Voter turnout

Voters lining up outside a Baghdad polling station during the 2005 Iraqi election.

Voter turnout is a measure of the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in any given election. Almost all political scientists feel that high turnout is desirable in a democracy, but there is much debate over the factors that affect turnout. Different countries have very different average voter turnouts, with the United States, for instance, having a turnout more than 30% below Germany. These differences are believed to be caused by a mix of cultural and institutional factors.

After increasing for many decades, the last forty years has seen a global trend of decreasing voter turnout. This issue has been much studied, but scholars are divided on the issue, with a wide array of economic, demographic, cultural, technological, and institutional factors proposed as the cause of this decline.

Why people vote

In any large election the chance of any one vote influencing the outcome is very low, "not significantly different from zero" in the words of one political scientist.^[1] This causes a difficulty for rational choice theory, in that it seems that a rational individual should not vote. This is in part a free rider problem, as in theory any one voter should be able to rely on the rest of the population making a rational decision. Even game theory analyses have found that the equilibrium number of voters in any large election is zero.^[2] Thus cultural factors, separate from any tangible benefits, must explain why people vote.

The basic equation for determining if someone will vote is PB + D > C. P is the probability of an individual's vote affecting the outcome of an election, while B is the perceived benefit of one's favored party being elected. Since P is virtually zero in most elections, PB is also near zero, and D is the most important element. D originally stood for democracy or civic duty, but today represents any social or personal gratification an individual gets from voting. For a person to vote these factors must outweigh C, the cost in time, effort, and money of voting.

Riker and Ordeshoot developed the modern understanding of D. They listed five major forms of gratification that people receive for voting: complying with the social obligation to vote, affirming one's allegiance to the political system, affirming a partisan preference, affirming one's importance to the political system, and researching and making a decision for those who find politics interesting and entertaining.^[3] Other political scientists have added other motivators, and questioned some of Riker and Ordeshoot's. All of these concepts are quite nebulous, making it difficult to discover exactly why people choose to vote.

Importance of turnout

It has long been the consensus view among political scientists, and the general public, that high voter turnouts are desirable. A high voter turnout is generally seen as evidence of the legitimacy of the current system. Dictators have often fabricated high turnouts in show elections for just this purpose. For instance, Saddam Hussein's 2002 referendum was claimed to have had 100% participation.^[4] Opposition parties will sometimes boycott votes they feel are unfair or illegitimate, or if the election is for a government that is considered illegitimate. For instance, the Vatican instructed Italian Catholics to boycott national elections for several decades after the creation of the State of Italy, causing a marked drop in turnout.^[5] In some countries, such as during the recent Iraq elections, violence will be threatened against those who do try to vote. (See also voter suppression.) However, some political scientists question the view that high turnout is an implicit endorsement of the system. Mark N. Franklin points out that in European Union elections opponents of the federation and its legitimacy are just as likely to vote as proponents, and both groups are also equally as likely to stay home.^[6]

A high turnout also ensures the legitimacy of the election itself, as a vote with very low turnout may not be an accurate reflection of the will of the people. Some nations thus have rules rendering an election invalid if too few people vote. These can cause problems, such as in Serbia and Montenegro where several successive presidential elections were rendered invalid. In the United States, some elections require a double majority to require a reasonable voter turnout. Low turnouts can lead to unequal representation. Nonvoters tend to be concentrated in particular demographic and socioeconomic groups, especially the young and the poor. In low turnout countries these groups are thus considerably underrepresented in elections. This has the potential to skew policy. For instance, the high voter turnout among seniors along with low turnouts among the young may lead to more money for health care and less for education.

Socioeconomic differences in turnout

Women voting in Bangladesh

Within each nation some parts of society are more likely to vote than others. In high turnout nations these cleavages are very limited. As turnout approaches 90% it becomes difficult to find differences of much significance between voters and nonvoters, but in low turnout nations the differences between voters and nonvoters can be quite marked.

The most important determiner of voter turnout is education. The more educated a person is, the more likely they are to vote, even when controlled for other factors like income and class that are closely associated with education level. The statistics show that income also has some effect independent of education, with wealthier people more likely to vote. There is some debate over the effects of ethnicity, race, and gender. In the past these factors unquestionably had an effect on turnout in many nations. Today, however, many political scientists feel that these factors do not have a noticeable effect in Western democracies, when education and income differences are taken into account. However, since different ethnic groups do often have different levels of education and income there are important differences in turnout. Demographics also have an extremely important effect, with young people far less likely to vote than the elderly. Single people are also less likely to vote than those who are married. Occupation has little effect on voting, with the notable exception of higher voting rates among government employees.^[7]

There can also be regional differences in voter turnout. One issue found only in the continent-spanning nations such as Canada, the United States and Russia is that of time zones. Western Americans have often complained that since the election has already been decided in the east of the country that turnout is depressed on the Pacific coast. Canada has in the past partially resolved this problem by banning the broadcasting of election results in any region where the polls have not yet closed, but recently this ban has been lifted.

Differences between elections

Even within countries there can be important differences in turnout between individual elections. Elections where the national executive is not at stake generally have much lower turnouts, often only half that of general elections. Thus municipal and provincial elections have lower turnouts, as do election for the parliament of the supranational European Union. In the United Stated midterm congressional elections get far lower turnout than votes for president.^[8] Runoff elections also tend to get lower turnouts.

One of the factors most likely to increase turnout is a close race. With an intensely polarized electorate and all polls showing a photo finish between President of the United States George W. Bush and Democratic challenger John F. Kerry, the turnout in 2004 was close to 60%, resulting in the both candidates setting records for popular votes with Kerry even beating Ronald Reagan's 1984 record despite losing the election. Similarly, sure-thing elections where one vote is not seen to be able to make a difference have resulted in lower turnouts, such as Bill Clinton's 1996 reelection, the UK General Election, 2001 and the 2005 Spanish referendum on the European Constitution, all of which produced landslide results on a low turnout.

The weather also can have an important effect with rain or snow reducing turnouts, especially among moderates. The date an election is held also can change turnout. Weekend and summer elections find more of the population on holiday or uninterested in politics and have lower turnouts. When nations set fixed election dates they are usually in midweek during the spring or fall to maximize turnout. Turnout variance between elections tends to be quite small, however. It is extremely rare for factors like competitiveness, weather, and time of year to cause an increase or decrease in turnout of more than 5%, far smaller than the differences between groups within society and also far smaller than turnout gaps between nations.^[9]

International differences

Election turnout in lower house elections from 1960 to 1995 for selected countries Country # of votes Turnout Australia* 14 95% Malta 6 94% Austria 9 92% Belgium* 12 91% Italy* 9 90% Luxembourg* 7 90% Iceland 10 89% New Zealand 12 88% Denmark 14 87% Germany 9 86% Sweden 14 86% Greece* 10 86% Venezuela** 7 85% Czech Republic 2 85% Brazil* 3 83% Template:NET*** 7 83% Costa Rica 8 81% Norway 9 81% Bulgaria 2 80% Israel 9 80% Portugal 9 79% Finland 10 78% Canada 11 76% France 9 76% United Kingdom 9 76% Ireland 11 74% Spain 6 73% Japan 12 71% Estonia 2 69% Hungary 2 66% Russia 2 61% India 6 58% United States**** 9 54% Switzerland 8 54% Poland 2 51%

*Countries with compulsory voting

**Compulsory voting until 1988

***Does not include pre-1968 elections, when compulsory voting was in place

***Only includes Congressional elections held in same year as presidential ones.

Numbers from Mark N. Franklin's "Electoral Participation.", only includes "free" elections

Voter turnout varies considerably from democracy to democracy. It tends to be quite low in the United States, Canada, and Latin America when compared to most of Europe, Oceania and Asia. In Western Europe 77% of eligible voters cast ballots on average, in the United States it is closer to 50%, and in Latin America the average has been 53% since 1945. The differences between nations tend to be greater than the gaps between classes, ethnic groups, or regions within nations. Confusingly, some of the factors that cause internal differences do not seem to apply on a global level. For instance, nations with better-educated populaces do not have higher turnouts. Political scientists see two general causes of these international differences: culture and institutions. There is great debate between scholars over which causes are the most important.

Cultural factors

Wealth and literacy have some effect on turnout, but are not good measures. Countries such as Angola and Ethiopia have long had high turnouts, but so have the wealthy states of Europe. The United Nations Human Development Index shows some correlation, with voter behavior, with higher standards of living being linked to higher turnout. The age of a democracy is also an important factor. Elections require a considerable degree of involvement by the population, and it takes some time to build up the social aspects of voter behavior. This is often used to explain the lower turnouts in the newer democracies of Eastern Europe and Latin America. Much of the impetus to vote comes from a sense of civic duty, which also takes time and certain social conditions to develop. G. Bingham Powell lists four major attitudes that have a strongly positive effect on voter turnout: trust in government, partisanship, interest in politics, and belief in the efficacy of voting.^[10] The attitudes of a population are difficult to change, often taking decades to alter.

Demographics also have some effect. Globally, older people tend to vote more than youths, so somewhat older societies, such as Europe, will have higher turnout than somewhat younger ones like Canada and the United States. Populations that are more mobile and contain more unmarried individuals also tend to have lower turnouts. In countries that are highly multicultural and multilingual it can be difficult for national election campaigns to connect with all the population.

The nature of elections also varies between nations. In the United States negative campaigning and character attacks are far more common than elsewhere, potentially suppressing outcomes. The focus placed on get out the vote efforts and mass marketing can have important effects on turnout. Partisanship is an important impetus to turnout, with the highly partisan more likely to vote. In nations where political allegiance is closely linked to class, ethnic, linguistic, or religious loyalties turnout tends to be higher.^[11]

Institutional factors

Institutional factors also have an important impact. One of the most direct is compulsory voting. Australia, for instance, makes voter registration and attending at a polling booth on election day mandatory. These rules are strictly enforced, and the country has one of the world's highest voter turnouts. Other countries including Belgium, Argentina, and Fiji also have such laws, with somewhat reduced levels of enforcement. In Italy, for instance, a person who does not vote runs the risk of forfeiting some state benefits. In some countries, such as Mexico and Brazil, these laws exist but punishments are minimal or rarely enforced. When enforced these laws have a dramatic effect on turnout, and many of the nations with the highest turnouts use compulsory voting. In two nations, Venezuela and the Netherlands, compulsory voting was eliminated and an immediate and substantial decrease in turnout resulted.

Mark N. Franklin argues that salience, the effect a vote will have on how the country is run, has a great effect on turnout. Switzerland is often presented as an example of a nation with low salience. The nation is highly decentralized, so that the federal government has only select powers. The government invariably consists of a coalition of parties, and the power wielded by a party is far more closely linked to its position relative to the coalition than to the number of votes it received. Moreover, any decision of major importance will be placed before the population in a referendum. Elections for the Swiss legislature thus have very low turnout. By contrast Malta, with one of the world's highest voter turnouts, has a single legislature that holds a near monopoly on political power in the state. It has a two party system in which a small swing in votes can completely alter the executive.^[12] Perception of fairness also has an important effect on salience. If voters feel the result of an election is more likely to be determined by fraud and corruption than by the will of the people, fewer people will vote.^[13]

Another institutional factor that may have an important effect is proportionality. Proportionality is how closely the legislature reflects the views of the populace. A pure proportional representation system is fully proportional to the votes of the populace. This makes every vote likely to count. By contrast a plurality system will almost always have a fair number of districts where one party is so dominant that there is little reason to vote. More proportional systems do not have this problem. However, proportional systems almost invariably produce a multiparty system and coalition governments, with each coalition member having an important influence on policy. This reduces salience, since the voters have little influence over which parties are included in the coalition.^[14] For instance, after the 2005 German election the creation of the executive is now a result of political deal making rather than the direct will of the people. Political scientists are thus divided on whether proportional representation systems increase voter turnout, but most feel greater proportionality has at least a somewhat positive effect on turnout.^[15] There are other systems that attempt to preserve both salience and proportionality; however, these are often more complex electoral systems, and complexity also suppresses voter turnout.^[16]

Also important is how easy it is to vote. In the United States and most Latin American nations voters must complete a separate voter registration before they are allowed to vote. This two-step process quite clearly decreases turnout. U.S. states with no, or easier, registration requirements show a clear pattern of larger turnouts.^[17] Other methods of improving turnout include making voting easier through more available absentee polling and improved access to polls. In some areas, generally those where polls can be inaccessible such as India and Finland, elections often span several days. Some areas have also pondered internet voting as a possible solution.

Voter fatigue can also lower turnout. If there are many elections in close succession due to unstable governments, or if referenda are held too frequently, voter turnout will decrease as the public gets tired of participating. In low turnout Switzerland, the average voter is invited to go to the polls an average of seven times per year, while the United States also has very frequent elections, with two votes per year on average.^ Holding multiple elections at the same time can increase turnout; however, presenting voters with massive multipage ballots, as occurs in some parts of the United States, can reduce turnouts.^[18]

Differing methods of counting voter turnout can also contribute to perceived differences between nations. In the United States there is no accurate registry of exactly who is eligible to vote, since only some 70%–75% of people choose to register themselves.^[19] Thus turnout has to calculated based on population estimates. Some political scientists have argued that these measures do not properly account for the large number of illegal aliens and disenfranchised felons in the United States, and the American voter turnout is thus higher than is normally reported.^[20] Conversely, in New Zealand registration is supposed to be universal, but historically this system has been unreliable, and there was thus a large number of eligible, but unregistered, nonvoters, creating inflated turnout figures.^[21]

Decreasing Turnout

File:Turnout.png

Change in voter turnout over time for five selected countries

For the last forty years voter turnout has been steadily decreasing across the established democracies.^[22] This decline has been greatest in the United States, but it also occurred across Western Europe and in other areas such as Japan and Latin America. This decline has been a matter of concern and controversy among political scientists for several decades. Other forms of political participation also declined, such as volunteering for a political party, attending a town meeting, or writing a newspaper. The decline in voting has also accompanied a general decline in civic participation. Over the same period church attendance, membership in professional, fraternal, and student societies, youth groups, and parent teacher associations all declined significantly.^[23] Some forms of participation have increased over the last decades. People have become far more likely to participate in boycotts, demonstrations, and to donate to political campaigns, for instance.

Prior the late nineteenth century the suffrage was so greatly restricted in most nations that turnout figures have little relevance to today. One exception was the United States, which had near universal male suffrage by 1840. The U.S. saw a steady rise in voter turnout during the nineteenth century, reaching its peak in the years after the Civil War. In the 1890s turnout began to decline and this lasted until the 1930s when turnout began to again increase. It peaked again around 1960 before beginning its steady decline.^[24] In Europe voter turnouts steadily increased from the introduction of universal suffrage before peaking in the mid to late 1960s and declining somewhat since then, though these declines have been far smaller than in the United States, and in some European states turnout has remained stable, or even slightly increased. Globally voter turnout has decreased by about 5% over the last four decades.

A wide array of causes has been proposed for this decline, and it is most likely a combination of factors:

• When asked many report that too little free time is a major reason for not voting. However, over the last several decades, studies have consistently shown that the amount of leisure time has not decreased. The perception that one is busier is common, and might be just as important as a real decrease in leisure time.
• Negative campaigning has become ubiquitous in the United States and also has become more common elsewhere in the world. It has been argued that attack ads and smear campaigns give voters a negative impression of the entire political process. The evidence for this is mixed, however. Elections with highly unpopular incumbents generally have high turnout. Some studies have found that mudslinging and character attacks reduce turnout, but substantive attacks on a party's record can increase it.
• Geographic mobility has increased over the last few decades. There are often barriers to voting in a district where one is a recent arrival, and a new arrival is likely to know little about the local candidate and local issues.
• The average age of first marriage has increased, and divorce rates have skyrocketed. Single people are generally less likely to vote.
• Francis Fukuyama has blamed the welfare state, arguing that the decrease in turnout has come shortly after the government became far more involved in people's lives. However, on an international level those states with the most extensive social programs tend to be the ones with the highest turnouts.
• In the United States the 1960s and 1970s saw the Vietnam War and Watergate scandal, both of which caused voters to lose faith in their political leaders. Many other nations saw a similar era of protest and alienation during this era, in part linked to the demographic effect of the baby boom. Trust in government and in politicians has decreased. The first signs of decreasing voter turnout occurred in the early 1960s, which was before the major upheavals of the late 1960s and 1970s.
• Robert D. Putnam argues that collapse in civil engagement is due to the introduction of television. The decline in voter turnout occurred soon after the rapid introduction of television in the 1950s and 1960s. As television became the main form of leisure, traditional group-based recreations such as bowling leagues and bridge clubs disappeared, and people generally withdrew from society.^[25]
• Rosenstone and Hansen also believe that new media is to blame, but that the decline in turnout is the product of a change in campaigning strategies. Before television almost all of a party's resources would be directed towards intensive local campaigning and get out the vote initiatives. In the modern era these resources have been redirected to expensive media campaigns in which the potential voter is a passive participant.^[26]

The decline in voter turnout is almost wholly manifested among the younger segment of the population. Those who began voting prior to 1960 maintain the same high rate of turnout of that era. For each later generation, beginning with that that came of age in the 1960s, turnout has steadily declined. Some are concerned that this biases the political process; for instance, health care may get more funding than education because one is a concern of seniors, the other of youths. Youth voter mobilization programs such as MTV's "Rock the Vote" and the "Vote or Die" initiatives in the United States have worked to encourage those between the ages of 18–25 to vote in the past few years.^[27] A number of governments and electoral commissions have also launched efforts to boost turnout.

Notes

1. ^ Satoshi Kanazawa. "A Possible Solution ot the Paradox of Voter Turnout." The Journal of Politics. pg. 974
2. ^ Kanazawa pg. 975
3. ^ Riker and Ordershook, 1968
4. ^ CNN - Saddam gets perfect poll result
5. ^ Mark N. Franklin. "Electoral Engineering and Cross Naional Turnout Differences." British Journal of Political Science. 1999
6. ^ "Voting and Non-Voting a Milti Election Perspective." American Journal of Political Science. pg. 1985
7. ^ Katz pg. 242
8. ^ Lijphart. pg. 12
9. ^ G. Bingham Powell "Voter Turnout in Thirty Democracies." in Electoral Participation.
10. ^ G. Bingham Powell. "American Voter Turnout in Comparitive Perspective." The American Political Science Review. 1986 pg. 19.
11. ^ Powell "Thirty Democracies." pg. 14
12. ^ Mark N. Franklin. "Electoral Participation." in Controversies in Voting Behavior pg. 87
13. ^ Richard S. Katz. Democracy and Elections. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
14. ^ Robert W. Jackman and Ross A. Miller. "Voter Turnout in the Industrial Democracies During the 1980s." in Elections and Voting Behaviour: New Challenges, New Perspectives. pg. 308
15. ^ Katz pg. 240
16. ^ Powell "Thirty Democracies." pg. 12
17. ^ Richard G. Niemi and Herbert F. Weisberg. Controversies in Voting Behavior pg. 31
18. ^ Katz pg. 239
19. ^ Niemi and Weisberg pg. 25
20. ^ Katz pg. 334
21. ^ Franklin "Electoral Participation." pg. 98
22. ^ Arend Lijphart. "Unequal Participation: Democracy's Unresolved Dilemma." American Political Science Review.
23. ^ Niemi and Weisberg pg. 31
24. ^ Walter Dean Burnham. "The Appearance and Dissapearance of the American Voter."
25. ^ Eisner, Jane. "Rock the Vote, now 15, eager to help drive policy." Philadelphia Inquirer 12 June 2005. 12 July 2005
26. ^ Putnam pg. 40
27. ^ Putnam pg. 61
28. ^ Steven J. Rosenstone and John Mark Hansen. "Solving the Puzzle of Participation in Electoral Politics." pg. 73

External links

• IDEA: Voter Turnout
• Fairvote.org: Voter Turnout

References

• Franklin, Mark N. "Electoral Engineering and Cross Naional Turnout Differences." British Journal of Political Science. 1999
• Kanazawa, Satoshi. "A Possible Solution ot the Paradox of Voter Turnout." The Journal of Politics.
• Lijphart, Arend. "Unequal Participation: Democracy's Unresolved Dilemma." American Political Science Review. vol. 91 (March 1997): 1-14. pg. 12
• Niemi, Richard G. and Herbert F. Weisberg. eds. Controversies in Voting Vehavior. Washington, D.C: CQ Press, 2001.
• Norris, Pippa. Elections and Voting Behaviour: New Challenges, New Perspectives. Aldershot: Ashgate, Dartmouth, 1998.
• Rose, Richard, ed. Electoral Participation: A Comparative Analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1980.