Here's some ideas to make the Illinois primary a bigger draw for voters

No matter your views on the results of the March 19 primary election, there’s one eye-opening take-away that demands action: the abysmal turnout of just 1 in 5 eligible voters.

Blame it on general voter apathy, lack of competition in the presidential race — a Biden vs Trump rematch has been a foregone conclusion for weeks — chilly weather or something else. But Tuesday’s 20.24% citywide turnout was a glaring example of the political reality that primary elections just don’t draw enough voters. Despite critical races at the congressional, county and local level, turnout fell far short of the level that anyone who cares about democracy and civic engagement would hope for.

Not moved by high-brow arguments about democracy? We'll put it more bluntly: Not voting is another way of saying you’re cool with letting other people make decisions for you.

It's great for Illinois to be a model for voting access. It's even better if our state can become a model for voter participation.

One suggestion we've heard would be to move the Illinois presidential primary to Super Tuesday to pique voter interest. Given Illinois' large, diverse population, why shouldn't our state be in the thick of things and play a bigger role in determining party nominees while races are still mostly up in the air?

“Competition is a big driver of turnout, ” as Deb Otis of the nonpartisan reform organization FairVote pointed out to us.

A switch would mean Illinois voters casting their ballots in February or March, a potential drawback. The potential for bad weather was one reason lawmakers voted in 2010 to move Illinois’ primary back to the third Tuesday in March, a schedule that had been in place since the 1970s until the short-lived change to February in 2007.

But weather shouldn't be an excuse. It makes sense for lawmakers to consider the idea.

Up next: Ranked choice voting

At the extreme of systemic reforms is compulsory voting, which Australia and a small number of other countries have adopted. Supporters say that government gains legitimacy when more people vote, and that voting is an important civic responsibility, not just a right. Critics point out that freedom is central to democracy — and freedom includes the right, however much others might disagree, not to vote.

According to a Pew Research poll from May 2021, two-thirds of respondents in Germany, France and the United Kingdom said it is "very" or "somewhat" important for the government to make voting mandatory. Just 51% of Americans said the same. Count us among the 49% who are opposed to the idea.

A reform that we strongly support is ranked choice voting, which two states — Alaska and Maine — and 50 municipalities have adopted, including New York City, Salt Lake City and San Francisco. Evanston voters passed a referendum in favor of ranked choice voting for their municipal elections in 2022. In November this year, voters in Oregon and Nevada will decide whether to adopt RCV, and the idea has earned bipartisan support among voters in states and municipalities as varied as Virginia; Utah; Santa Fe, New Mexico; and Minneapolis.

“It’s the fastest-growing reform in the country so far,” Otis said.

An Illinois task force is expected to issue a report soon on how to potentially implement ranked choice voting in our state’s presidential primary in 2028. We urge legislators, policy makers and election officials to consider RCV for state, county and local elections as well.

Ranked choice voting could potentially do more than boost engagement and turnout. It could reduce partisanship and negative campaigning; give candidates of color more opportunities to win public office; encourage more candidates to run; reduce "strategic voting" for candidates that are less preferable but more likely to win; and provide other benefits, according to the group Better Elections for Illinois, which is advocating for ranked choice voting.

With ranked choice voting, voters rank candidates in order of preference, which ensures that people can support long-shot candidates without fear that they’re wasting a ballot. Candidates with the least support are eliminated in successive rounds of vote-counting, so only candidates with broad support end up winning — which supporters say eliminates “crazies” at the furthest ends of the political spectrum.

There are other reforms worth considering, such as cumulative voting, which Illinois used for state House races until 1980. With cumulative voting, voters cast as many votes as there are seats. But unlike winner-take-all systems, voters are not limited to one vote per candidate. Instead, they can put multiple votes on one or more candidates, which, among other benefits, allows voters who are in the minority to pool votes on one candidate to boost his or her chances of winning election.

These are all reforms Chicago and Illinois could consider to flip the script and turn apathy into engagement.

The Sun-Times welcomes letters to the editor and op-eds. See our guidelines.

The Democracy Solutions Project is a collaboration among WBEZ, the Chicago Sun-Times and the University of Chicago’s Center for Effective Government, with funding support from the Pulitzer Center. Our goal is to help listeners and readers engage with the democratic functions in their lives and cast an informed ballot in the November 2024 election.