Voter turnout: the 6 states that rank highest, and why

Which state will have the highest voter turnout on Nov. 6?

On average, about half (51.6 percent) of eligible US voters cast ballots, but six states averaged more than 60 percent. The policies and attitudes in these states may hold lessons for those trying to get out the vote around the country.

2. Maine

Robert F. Bukaty/AP/File
Seth Blank seals an envelope containing his absentee ballot for the Nov. 6 election at the town hall in Cape Elizabeth, Maine, on Oct. 25.

Maine was the first state to institute same-day registration in 1973, which is a main reason for its 62.1 percent average turnout. But not all politicians support the policy.

Republicans in the state legislature amended the state’s voter registration laws, requiring that new voters register two business days before the election. Gov. Paul LaPage approved the amendment in June 2011.

But opponents of the amendment – forming the Protect Maine Votes coalition – worked to put a question on the 2011 referendum ballot, gathering more than 70,000 signatures in less than a month, according to the Bangor Daily News.

Question 1 on the referendum election ballot asked: “Do you want to reject the section of Chapter 399 of the Public Laws of 2011 that requires new voters to register to vote at least two business days prior to an election?”

Mainers voted 60 percent in favor of repealing the amendment, restoring the state’s same-day registration system.

“It’s not just a law,” says Eric Ostermeier of the University of Minnesota. “How the population defended same-day registration speaks to the culture in the state and its pride in high voter turnout.”

In addition to same-day registration, competitive gubernatorial races have also contributed to high voter turnout.

In the 2010 election, independent candidate Eliot Cutler narrowly lost to Governor LaPage. Mr. Cutler lost by 1.7 percentage points, or about 10,000 votes.

“Strong independent candidates in high-profile races are more competitive,” says Ostermeier. “A third-party candidate with a legitimate chance of winning brings out those voters who have been turned off by the increasing polarization of the two-party system.”

5 of 6

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.