I’ve got a great idea on how to increase voter turnout in Hawaii: Ask voters whether the state should secede from the United States.

Think I’m crazy? Well, just look at Scotland: That country’s vote for independence set a record for turnout with 84.5 percent of registered voters.

According to the International Business Times, that was the best turnout “in any election held in the United Kingdom since 1918, when all adults were given the right to vote.”

It also beat the previous record of 83.9 percent in the United Kingdom’s general election of 1950, says the IBT.

OK, I’m speaking sorta tongue in cheek here. I realize the Hawaii Legislature would never place a secession question on the ballot.

Marching to the beat of their own drummer.

Flickr: Ronnie Macdonald

But, based on Scotland’s example, there is a good chance it would pique voter interest and draw people to the polls. At minimum, we’d easily surpass the dismal 41.5 percent turnout rate for the Aug. 9 primary.

It turns out that voters turn out on questions regarding joining, leaving or making peace with other countries.

For example, there was an 81.1 percent turnout for the 1998 referendum in Northern Ireland when voters approved the Good Friday Agreement to restructure government and address the relationship with England. Maltese voters showed up en masse in 2003 — 90.9 percent of them — to vote on joining the European Union. And a 1995 vote on Quebec independence from Canada saw a 93.5 percent turnout.

Record Turnout for Statehood?

A ballot question on Hawaii secession is not something out of the blue. There are Hawaiian nationalists who argue Hawaii was never actually annexed by the United States in the first place and is still an independent nation.

Meantime, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and Kanaiolowalu, a project of the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, is in the process of building a Hawaiian nation that would have a government-to-government relationship with the United States.

Scottish flags

Flickr: Matt Buck

There are also many opposed to Hawaiian self-determination who argue that the controversial matter should be put to a vote statewide, under the assumption that most people of all races and ethnicities living in Hawaii would elect not to dissolve statehood.

Speaking of statehood: The vote on the Admission Act of 1959 was approved by at least 93 percent of voters on all the major Hawaiian islands, said to be the highest turnout ever here.

I learned that from Wikipedia, so it must be true … although the same article on the Admission Act explains that, out of a total population of 600,000 at the time, there were just 155,000 registered voters, of whom 140,000 voted for statehood.

Lower the Voting Age to 16

Those numbers suggest the turnout back in ’59 was more like a pathetic 35 percent or so, according to The Statehood Plebiscite, which disputes even those numbers.

I can’t vouch for the authority of either that website or Wikipedia, but both illustrate that voter turnout is an important metric. Which leads me to another idea to increase Hawaii’s turnout: let 16- and 17-year-olds vote.

Think I’m crazy? Well, look closer at Scotland: That country’s vote for independence allowed a lower voting age than 18. Now there is talk of making the change permanent.

According to the BBC, former Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond (he resigned after the independence vote failed 55-to-45 percent) has called for the voting age in U.K. elections to be lowered to 16 by the 2015 general election. Labour leader Ed Miliband likes the idea, too.

The BBC says that supporters of the reduction argue that “16-year-olds can live on their own, get married, pay taxes and join the British army.” They also point to countries like Austria, Germany, Norway, Argentina and Brazil “where voting at 16 is common practice.”

Pay People to Vote

Here’s another idea to improve our turnout: money.

It’s illegal to pay people to vote. But the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission just last month voted to recommend that the City Council “look at using cash prizes to lure a greater number of people to the polls.”

According to the Los Angeles Times, the council “is seriously considering the use of financial incentives and a random drawing during its elections, possibly as soon as next year.”

American flags

Flickr: Ed Hewitt

The reason, says the Times, is that only 23 percent of registered voters cast ballots in last year’s mayoral election. Turnout in a special school board election in early August fell below 10 percent.

National columnist George F. Will says LA’s idea is “lame.”

“One suggested measure to conquer nonvoters’ lassitude is to create a special lottery and give everyone who shows up at the polls a chance to win, say, $100,000,” he opined just this week. “Lotteries thrive on the irrational hopes of people not thinking clearly about probabilities, which is why governments love lotteries to raise funds.”

I do agree about the irrational hopes of lottery gamblers. But I still think it’s a terrific way to get people to vote.

Sure, we’d have to legalize a form of gambling here, something that only we and Utah currently do not allow. But if we did, the civic duty of voting would have the added bonus of making some lucky voters as happy as Charlie when he discovers his Golden Ticket to Willa Wonka’s chocolate factory.

Make Voting Mandatory

One other idea to get people to the polls here: force them. Australia does; voting there is compulsory.

According to Australia’s election office, after each election, the Australian Election Commission will send a letter to all apparent nonvoters “requesting that they either provide a valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote or pay a $20 penalty.”

If Aussies fail to reply, or “cannot provide a valid and sufficient reason or decline to pay the $20 penalty, then the matter may be referred to a court. If the matter is dealt with in court and you are found guilty, you may be fined up to $170 plus court costs and a criminal conviction may be recorded against you,” according to the commission.

That’s a lot of money — about what it costs to get your towed car back from that towing service out on Sand Island.

There are pros and cons to Australia’s law, says the BBC. Some say it’s not democratic and it doesn’t really boost turnout, but others say it’s not that big of a burden and that Australia does indeed enjoy good voter turnout rates.

Here’s what The Economist says about the matter: “Nine out of ten Australian voters have trudged to the polls (or voted by post) in every federal election since 1925.”

Compulsory voting is not a new concept, according to The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance: “Some of the first countries that introduced mandatory voting laws were Belgium in 1892, Argentina in 1914 and Australia in 1924. There are also examples of countries such as Venezuela and the Netherlands which at one time in their history practiced compulsory voting but have since abolished it.”

Voting is also obligatory in most of Latin America. But there are exceptions to that rule, reports The Economist:

Illiterate people are excused in Brazil and Ecuador; soldiers are excluded in Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala and Lebanon. The elderly are off the hook in several countries. And in Bolivia, where voting is notionally compulsory, married people are enfranchised from the age of 18, whereas singletons must wait until they are 21.

We won’t let our kupuna skip voting; the Democratic Party of Hawaii would collapse. And we do exclude soldiers already, at least the ones who are stationed here temporarily.

But it seems weird that you have to be 21 to drink alcohol here but only 18 to vote. Because, believe me, after that crazy primary election, a lot of people needed to nurse a cold one. And Nov. 4 nears.