Election day is a celebration of American democracy and all the wonderful things that come with it, but it's also a good opportunity to reflect on where our complicated voting system needs work.

Here's a look at some of the biggest issues in our voting system, potential solutions from around the world and why we haven't implemented them.

Voter Registration

Voter registration numbers are abysmal in the US. According to Pew Research, only 71 percent of voting-age citizens were registered to vote in the 2012 presidential election. That's compared to 99 percent in Japan, 96 percent in Sweden, and 91 percent in Canada in their most recent national elections.

Why does the US struggle to get voters on the rolls? The United States is one of the only developed countries in the world that places the burden of registration almost completely on the individual voter. In a Brennen Center For Justice comparative study of democracies across the world, the US was one of only four countries that didn't proactively solicit or initiate voter registration.

&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;img src="http://static.digg.com/images/6ead9fb665a747ddb39eb332427941b3_49c1b40883744011baac8cd0587a9c84_1_post.png" alt="" /&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;

As The Brennan Center notes, voter registration in France and Argentina is essentially automatic, with election officials registering voters through the collection of data from other government sources, such as compulsory military draft registration or a national ID office. In Germany and Austria, voter lists are automatically generated from larger population databases, and inclusion is mandatory.

Such "ideal" systems aren't without blemish, however. Critics argue that the free transference of citizen info is a violation of privacy — that registering for one thing puts you on a list for another makes it easier for a government to keep tabs on its citizens.

Why Don't We Just Make It Automatic?

In the United States, five states (Oregon, California, West Virginia, Vermont, and Connecticut) have passed laws that mandate automatic registration when citizens go to the DMV. In a proactive step towards easier registration, but a far cry from automation, 39 states allow you to register online. This means, of course, that there are 11 states where you have to register through snail mail or in person) . North Dakota is the only state that bypasses the mess of voter registration. All you have to do to vote is show up with ID.

Despite making democratic sense, the desire to make voter registration easier isn't shared by everyone. Republican legislatures around the country have fought against automatic "motor voter" legislation, including when it was originally proposed on the federal level in 1990. Opponents argue that such laws increase the potential for voter fraud. Democrats insist that Republican opposition to increased voter registration is actually due to the fact that increased voting usually results in more progressive votes.

Outside of state governments, Democrats at the federal level are pushing for automatic universal voter registration when people turn 18. In August, Hillary Clinton spoke about her commitment to the spirit of The Voting Rights Act, and fight for automatic registration:

I believe America is stronger when we expand access to the ballot box, not restrict it. That's why I'll fight to repair the Voting Rights Act, expand early voting, and introduce universal, automatic voter registration.

Voter Turnout

So the US has trouble registering voters. It also struggles to get them to the polls. According to Pew Research, when it came to voter turnout in 2012 the US ranked 31st out of the 35 developed countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Only 55.1 percent of eligible voters cast a vote on Election Day, compared to 87.2 percent in Belgium and 82.6 percent in Sweden.

&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;img src="http://static.digg.com/images/d8b4f8a67aa54972bfb4454055dc8ba5_49c1b40883744011baac8cd0587a9c84_1_post.png" alt="" /&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;

So Why Don't We Just Make People Vote?

One easy way to increase voter turnout would be to make voting mandatory. In 26 countries around the world voting is compulsory. In most of these places, the law doesn't come with a strict penalty, just a $20 AUD fine in Australia — the equivalent of around $15 USD, but it does come with a marked impact. Atlantic writer Nicholas Stephanopoulos compared the turnout data between compulsory and voluntary voting countries and found that turnouts for compulsory nations remains high while rates for voluntary nations are in decline.

&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;img src="http://static.digg.com/images/be4865c495d74ababe99ea7397c50706_49c1b40883744011baac8cd0587a9c84_1_post.png" alt="" /&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;

The data is hard to argue with but again, conservatives fear that increased voter participation would benefit liberal candidates. A counter to that, Stephanopoulos points out, is that incumbent Democrats may also fear a large influx of new voters challenging their seats as well.

Conservative insecurities aside, the biggest obstacle to compulsory voting, as argued in the Harvard Law Review, is the perceived conflict between "individual liberty" and forced voting. While it may make sense to force people to vote, any law that requires participation is bound to come off as authoritarian in our freedom-loving culture.

This reflex was on display throughout the debate of the Affordable Care Act. Republicans and conservative theorists targeted 'the individual mandate,' which requires everyone to have some form of health insurance. As US Sen Orrin Hatch of Utah put it, the mandate was a matter of liberty:

Congress has never crossed the line between regulating what people choose to do and ordering them to do it … The difference between regulating and requiring is liberty.

If something as necessary as health insurance struck at peoples' core sense of liberty, you could only imagine what a discussion on voting would do.

Aside from the practicality of the policy, some argue that having more people vote is simply a bad idea. Damon Linker, a writer for The Week, argues that after the Citizens United ruling, adding more voters to the rolls wouldn't affect the results an election because those who aren't voting now are likely to be swayed by the influence of corporate cash anyway.

Political philosophers from Plato to Georgetown's Jason Brennan have argued against the democratic instinct itself, saying that most citizens are too uninformed to have a say in choosing a country's leadership.

Online Voting

If the US can't force people to vote, the second best option is to make voting as easy as possible. We can do everything from order a burrito to find love online, so why shouldn't we be able to vote over the World Wide Web?

One of the only countries that's adopted the practice is Estonia. Passed into law in 2005, the electorate has been able to cast their vote online in local and national elections — to mixed results.

So Why Don't We Just Start Doing It?

While the number of Estonians using the online system has increased consistently, the number of overall voters hasn't, with turnout fluctuating between 57 and 69 percent between 1995 at 2015.

Aside from potentially not actually getting more people to vote, online voting also comes with security concerns. While Estonia hasn't had any election hacking incidents, a team of independent experts observed the system in action and found shocking vulnerabilities. Additionally, IT experts recreated the system and were able to successfully install malware on the servers and change individual votes.

Despite these considerations, some US states have adopted the practice. The most progressive is Alaska, in 2012 they became the first state to allow all voters to submit absentee ballots online. In 31 other states, some individuals living abroad or serving in the military have the ability to absentee vote online.

After a real-life hack of their pilot program, Washington DC continues to use their online voting system, while others in the government have become more concerned over cybersecurity. After canceling a 2004 pilot of online voting, The Pentagon now doesn't have a stance, according to Politico. When they asked The Department of Homeland Security about their position on the matter they replied:

While the convenience of being able to cast a ballot electronically may be appealing, the potential benefits do not outweigh the serious risks associated with online voting…manipulation of votes and election results which may not be detectable before officials are sworn into office.

States like Michigan — where they still use paper ballots universally — remain extra careful about electronic voting, and after the high-profile hacks and cyberattacks of the last year.

Giving People Time Off To Vote

Every year in the US, Election Day is held on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November. And even though our country was founded on democracy, Election Day isn't considered a federal holiday — meaning that many people aren't given time off work to vote. This creates a voter turnout problem for all American voters.

In 2014, 69 percent of nonvoters claimed they had a school or work conflict, or were too busy to vote. For lower income individuals this can make voting much harder, since they're more likely to have multiple jobs and have less ability to make their own schedules. And evidence shows this is the case, with those making under $20,000 per year being 33 percent less likely to vote as those making over $100,000.

Why Don't We Just Give People The Day Off?

The solution is simple. Either make Election Day a federal holiday so people get off work, move election day to the weekend when people aren't working, or mandate that people get time off to vote.

In most countries around the world, elections take place over the weekend. In the European Union, elections occur on one of four days (Thursday through Sunday), with most countries holding elections on Sunday. In countries like Brazil if an election isn't on a weekend, it is declared a holiday. A 2000 study looked at turnout across the globe and projected if countries that vote on weekdays moved their elections to a rest day, turnout would increase on average by five to six percent.

While there is early voting in 43 states, seven states explicitly prohibit it — limiting voters to a single Tuesday — while others require an excuse or don't provide early voting dates on weekends.

So what's keeping us from moving elections away from Tuesday? The original 1845 reasoning — to accommodate the needs of those traveling to the polls by horse and buggy, for which it would take one days travel; to avoid interference with the sabbath; and to avoid "market day," when farmers brought their goods to market — doesn't really hold water anymore.

Again, it appears as if the driving force against change is politics. Prominent Democrats are generally supportive of reform, with President Obama expressing support for making Election Day a federal holiday and Bernie Sanders introducing a bill with that effect. But some prominent Republicans oppose the idea, such as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, who expressed no interest in the idea, saying that turnout is about the candidates.

Conservative pundits such as John Fund argue that making Election Day a holiday would encourage people to skip work on Monday. While some Republicans have celebrated the idea of early and weekend voting, Republican legislatures in Ohio and North Carolina have cut back on those allowances. Even though Republicans offer arguments about economics and voter fraud, many Democratic pundits believe that resistance to easier voting comes from the knowledge that citizens who would be helped by more accommodating laws would most likely lower-income Democratic voters, according to Pew Research. And some Republicans have even admitted that curtailing early voting is simply a method to restrict Democratic voting, says conservative pundit Phyllis Schlafly:

The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama's ground game. The Democrats carried most states that allow many days of early voting, and Obama's national field director admitted, shortly before last year's election, that 'early voting is giving us a solid lead in the battleground states that will decide this election.'

A Centralized Voting Authority

Compared to other developed countries, the US voting system is highly decentralized. In Sweden, the federal tax administration is responsible for communicating with local agencies to update voter rolls. In Australia, the national voter registration database is maintained by a federal government authority.

The Constitution says very little about the oversight and administration of elections, except that each state is generally responsible determining how to appoint electors to the electoral college. This provision has meant over time, each state, and more specifically counties and municipalities, have developed their own election laws and procedures — making the US election system highly decentralized.

In fact, not counting the laws and amendments that address the racist and sexist aspects of voting in America, such as the 15th, 19th, and 24th amendments, the federal government has only passed five laws which have made polling places accessible to the handicapped, allowed military personnel to vote, mandated voter registration lists and provided federal funding to assist in the administration pertaining to the administration of elections.

Decentralization exacerbates current problems in the system, such as disparate voter ID laws, voter machine discrepancies, and voter registration shortcomings, but also prevents the implementation of any of the solutions proposed above.

While there is precedent for the federal government to legislate parts of the administration of voting — pertaining to discrimination and the ability of those overseas to vote — the Constitution largely puts control in the states' hands.

As far as we can tell states like it that way. States have passed an array of conflicting laws pertaining to IDs, the ability of felons to vote and voting methodology. According to Ballotpedia, 31 states have passed various voter ID laws which they're currently defending in court. States also have different laws pertaining to voting and felons, as well as the use of different types of voting. The passage of these disparate and conflicting laws illustrates how states have taken advantage of the decentralized system, and also shows what a mess increased centralization would be.

&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;img src="http://static.digg.com/images/a4cdef152e90442f88149d16d35b6582_49c1b40883744011baac8cd0587a9c84_1_post.png" alt="" /&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;

While complete centralization of voting laws pertaining to things like ID and criminality seems far off given the current state of thigns, there is a strong movement to centralize the infrastructure of voting. In August, following the DNC hacks, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson told reporters that "we should carefully consider whether our election system, our election process is critical infrastructure, like the financial sector, like the power grid," suggesting the department's interest in overseeing election security.

In September, Rep Hank Johnson of Georgia introduced The Election Infrastructure and Security Promotion Act of 2016 and the Election Integrity Act to the House. The Election Infrastructure Act would classify voting tech as 'critical infrastructure.' Wired describes the proposal best:

Designating voting tech as critical infrastructure would allow DHS to directly oversee and standardize measures like voting machine testing and audit procedures.

[Wired]

The Election Integrity Act is the more controversial of the two, in that it would mandate which voting machines and procedures can be used and bought by states — primarily focusing on the interest of security. One of the many provisions in the bill would ban the connection of a voting machine to the internet:

In general.–No system or device upon which ballots are programmed or votes are cast or tabulated shall be connected to the Internet at any time.

The involvement of the Department of Homeland Security wouldn't come without its critics, though. In September, Louisiana Secretary of State Tom Schedler suggested that DHS oversight was unnecessary and unconstitutional — and that the DHS would be in over their heads. At a hearing of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Schedler said:

I don't mean to be flippant, but do we really want to create a new TSA of elections in this country?… A new postal service? I just don't think we need that. The Constitution says very vividly it's up to the states the time, place and manner in which we conduct elections. It is a Constitutional issue.

While the DHS's intentions are to increase faith and trust in the election system through centralization, it's unclear that it actually will. Despite repeated evidence that people trust paper ballots more than electronic voting machines, states have increased the use of electronic voting methods while decreasing paper methods (see the graph below) — indicating an impending fight when it comes to federal regulation of state methodology.

<img src="http://static.digg.com/images/5bcc6f57ec03467cb613865e7f4356f9_49c1b40883744011baac8cd0587a9c84_1_post.png" alt="" />

Additionally, a new wave of mistrust has accompanied this year's election. Alongside Donald Trump's frenzied calls of a rigged election, only 49 percent of voters feel "very confident" that their votes will accurately counted on election day compared to 62 percent confidence in 2004 and 57 percent in 2008. This decrease in trust also comes with a complete reversal in party breakup, with the once trustful Republicans converting to mistrust.

While the government may push to centralize aspects in the name of security and efficiency, they face an uphill battle when it comes to state politics and growing mistrust — seemingly driven by politics.