The broadest historical trends in voter turnout in the United States presidential elections have been determined by the gradual expansion of voting rights
from the initial restriction to male property owners aged twenty-one or
older in the early years of the country's independence, to all citizens
aged eighteen or older in the mid-twentieth century. Voter turnout in
the presidential elections has historically been better than the turnout
for midterm elections.
Age, education, and income
Rates of voting in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election by income
Rates in voting in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election by educational attainment
Age, income and educational attainment are significant factors
affecting voter turnout. Educational attainment is perhaps the best
predictor of voter turnout, and in the 2008 election those holding
advanced degrees were three times more likely to vote than those with
less than high school education. Income correlated well with likelihood
of voting as well, although this may be because of a correlation between
income and educational attainment, rather than a direct effect of
income.
Age difference is associated with youth voter turnout.
Berman and Johnson's (2000)
argument affirms that "age is an important factor in understanding
voting blocs and differences" on various issues. Young people are
typically "plagued" by political apathy and thus do not have strong
political opinions (The Economist, 2014). As strong political opinions
may be considered one of the reasons behind voting (Munsey, 2008),
political apathy among young people is arguably a predictor for low
voter turnout. Pomante and Schraufnagel's (2014) research demonstrated
that potential young voters are more willing to commit to vote when they
see pictures of younger candidates running for elections/office or
voting for other candidates, surmising that young Americans are "voting
at higher and similar rates to other Americans when there is a candidate
under the age of 35 years running". As such, since most candidates
running for office are pervasively over the age of 35 years (Struyk,
2017), youth may not be actively voting in these elections because of a
lack of representation or visibility in the political process. "Only 30
per cent of millennials think it's 'essential' to live in a democracy,
compared to 72 percent of those born before World War II" (Gershman,
2018). Considering that one of the critical tenets of liberal democracy
is voting, the idea that millennials are denouncing the value of
democracy is arguably an indicator of the loss of faith in the
importance of voting. Thus, it can be surmised that those of younger
ages may not be inclined to vote during elections.
Education is another factor considered to have a major impact on voter turnout rates.
Burden (2009) investigated the relationship between formal education
levels and voter turnout. He demonstrated the effect of rising
enrollment in college education circa 1980s, which – as expected - did
result in an increase in voter turnout. However, "this was not true for
political knowledge" (Burden, 2009); a rise in education levels did not
have any impact in identifying those with political knowledge (a
signifier of civic engagement) until the 1980s election, when college
education became a distinguishing factor in identifying civic
participation. This article poses a multifaceted perspective on the
effect of education levels on voter turnout. Based on this article, one
may surmise that education has become a more powerful predictor of civic
participation, discriminating more between voters and non-voters.
However, this was not true for political knowledge; education levels
were not a signifier of political knowledge. Gallego (2010) also
contends that voter turnout tends to be higher in localities where
voting mechanisms have been established and are easy to operate – i.e.
voter turnout and participation tends to be high in instances where
registration has been initiated by the state and the number of electoral
parties is small. One may contend that ease of access – and not
education level – may be an indicator of voting behavior. Presumably
larger, more urban cities will have greater
budgets/resources/infrastructure dedicated to elections, which is why
youth may have higher turnout rates in those cities versus more rural
areas. Though youth in larger (read: urban) cities tend to be more
educated than those in rural areas (Marcus & Krupnick, 2017),
perhaps there is an external variable (i.e. election infrastructure) at
play. Smith and Tolbert's (2005) research reiterates that the presence
of ballot initiatives and portals within a state have a positive effect
on voter turnout.
Another correlated finding in his study (Snyder, 2011) was that
education is less important as a predictor of voter turnout in states
than tend to spend more on education. Moreover, Snyder's (2011) research
suggests that students are more likely to vote than non-students. It
may be surmised that an increase of state investment in electoral
infrastructure facilitates and education policy and programs results in
increase voter turnout among youth.
Wealthier people tend to vote at higher rates.
Harder and Krosnick (2008) contend that some of the reasons for this may
be due to "differences in motivation or ability (sometimes both)"
(Harder and Krosnick, 2008), or that less wealthy people have less
energy, time, or resources to allot towards voting. Another potential
reason may be that wealthier people believe that they have more at stake
if they don't vote than those with less resources or income.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs might also help explain this hypothesis from
a psychological perspective. If those with low income are struggling to
meet the basic survival needs of food, water, safety, etc., they will
not be motivated enough to reach the final stages of "Esteem" or
"Self-actualization" needs (Maslow, 1943) – which consist of the desire
for dignity, respect, prestige and realizing personal potential,
respectively.
Women's suffrage and gender gap
There
was no systematic collection of voter turnout data by gender at a
national level before 1964, but smaller local studies indicate a low
turnout among female voters in the years following Women's suffrage in the United States.
For example, a 1924 study of voting turnout in Chicago found that
"female Chicagoans were far less likely to have visited the polls on
Election Day than were men in both the 1920 presidential election (46%
vs. 75%) and the 1923 mayoral contest (35% vs. 63%)."
The study compared reasons given by male and female non-voters, and
found that female non-voters were more likely to cite general
indifference to politics and ignorance or timidity regarding elections
than male non-voters, and that female voters were less likely to cite
fear of loss of business or wages. Most significantly, however, 11% of
female non-voters in the survey cited a "Disbelief in woman's voting" as
the reason they did not vote.
The graph of voter turnout percentages shows a dramatic decline
in turnout over the first two decades of the twentieth century, ending
in 1920, when the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
granted women the right to vote across the United States. But in the
preceding decades, several states had passed laws supporting women's
suffrage. Women were granted the right to vote in Wyoming in 1869,
before the territory had become a full state in the union.
In 1889, when the Wyoming constitution was drafted in preparation for
statehood, it included women's suffrage. Thus Wyoming was also the first
full state to grant women the right to vote. In 1893, Colorado was the
first state to amend an existing constitution in order to grant women
the right to vote, and several other states followed, including Utah and
Idaho in 1896, Washington State in 1910, California in 1911, Oregon,
Kansas, and Arizona in 1912, Alaska and Illinois in 1913, Montana and
Nevada in 1914, New York in 1917; Michigan, South Dakota, and Oklahoma
in 1918. Each of these suffrage laws expanded the body of eligible
voters, and because women were less likely to vote than men, each of
these expansions created a decline in voter turnout rates, culminating
with the extremely low turnouts in the 1920 and 1924 elections after the
passage of the Nineteenth Amendment.
Voter turnout by sex and age for the 2008 US Presidential Election.
This voting gender gap
waned throughout the middle decades of the twentieth century, and in
recent decades has completely reversed, with a higher proportion of
women voting than men in each of the last nine presidential elections.
The Center for American Women and Politics summarizes how this trend
can be measured differently both in terms of proportion of voters to
non-voters, and in terms of the bulk number of votes cast.
"In every presidential election since 1980, the proportion of eligible female adults who voted has exceeded the proportion
of eligible male adults who voted [...]. In all presidential elections
prior to 1980, the voter turnout rate for women was lower than the rate
for men. The number of female voters has exceeded the number of male voters in every presidential election since 1964..."
This gender gap has been a determining factor in several recent
presidential elections, as women have been consistently about 15% more
likely to support the candidate of the Democratic Party than the
Republican candidate in each election since 1996.
Race, ethnicity, and voter turnout
Voter turnout in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election by race/ethnicity.
The passage of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
gave African American men the right to vote. While this historic
expansion of rights resulted in significant increases in the eligible
voting population, and may have contributed to the increases in the
proportion of votes cast for president as a percentage of the total
population during the 1870s, there does not seem to have been a
significant long-term increase in the percentage of eligible voters who
turn out for the poll. The disenfranchisement of most African Americans and many poor whites
in the South during the years 1890-1910 likely contributed to the
decline in overall voter turnout percentages during those years visible
in the chart at the top of the article. Ethnicity has had an effect on
voter turnout in recent years as well, with data from recent elections
such as 2008 showing much lower turnout among people identifying as
Hispanic or Asian ethnicity than other voters.
Youth voting turnout
Recent
decades have seen increasing concern over the fact that youth voting
turnout is consistently lower than turnout among older generations.
Several programs to increase the rates of voting among young people—such
as MTV's "Rock the Vote" (founded in 1990) and the "Vote or Die"
initiative (starting in 2004)—may have marginally increased turnouts of
those between the ages of 18 and 25 to vote. However, the Stanford Social Innovation Review
found no evidence of a decline in youth voter turnout. In fact, they
argue that "Millennials are turning out at similar rates to the previous
two generations when they face their first elections."
Other eligibility factors
Another
factor influencing statistics on voter turnout is the percentage of the
country's voting-age population who are ineligible to vote due to
non-citizen status or prior felony convictions. In a 2001 article in the
American Political Science Review,
Michael McDonald and Samuel Popkin argued, that at least in the United
States, voter turnout since 1972 has not actually declined when
calculated for those eligible to vote, what they term the
voting-eligible population.
In 1972, noncitizens and ineligible felons (depending on state law)
constituted about 2% of the voting-age population. By 2004, ineligible
voters constituted nearly 10%.
Ineligible voters are not evenly distributed across the country – 20%
of California's voting-age population is ineligible to vote – which
confounds comparisons of states.
Note: The Bipartisan Policy Center
has stated that turnout for 2012 was 57.5 percent of the eligible
voters, which they claim was a decline from 2008. They estimate that as a
percent of eligible voters, turn out was: 2000, 54.2%; in 2004 60.4%;
2008 62.3%; and 2012 57.5%.
Later analysis by the University of California, Santa Barbara's American Presidency Project found that there were 235,248,000 people of voting age in the United States in the 2012 election, resulting in 2012 voting age population (VAP) turnout of 54.9%.
The total increase in VAP between 2008 and 2012 (5,300,000) was the
smallest increase since 1964, bucking the modern average of
8,000,000–13,000,000 per cycle.
Voters lining up outside a Baghdad polling station during the 2005 Iraqi election. Voter turnout was considered high despite widespread concerns of violence.
Voter turnout is the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in an election.
Eligibility varies by country, and the voting-eligible population
should not be confused with the total adult population. Age and
citizenship status are often among the criteria used to determine
eligibility, but some countries further restrict eligibility based on
sex, race, or religion.
After increasing for many decades, there has been a trend of decreasing voter turnout in most established democracies since the 1980s. In general, low turnout is attributed to disillusionment, indifference,
or a sense of futility (the perception that one's vote won't make any
difference). According to Stanford University political scientists Adam
Bonica and Michael McFaul, there is a consensus among political
scientists that "democracies perform better when more people vote."
Low turnout is usually considered to be undesirable. As a result,
there have been many efforts to increase voter turnout and encourage
participation in the political process. In spite of significant study
into the issue, scholars are divided on the reasons for the decline. Its
cause has been attributed to a wide array of economic, demographic, cultural, technological, and institutional factors.
The chance of any one vote determining the outcome is low. Some studies show that a single vote in a voting scheme such as the Electoral College in the United States has an even lower chance of determining the outcome. Other studies claim that the Electoral College actually increases voting power. Studies using game theory, which takes into account the ability of voters to interact, have also found that the expected turnout for any large election should be zero.
The basic formula for determining whether someone will vote, on
the questionable assumption that people act completely rationally, is
where
P is the probability that an individual's vote will affect the outcome of an election,
B is the perceived benefit that would be received if that person's favored political party or candidate were elected,
D originally stood for democracy or civic duty, but today represents any social or personal gratification an individual gets from voting, and
C is the time, effort, and financial cost involved in voting.
Since P is virtually zero in most elections, PB is also near zero, and D is thus the most important element in motivating people to vote. For a person to vote, these factors must outweigh C. Experimental political science has found that even when P
is likely greater than zero, this term has no effect on voter turnout.
Enos and Fowler (2014) conducted a field experiment that exploits the
rare opportunity of a tied election for major political office.
Informing citizens that the special election to break the tie will be
close (meaning a high P term) has little mobilizing effect on voter turnout.
Riker and Ordeshook 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
(also known as expressive voting, or voting for a candidate to express
support, not to achieve any outcome); affirming one's importance to the
political system; and, for those who find politics interesting and
entertaining, researching and making a decision. Other political scientists have since added other motivators and questioned some of Riker and Ordeshook's assumptions. All of these concepts are inherently imprecise, making it difficult to discover exactly why people choose to vote.
Recently, several scholars have considered the possibility that B
includes not only a personal interest in the outcome, but also a
concern for the welfare of others in the society (or at least other
members of one's favorite group or party). In particular, experiments in which subject altruism was measured using a dictator game showed that concern for the well-being of others is a major factor in predicting turnout and political participation. Note that this motivation is distinct from D, because voters must think others benefit from the outcome of the election, not their act of voting in and of itself.
Reasons for not voting
There are philosophical, moral, and practical reasons that some
people cite for not voting in electoral politics. Researchers have also
identified several strategic motivations for abstention in which a voter
is better off by not voting. The most straightforward example of this
is known as the No-Show Paradox, which can occur in both large and small
electorates.
Significance
High
voter turnout is often considered to be desirable, though among
political scientists and economists specializing in public choice, the
issue is still debated. A high turnout is generally seen as evidence of the legitimacy of the current system. Dictators have often fabricated high turnouts in showcase elections for this purpose. For instance, Saddam Hussein's 2002 plebiscite was claimed to have had 100% participation.
Opposition parties sometimes boycott votes they feel are unfair or
illegitimate, or if the election is for a government that is considered
illegitimate. For example, the Holy See instructed Italian Catholics to boycott national elections for several decades after the creation of the state of Italy. In some countries, there are threats of violence against those who vote, such as during the 2005 Iraq elections, an example of voter suppression.
However, some political scientists question the view that high turnout
is an implicit endorsement of the system. Mark N. Franklin contends that
in European Union elections opponents of the federation, and of its legitimacy, are just as likely to vote as proponents.
Assuming that low turnout is a reflection of disenchantment or
indifference, a poll with very low turnout may not be an accurate
reflection of the will of the people.
On the other hand, if low turnout is a reflection of contentment of
voters about likely winners or parties, then low turnout is as
legitimate as high turnout, as long as the right to vote exists. Still,
low turnouts can lead to unequal representation among various parts of
the population. In developed countries, non-voters tend to be
concentrated in particular demographic and socioeconomic groups,
especially the young and the poor. However, in India,
which boasts an electorate of more than 814 million people, the
opposite is true. The poor, who comprise the majority of the
demographic, are more likely to vote than the rich and the middle
classes, and turnout is higher in rural areas than urban areas. In low-turnout countries, these groups are often significantly under-represented in elections. This has the potential to skew policy. For instance, a high voter turnout among the elderly coupled with a low turnout among the young may lead to more money for retirees' health care,
and less for youth employment schemes. Some nations thus have rules
that render an election invalid if too few people vote, such as Serbia, where three successive presidential elections were rendered invalid in 2003.
Determinants and demographics of turnout
Socio-Economic Status and Voting Turnout in USA and India
In each country, some parts of society are more likely to vote than
others. In high-turnout countries, these differences tend to be limited.
As turnout approaches 90%, it becomes difficult to find significant
differences between voters and nonvoters, but in low turnout nations the
differences between voters and non-voters can be quite marked.
Habit
Turnout
differences appear to persist over time; in fact, the strongest
predictor of individual turnout is whether or not one voted in the
previous election.
As a result, many scholars think of turnout as habitual behavior that
can be learned or unlearned, especially among young adults.
Childhood influences
One study found that improving children's social skills increases their turnout as adults.
Demographics
Socioeconomic
factors are significantly associated with whether individuals develop
the habit of voting. The most important socioeconomic factor affecting
voter turnout is education.
The more educated a person is, the more likely they are to vote, even
controlling for other factors that are closely associated with education
level, such as income and class.
Income has some effect independently: wealthier people are more likely
to vote, regardless of their educational background. There is some
debate over the effects of ethnicity, race, and gender.
In the past, these factors unquestionably influenced turnout in many
nations, but nowadays the consensus among political scientists is that
these factors have little effect in Western democracies when education
and income differences are taken into account.
A 2018 study found that while education did not increase turnout on
average, it did raise turnout among individuals from low socioeconomic
status households.
However, since different ethnic groups typically have different
levels of education and income, there are important differences in
turnout between such groups in many societies. Other demographic factors
have an important influence: young people are far less likely to vote
than the elderly.[citation needed]
Occupation has little effect on turnout, with the notable exception of
higher voting rates among government employees in many countries.
There can also be regional differences in voter turnout. One
issue that arises in continent-spanning nations, such as Australia, Canada, the United States and Russia, is that of time zones.
Canada banned the broadcasting of election results in any region where
the polls have not yet closed; this ban was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada.
In several recent Australian national elections, the citizens of
Western Australia knew which party would form the new government up to
an hour before the polling booths in their State closed.
Differences between elections
Within countries there can be important differences in turnout between individual elections. Elections where control of the national executive is not at stake generally have much lower turnouts—often half that for general elections.
Municipal and provincial elections, and by-elections to fill casual
vacancies, typically have lower turnouts, as do elections for the
parliament of the supranational European Union, which is separate from the executive branch of the EU's government. In the United States, midterm congressional elections attract far lower turnouts than Congressional elections held concurrently with Presidential ones. Runoff elections also tend to attract lower turnouts.
Competitiveness of races
In
theory, one of the factors that is most likely to increase turnout is a
close race. With an intensely polarized electorate and all polls
showing a close finish between PresidentGeorge W. Bush and Democratic challenger John F. Kerry, the turnout in the 2004 U.S. presidential election
was close to 60%, resulting in a record number of popular votes for
both candidates (around 62 million for Bush and 59 million for Kerry).
However, this race also demonstrates the influence that contentious
social issues can have on voter turnout; for example, the voter turnout
rate in 1860 wherein anti-slavery
candidate Abraham Lincoln won the election was the second-highest on
record (81.2 percent, second only to 1876, with 81.8 percent).
Nonetheless, there is evidence to support the argument that predictable
election results—where one vote is not seen to be able to make a
difference—have resulted in lower turnouts, such as Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election (which featured the lowest voter turnout in the United States since 1924), the United Kingdom general election of 2001, and the 2005 Spanish referendum on the European Constitution; all of these elections produced decisive results on a low turnout.
A 2017 NBER paper found that an awareness by the electorate that
an election would be close increased turnout: "Closer elections are
associated with greater turnout only when polls exist. Examining
within-election variation in newspaper reporting on polls across
cantons, we find that close polls increase turnout significantly more
where newspapers report on them most."
Incarceration
One 2017 study in the Journal of Politics
found that, in the United States, incarceration had no significant
impact on turnout in elections: ex-felons did not become less likely to
vote after their time in prison. Also in the United States, incarceration, probation, and a felony record
deny 5–6 million Americans of the right to vote, with reforms gradually
leading more states to allow people with felony criminal records to
vote, while almost none allow incarcerated people to vote.
Access to polling places
A
2017 study found that the opening and closing hours of polling places
determines the age demographics of turnout: turnout among younger voters
is higher the longer polling places are open and turnout among older
voters decreases the later polling places open.
Costs of participation
A 2017 study in Electoral Studies
found that Swiss cantons that reduced the costs of postal voting for
voters by prepaying the postage on return envelopes (which otherwise
cost 85 Swiss Franc cents) were "associated with a statistically
significant 1.8 percentage point increase in voter turnout". A 2016 study in the American Journal of Political Science
found that preregistration - allowing young citizens to register before
being eligible to vote - increased turnout by 2 to 8 percentage points. A 2019 study in Social Science Quarterly found that the introduction of a vote‐by‐mail system in Washington state led to an increase in turnout. Another 2019 study in Social Science Quarterly found that online voter registration increased voter turnout, in particular for young voters.
A 2018 study in the British Journal of Political Science
found that internet voting in local elections in Ontario, Canada, only
had a modest impact on turnout, increasing turnout by 3.5 percentage
points. The authors of the study say that the results "suggest that
internet voting is unlikely to solve the low turnout crisis, and imply
that cost arguments do not fully account for recent turnout declines."
According to an article by Emily Badger in "The New York Times",
there is research that explores how the turnout of the 2016 presidential
election would have changed if the voter turnout had been different.
Badger writes ““If everybody voted, Clinton wins. If minority turnout
was equal to white turnout, Clinton wins,” said Mr. Fraga, who describes
these patterns in a new book, “The Turnout Gap.” Many white voters who
preferred Mr. Trump sat out 2016 as well. So, in this full-turnout
counterfactual, Mrs. Clinton doesn't overcome Mr. Trump's narrow
victories in Wisconsin, Michigan or Pennsylvania. Rather, she flips
Florida, North Carolina and Texas. The preferences of the population are
aligned with a Democratic majority in the Senate as well, Mr. Fraga
says, despite the bias toward rural states. We don't see that, he
argues, because of disparities in turnout.” (Badger, 2018:P. 12-13).
Knowledge
A
2017 experimental study found that by sending registered voters between
the ages of 18 and 30 a voter guide containing salient information about
candidates in an upcoming election (a list of candidate endorsements
and the candidates' policy positions on five issues in the campaign)
increased turnout by 0.9 points.
Weather
Research results are mixed as to whether bad weather affects turnout. There is research that shows that precipitation
can reduce turnout, though this effect is generally rather small, with
most studies finding each millimeter of rainfall to reduce turnout by
0.015 to 0.1 percentage points. At least two studies, however, found no evidence that weather disruptions reduce turnout. A 2011 study found "that while rain decreases turnout on average, it does not do so in competitive elections."
Some research has also investigated the effect of temperature on
turnout, with some finding increased temperatures to moderately increase
turnout. Some other studies, however, found temperature to have no significant impact on turnout. These variations in turnout can also have partisan impacts; a 2017 study in the journal American Politics Research
found that rainfall increased Republican vote shares, because it
decreased turnout more among Democratic voters than Republican voters. Studies from the Netherlands and Germany have also found weather-related turnout decreases to benefit the right, while a Spanish study found a reverse relationship.
The season and the day of the week (although many nations hold
all their elections on the same weekday) can also affect 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, these are usually midweek during the spring or
autumn to maximize turnout. Variations in turnout between elections tend
to be insignificant. It is extremely rare for factors such as
competitiveness, weather, and time of year to cause an increase or
decrease in turnout of more than five percentage points, far smaller
than the differences between groups within society, and far smaller than
turnout differentials between nations.
Hereditary factors
Limited
research suggests that genetic factors may also be important. Some
scholars recently argued that the decision to vote in the United States
has very strong heritability, using twin studies of validated turnout in Los Angeles and self-reported turnout in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health to establish that.
They suggest that genetics could help to explain why parental turnout
is such a strong predictor of voting in young people, and also why
voting appears to be habitual.
Further, they suggest, if there is an innate predisposition to vote or
abstain, this would explain why past voting behavior is such a good
predictor of future voter reaction.
In addition to the twin study
method, scholars have used gene association studies to analyze voter
turnout. Two genes that influence social behavior have been directly
associated with voter turnout, specifically those regulating the serotonin system in the brain via the production of monoamine oxidase and 5HTT.
However, this study was reanalyzed by separate researchers who
concluded these "two genes do not predict voter turnout", pointing to
several significant errors, as well as "a number of difficulties, both
methodological and genetic" in studies in this field. Once these errors
were corrected, there was no longer any statistically significant
association between common variants of these two genes and voter
turnout.
Household socialization
A 2018 study in the American Political Science Review found that the parents to newly enfranchised voters "become 2.8 percentage points more likely to vote." A 2018 study in the journal Political Behavior found that increasing the size of households increases a household member's propensity to vote.
A 2018 PlosOne study found that a "partisan who is married to a
co-partisan is more likely to vote. This phenomenon is especially
pronounced for partisans in closed primaries, elections in which
non-partisan registered spouses are ineligible to participate."
Enfranchisement
A 2018 study in The Journal of Politics
found that Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act "increased black
voter registration by 14–19 percentage points, white registration by
10–13 percentage points, and overall voter turnout by 10–19 percentage
points. Additional results for Democratic vote share suggest that some
of this overall increase in turnout may have come from reactionary
whites."
Ballot secrecy
According
to a 2018 study, get-out-the-vote groups in the United States who
emphasize ballot secrecy along with reminders to vote increase turnout
by about 1 percentage point among recently registered nonvoters.
International differences
Voter
turnout varies considerably between nations. It tends to be lower in
the United States, Asia and Latin America than in most of Europe, Canada and Oceania. Western Europe averages a 77% turnout, and South and Central America around 54% since 1945.
The differences between nations tend to be greater than those 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.
There are two main commonly cited causes of these international
differences: culture and institutions. However, there is much debate
over the relative impact of the various factors.
Cultural factors
Wealth and literacy have some effect on turnout, but are not reliable measures. Countries such as Angola and Ethiopia have long had high turnouts, but so have the wealthy states of Europe. The United NationsHuman Development Index
shows some correlation between higher standards of living and higher
turnout. The age of a democracy is also an important factor. Elections
require considerable involvement by the population, and it takes some
time to develop the cultural habit of voting, and the associated
understanding of and confidence in the electoral process. This factor
may 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 takes time and certain social conditions that can
take decades to develop:
trust in government;
degree of partisanship among the population;
interest in politics, and
belief in the efficacy of voting.
Demographics also have an effect. Older people tend to vote more than
youths, so societies where the average age is somewhat higher, such as
Europe; have higher turnouts than somewhat younger countries such as the
United States. Populations that are more mobile and those that have
lower marriage rates tend to have lower turnout. In countries that are
highly multicultural and multilingual, it can be difficult for national
election campaigns to engage all sectors of the population.
The nature of elections also varies between nations. In the United States, negative campaigning and character attacks are more common than elsewhere, potentially suppressing turnouts. 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. Turnout tends to be higher in nations
where political allegiance is closely linked to class, ethnic,
linguistic, or religious loyalties. Countries where multiparty systems have developed also tend to have higher turnouts. Nations with a party specifically geared towards the working class will tend to have higher turnouts among that class than in countries where voters have only big tent parties, which try to appeal to all the voters, to choose from.
A four-wave panel study conducted during the 2010 Swedish national
election campaign, show (1) clear differences in media use between age
groups and (2) that both political social media use and attention to
political news in traditional media increase political engagement over
time.
Institutional factors
Institutional
factors have a significant impact on voter turnout. Rules and laws are
also generally easier to change than attitudes, so much of the work done
on how to improve voter turnout looks at these factors. Making voting compulsory has a direct and dramatic effect on turnout. Simply making it easier for candidates to stand through easier nomination rules is believed to increase voting. Conversely, adding barriers, such as a separate registration
process, can suppress turnout. The salience of an election, the effect
that a vote will have on policy, and its proportionality, how closely
the result reflects the will of the people, are two structural factors
that also likely have important effects on turnout.
Voter registration
The
modalities of how electoral registration is conducted can also affect
turnout. For example, until "rolling registration" was introduced in the
United Kingdom, there was no possibility of the electoral register
being updated during its currency, or even amending genuine mistakes
after a certain cut off date. The register was compiled in October, and
would come into force the next February, and would remain valid until
the next January. The electoral register would become progressively more
out of date during its period of validity, as electors moved or died
(also people studying or working away from home often had difficulty
voting). This meant that elections taking place later in the year tended
to have lower turnouts than those earlier in the year. The introduction
of rolling registration where the register is updated monthly has
reduced but not entirely eliminated this issue since the process of
amending the register is not automatic, and some individuals do not join
the electoral register until the annual October compilation process.
In comparison, the introduction of individual electoral registration in
the UK was thought to have negatively affected the number of eligible
citizens on the register and voter turnout.
Another country with a highly efficient registration process is
France. At the age of eighteen, all youth are automatically registered.
Only new residents and citizens who have moved are responsible for
bearing the costs and inconvenience of updating their registration.
Similarly, in Nordic countries,
all citizens and residents are included in the official population
register, which is simultaneously a tax list, voter registration, and
membership in the universal health system. Residents are required by law
to report any change of address to register within a short time after
moving. This is also the system in Germany (but without the membership in the health system).
The elimination of registration as a separate bureaucratic step
can result in higher voter turnout. This is reflected in statistics from
the United States Bureau of Census, 1982–1983. States that have same
day registration, or no registration requirements, have a higher voter
turnout than the national average. At the time of that report, the four
states that allowed election day registration were Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Maine, and Oregon. Since then, Idaho and Maine have changed to allow
same day registration. North Dakota is the only state that requires no
registration.
Compulsory voting
One of the strongest factors affecting voter turnout is whether voting is compulsory. In Australia, voter registration and attendance at a polling booth have been mandatory since the 1920s, with the most recent federal election in 2016 having turnout figures of 91% for the House of Representatives and 91.9% for the Senate. Several other countries have similar laws, generally with somewhat reduced levels of enforcement. If a Bolivian voter fails to participate in an election, the citizen may be denied withdrawal of their salary from the bank for three months.
In Mexico and Brazil,
existing sanctions for non-voting are minimal or are rarely enforced.
When enforced, compulsion has a dramatic effect on turnout.
In Venezuela and the Netherlands compulsory voting has been rescinded, resulting in substantial decreases in turnout.
In Greece voting is compulsory, however there are practically no sanctions for those who do not vote.
In Luxembourg
voting is compulsory, too, but not strongly enforced. In Luxembourg
only voters below the age of 75 and those who are not physically
handicapped or chronically ill have the legal obligation to vote.
In Belgium attendance is required and absence is punishable by law.
Sanctions for non-voting behaviour were foreseen sometimes even in absence of a formal requirement
to vote. In Italy
the Constitution describes voting as a duty (art. 48), though electoral
participation is not obligatory. From 1946 to 1992, thus, the Italian
electoral law included light sanctions for non-voters (lists of
non-voters were posted at polling stations).
Turnout rates have not declined substantially since 1992 in Italy,
though, pointing to other factors than compulsory voting to explain high
electoral participation.
Salience
Mark
N. Franklin argues that salience, the perceived effect that an
individual vote will have on how the country is run, has a significant
effect on turnout. He presents Switzerland
as an example of a nation with low salience. The nation's
administration is highly decentralized, so that the federal government
has limited 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. Important decisions are placed before the population in a referendum.
Individual votes for the federal legislature are thus unlikely to have a
significant effect on the nation, which probably explains the low
average turnouts in that country. By contrast Malta,
with one of the world's highest voter turnouts, has a single
legislature that holds a near monopoly on political power. Malta has a two-party system in which a small swing in votes can completely alter the executive.
On the other hand, countries with a two-party system can experience low
turnout if large numbers of potential voters perceive little real
difference between the main parties. Voters' perceptions of fairness
also have an important effect on salience. If voters feel that 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.
Proportionality
Another
institutional factor that may have an important effect is
proportionality, i.e., how closely the legislature reflects the views of
the populace. Under a pure proportional representation
system the composition of the legislature is fully proportional to the
votes of the populace and a voter can be sure that of being represented
in parliament, even if only from the opposition benches. (However many
nations that use a form of proportional representation in elections
depart from pure proportionality by stipulating that smaller parties are
not supported by a certain threshold percentage of votes cast will be
excluded from parliament.) By contrast, a voting system based on single
seat constituencies (such as the plurality system
used in North America, the UK and India) will tend to result in many
non-competitive electoral districts, in which the outcome is seen by
voters as a foregone conclusion.
Proportional systems tend to produce multiparty coalition governments. This may reduce salience, if voters perceive that they have little influence over which parties are included in the coalition. For instance, after the 2005 German election,
the creation of the executive not only expressed the will of the voters
of the majority party but also was the result of political deal-making.
Although there is no guarantee, this is lessened as the parties usually
state with whom they will favour a coalition after the elections.
Political scientists are divided on whether proportional
representation increases voter turnout, though in countries with
proportional representation voter turnout is higher. There are other systems that attempt to preserve both salience and proportionality, for example, the Mixed member proportional representation system in New Zealand
(in operation since 1996), Germany, and several other countries.
However, these tend to be complex electoral systems, and in some cases
complexity appears to suppress voter turnout. The dual system in Germany, though, seems to have had no negative impact on voter turnout.
Ease of voting
Ease
of voting is a factor in rates of turnout. In the United States and
most Latin American nations, voters must go through separate voter registration
procedures before they are allowed to vote. This two-step process quite
clearly decreases turnout. U.S. states with no, or easier, registration
requirements have larger turnouts. Other methods of improving turnout include making voting easier through more available absentee polling
and improved access to polls, such as increasing the number of possible
voting locations, lowering the average time voters have to spend
waiting in line, or requiring companies to give workers some time off on
voting day. In some areas, generally those where some polling centres are relatively inaccessible, such as India, elections often take several days. Some countries have considered Internet voting as a possible solution. In other countries, like France,
voting is held on the weekend, when most voters are away from work.
Therefore, the need for time off from work as a factor in voter turnout
is greatly reduced.
Many countries have looked into Internet voting as a possible
solution for low voter turnout. Some countries like France and
Switzerland use Internet voting. However, it has only been used
sparingly by a few states in the US. This is due largely to security
concerns. For example, the US Department of Defense looked into making
Internet voting secure, but cancelled the effort.
The idea would be that voter turnout would increase because people
could cast their vote from the comfort of their own homes, although the
few experiments with Internet voting have produced mixed results.
Voter fatigue
Voter fatigue can lower turnout. If there are many elections in close
succession, voter turnout will decrease as the public tires of
participating. In low-turnout Switzerland, the average voter is invited
to go to the polls an average of seven times a year; the United States
has frequent elections, with two votes per year on average, if one
includes all levels of government as well as primaries.
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.
Voter pledges
A
2018 study found that "young people who pledge to vote are more likely
to turn out than those who are contacted using standard Get-Out-the-Vote
materials. Overall, pledging to vote increased voter turnout by 3.7
points among all subjects and 5.6 points for people who had never voted
before."
Measuring turnout
Differing
methods of measuring voter turnout can contribute to reported
differences between nations. There are difficulties in measuring both
the numerator, the number of voters who cast votes, and the denominator,
the number of voters eligible to vote.
For the numerator, it is often assumed that the number of voters
who went to the polls should equal the number of ballots cast, which in
turn should equal the number of votes counted, but this is not the case.
Not all voters who arrive at the polls necessarily cast ballots. Some
may be turned away because they are ineligible, some may be turned away
improperly, and some who sign the voting register may not actually cast
ballots. Furthermore, voters who do cast ballots may abstain,
deliberately voting for nobody, or they may spoil their votes, either accidentally or as an act of protest.
In the United Kingdom, the Electoral Commission distinguishes between "valid vote turnout", which excludes spoilt ballots, and "ballot box turnout", which does not.
In the United States, it has been common to report turnout as the
sum of votes for the top race on the ballot, because not all
jurisdictions report the actual number of people who went to the polls
nor the number of undervotes or overvotes.
Overvote rates of around 0.3 percent are typical of well-run elections,
but in Gadsden County Florida, the overvote rate was 11 percent in
November 2000.
For the denominator, it is often assumed that the number of
eligible voters was well defined, but again, this is not the case. In
the United States, for example, there is no accurate registry of exactly
who is eligible to vote, since only about 70–75% of people choose to
register themselves.
Thus, turnout has to be calculated based on population estimates. Some
political scientists have argued that these measures do not properly
account for the large number of Legal Permanent Residents, illegal aliens, disenfranchised felons
and persons who are considered 'mentally incompetent' in the United
States, and that American voter turnout is higher than is normally
reported.
Even in countries with fewer restrictions on the franchise, VAP turnout
can still be biased by large numbers of non-citizen residents, often
under-reporting turnout by as much as 10 percentage points. Professor Michael P. McDonald constructed an estimation of the turnout against the 'voting eligible population' (VEP), instead of the 'voting age population'
(VAP). For the American presidential elections of 2004, turnout could
then be expressed as 60.32% of VEP, rather than 55.27% of VAP.
In New Zealand, registration is supposed to be universal. This
does not eliminate uncertainty in the eligible population because this
system has been shown to be unreliable, with a large number of eligible
but unregistered citizens, creating inflated turnout figures.
A second problem with turnout measurements lies in the way
turnout is computed. One can count the number of voters, or one can
count the number of ballots, and in a vote-for-one race, one can sum the
number of votes for each candidate. These are not necessarily
identical because not all voters who sign in at the polls necessarily
cast ballots, although they ought to, and because voters may cast spoiled ballots.
Trends of decreasing turnout since the 1980s
Change in voter turnout over time for five selected countries
Over the last 40 years, voter turnout has been steadily declining in the established democracies.
This trend has been significant in the United States, Western Europe,
Japan and Latin America. It has been a matter of concern and controversy
among political scientists for several decades. During this same
period, other forms of political participation have also declined, such
as voluntary participation in political parties and the attendance of
observers at town meetings. The decline in voting has also accompanied a
general decline in civic participation, such as church attendance,
membership in professional, fraternal, and student societies, youth
groups, and parent-teacher associations. At the same time, some forms of participation have increased. People have become far more likely to participate in boycotts, demonstrations, and to donate to political campaigns.
Before the late 20th century, suffrage
— the right to vote — was so limited in most nations that turnout
figures have little relevance to today. One exception was the United
States, which had near universal white male suffrage by 1840. The U.S.
saw a steady rise in voter turnout during the century, reaching its peak
in the years after the Civil War. Turnout declined from the 1890s until the 1930s, then increased again until 1960 before beginning its current long decline.
In Europe, voter turnouts steadily increased from the introduction of
universal suffrage before peaking in the mid-to-late 1960s, with modest
declines since then. These declines have been smaller than those in the
United States, and in some European countries turnouts have remained
stable and even slightly increased. Globally, voter turnout has
decreased by about five percentage points over the last four decades.
Reasons for decline
Methods of raising turnout.
Many causes have been proposed for this decline; a combination of
factors is most likely. When asked why they do not vote, many people
report that they have too little free time. However, over the last
several decades, studies have consistently shown that the amount of leisure time
has not decreased. According to a study by the Heritage Foundation,
Americans report on average an additional 7.9 hours of leisure time per
week since 1965.
Furthermore, according to a study by the National Bureau of Economic
Research, increases in wages and employment actually decrease voter
turnout in gubernatorial elections and do not affect national races.
Potential voters' perception that they are busier is common and might
be just as important as a real decrease in leisure time. 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. 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. He argues in Trust: The Social Virtues and The Creation of Prosperity that the social capital
essential to high voter turnouts is easily dissipated by government
actions. However, on an international level those states with the most
extensive social programs tend to be the ones with the highest turnouts.
Richard Sclove argues in Democracy and Technology that
technological developments in society such as "automobilization,"
suburban living, and "an explosive proliferation of home entertainment
devices" have contributed to a loss of community, which in turn has
weakened participation in civic life.
Trust in government and in politicians has decreased in many
nations. However, 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 the collapse in civil engagement is due to the introduction
of television. In the 1950s and 1960s, television quickly became the
main leisure activity in developed nations. It replaced earlier more
social entertainments such as bridge clubs, church groups, and bowling
leagues. Putnam argues that as people retreated within their homes and
general social participation declined, so too did voting.
Rosenstone and Hansen contend that the decline in turnout in the
United States is the product of a change in campaigning strategies as a
result of the so-called new media. Before the introduction of
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. During the same period, negative campaigning has become ubiquitous in the United States and elsewhere and has been shown to impact voter turnout. Attack ads
and smear campaigns give voters a negative impression of the entire
political process. The evidence for this is mixed: elections involving
highly unpopular incumbents generally have high turnout; some studies
have found that mudslinging and character attacks reduce turnout, but
that substantive attacks on a party's record can increase it.
Part of the reason for voter decline in the recent 2016 election
is likely because of restrictive voting laws around the country. Brennan
Center for Justice reported that in 2016 fourteen states passed
restrictive voting laws.
Examples of these laws are photo ID mandates, narrow times for early
voter, and limitations on voter registration. Barbour and Wright also
believe that one of the causes is restrictive voting laws but they call
this system of laws regulating the electorate.
The Constitution gives states the power to make decisions regarding
restrictive voting laws. In 2008 the Supreme Court made a crucial
decision regarding Indiana's voter ID law
in saying that it does not violate the constitution. Since then almost
half of the states have passed restrictive voting laws. These laws
contribute to Barbour and Wrights idea of the rational nonvoter. This is
someone who does not vote because the benefits of them not voting
outweighs the cost to vote.
These laws add to the “cost” of voting, or reason that make it more
difficult and to vote. In the United States programs such as MTV's "Rock the Vote" and the "Vote or Die" initiatives have been introduced to increase turnouts of those between the ages of 18 and 25. A number of governments and electoral commissions have also launched efforts to boost turnout. For instance Elections Canada has launched mass media campaigns to encourage voting prior to elections, as have bodies in Taiwan and the United Kingdom.
Google extensively studied the causes behind low voter turnout in
the United States, and argues that one of the key reasons behind lack
of voter participation is the so-called "interested bystander".
According to Google's study, 48.9% of adult Americans can be classified
as "interested bystanders", as they are politically informed but are
reticent to involve themselves in the civic and political sphere. This
category is not limited to any socioeconomic or demographic groups.
Google theorizes that individuals in this category suffer from voter apathy, as they are interested in political life but believe that their individual effect would be negligible. These individuals often participate politically on the local level, but shy away from national elections.
It has been argued that democratic consolidation (the
stabilization of new democracies) contributes to the decline in voter
turnout. A 2017 study challenges this however.
Ineligibility
Much
of the above analysis is predicated on voter turnout as measured as a
percentage of the voting-age population. In a 2001 article in the American Political Science Review,
Michael McDonald and Samuel Popkin argued, that at least in the United
States, voter turnout since 1972 has not actually declined when
calculated for those eligible to vote, what they term the
voting-eligible population.
In 1972, noncitizens and ineligible felons (depending on state law)
constituted about 2% of the voting-age population. By 2004, ineligible
voters constituted nearly 10%. Ineligible voters are not evenly
distributed across the country – 20% of California's voting-age
population is ineligible to vote – which confounds comparisons of
states. Furthermore, they argue that an examination of the Census
Bureau's Current Population Survey shows that turnout is low but not
declining among the youth, when the high youth turnout of 1972 (the
first year 18- to 20-year-olds were eligible to vote in most states) is
removed from the trendline.
