In “the problem of low voter turnout,” how does the example of requiring voting
in australia the author to express the overall point of view and purpose of the
passage? support your answer with evidence from the text.

despite ever-escalating millions of dollars spent on political campaign expenses
by both major parties, voter participation in the united states continues to
decline. in the 1900 presidential election, for example, turnout was 73.2% of
eligible voters, while a century later, in 2000, that figure had dropped to 50.3%.
the conclusion is bleak: political ads and voter turnout drives are persuading
barely more than one half the electorate to vote. one astonishing consequence is
that a presidential candidate may well emerge the winner with the endorsement
of only one-quarter of the electorate at the ballot box.
nonparticipation in elections is most commonly attributed to voter indifference.
according to this theory, citizens have not only grown increasingly disappointed
by government (as shown by lamentably low approval ratings for such
governmental institutions as congress); they have also become convinced that
their participation is meaningless in effecting improvement or reform. apathy
has bred widespread inertia, with voters staying home in the millions on
election day.
the remedy for this state of affairs is not at all obvious. dramatic stories from the
history of the republic seem to have run their course. one may summon up vivid
tales, for example, of the sacrifices made by women, african americans, and
other groups so they could gain voting rights. one may point to the presidential
elections of 1800, 1876, 1960, and 2000, two of which were so close that they had
to be thrown into the house of representatives. or one may scan the votes for
and against ratifying the constitution: a surprisingly close shave in some of the
most important states, including massachusetts, with a vote of 187 to 168, virginia
(89–79), and new york (30–27). it would have taken fewer than 20 votes in these
three states to defeat adoption, resulting in all likelihood in a serious, perhaps
lethal, blow to the concept of a strong national government.
in contrast to such historical appeals, some political analysts favor consideration
of compulsory voting. invoking mandatory jury duty as a parallel, these observers
point out that no fewer than thirty-one countries have some form of mandatory
voting, with many of them backing up the legal requirement with some sort of
enforcement mechanism. two-thirds of latin american nations, for instance,
have adopted this model for their elections. perhaps the most culturally compatible system of required voting is that of
australia. instituted in 1924, after voter turnout had sagged to less than 60%, the
new australian election law produced stunning results, as participation rocketed
to 91%–a level it has maintained, or even bettered, right up to the present. fines
for nonparticipation are not severe, being equivalent to traffic tickets. however,
far from undermining democratic confidence, requiring people to vote seems
to have had at least three beneficial effects on the electorate: reinforcing the
two-sided principle of rights and obligations at the core of citizenship; enhancing
the system’s inclusiveness by smoothing the disparities that stem from income,
education, and age; and counteracting the increased polarization that results
from domination of lower turnout elections by hard-core advocates of
extreme positions.