The April 24 primary election saw just 23 percent of registered voters in Butler County turn out to cast a ballot. For decades, voter turnout has been declining across the United States and some observers find a connection between low voter turnout and heightened partisanship in Congress and state legislatures.

The theory is that in low- turnout elections, it’s mostly the hard core, or party faithful, who turn out to vote. These voters respond to candidates pushing more extreme or divisive positions on issues like abortion, immigration and gun control. They offer more red meat than practical solutions to problems.

This catering to the extremes has been made worse because many moderate voters are turned off and fed up with both parties and are not bothering to vote. The result is that the more extreme elements of both parties dominate elections, winning seats in Congress and state legislatures. Once there, they stick to hardened positions. They often reject compromise solutions because compromise can be targeted by a more hard-core candidate in the next election.

Norman Ornstein, writing in the New York Times, noted that many candidates use harsh and extreme language in appealing to each party’s base, which “does even more to turn off voters in the middle.”

Some observers believe that increased voter turnout would reduce partisanship by encouraging candidates to broaden their appeal and address concerns of the majority of Americans in the middle of the political spectrum.

But what can be done to get more people to vote?

In Australia, anyone who does not show up to vote, even if they select “none of the above,” is hit with a $15 fine.

Ten other countries have some form of compulsory voting.

Ornstein doubts mandatory voting could be approved in the U.S. But after watching the massive response to the latest Mega Millions lottery, he thinks there might be another way — make a voting stub a ticket for a special lottery.

Why not give this a try? State lotteries could introduce a special game in which proof of voting buys a chance to win $1 million.

Ornstein offers another idea: The voter registration rolls could be used to pick five or 10 winners for a multimillion-dollar jackpot held in conjunction with each election. But the prizes would only be given to those who voted.

If the lottery approach brings out more voters, there would doubtless be more voters with moderate views. That means more voters interested in budget deficits, education, transportation, energy policy — and fewer voters whipped into a frenzy over abortion or guns.

Candidates would likely respond with more moderate rhetoric that could, in turn, attract more voters interested in real solutions to serious problems instead of partisan rhetoric and rigid ideology.

Ornstein’s ideas to boost voter turnout should be given serious consideration. He writes, “The experience of countries like Australia shows that there is no real downside to having near-universal turnout. Enhanced voting in primaries, for example, would probably lead over time to fewer bomb-throwers and more problem solvers in state legislatures and in Congress.”

Given the ever-lower voter turnout numbers and the increasing evidence of dysfunction in Congress and state legislatures, the idea of offering incentives to get more people to vote is worth a try.

Having fewer bomb-throwers and more problem solvers in Congress and in Harrisburg would be a welcome change.