory because voter participation was higher than in comparable elections in the past. From a democratic perspective, however, that applause should be far more muted.
Consider some of the national turnout figures in races that were closely followed: Virginia saw 53.3% turnout. New Jersey reached 54%. New York had 39.9%. And in the California Proposition 50 election, turnout was 47.1%. We would argue that these figures are far lower than what a truly inclusive democracy should achieve.
And Connecticut? According to the Secretary of the State’s results for the municipal elections, the statewide participation rate was 36.4%. Are these results emblematic of a healthy democracy? Should we be satisfied with those numbers? Is this the best we can do? We think the answer is clearly, no.
Let’s dig deeper into several municipalities. While Greenwich reached 47.36% turnout and Westport 49.84%, Norwalk was 37.43%, Stamford 33.42%, and Bridgeport was 14.78%. These figures should offer scant encouragement about the state of voter participation in Connecticut.
How can a government be representative if only 15% of residents in our most populous city are voting?
Even in smaller communities, turnout numbers were similar. I represent the 135th District, which includes Easton, Weston, and Redding. In the November 2025 election, Redding reported 34.91% turnout, Weston reached 41.60%, and Easton had the highest rate at 58.44%. We are proud of that progress, but we also know we can do better and must partner with a more engaged public.
There are policies or practices in other states, and in other countries, that can dramatically improve participation; the General Assembly has an opportunity to explore them in depth this year.
SB 395, which recently passed out of committee, would create a task force to examine how Connecticut could move toward close to 100% participation in elections. At a public hearing last Friday, sixteen people and organizations testified in support of the bill.
One aspect of the task force’s charge would be to study jurisdictions where voting is treated as a required civic duty.
Twenty-six democratic countries around the world use some form of “universal voting.” Thirteen of them are our Latin American neighbors, from Mexico to Chile to
Uruguay. Belgium was the first country to adopt universal voting, in 1893. A remarkable example is Australia, which adopted universal voting in 1924 and has had turnout above 90% in every national election since. In its most recent election, turnout among registered voters was 90.7%.
Australia’s century of experience shows that when people are expected to vote, the entire political culture benefits.
Participation increases dramatically, especially among communities that historically vote at lower rates. As a result, the electorate becomes far more representative of the population.
People also pay more attention to elections, and civic institutions adapt. Schools, for example, place greater emphasis on civic education when every graduating senior will soon be expected to participate in elections.
Polarization may also decrease when everyone votes. Candidates and parties must appeal to a broader range of voters, making campaigns more inclusive and representative of the majority. In Australia, election day has become a celebratory civic event. Polling places serve as gathering spots, often featuring the famous “democracy sausage” stands. On the first day of early voting in Easton last fall, we even held a dance party outside the polling place.
Universal voting is beginning to receive more serious discussion in the United States as well. In addition to the proposal here in Connecticut, legislation exploring the idea has been introduced in Washington State, Utah, New York, Massachusetts, and Illinois.
There are, of course, pros and cons to any policy that proposes changes to voting procedures. Ideas borrowed from other states or other countries deserve thoughtful study and open debate before adoption. That is precisely the purpose of a task force: to convene experts and community voices, evaluate the evidence, and make recommendations to the legislature and the public.
Connecticut has an excellent opportunity during the 2026 legislative session to advance this conversation and significantly improve voter participation.
We urge the legislature to debate and pass this bill this year. By doing so, we can move closer to “a more perfect Union” by finding creative and effective ways to strengthen our civic responsibility to vote, and to ensure that our government truly reflects the will of the people.
|
