diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'rich/29_turnout')
| -rw-r--r-- | rich/29_turnout | 87 |
1 files changed, 87 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/rich/29_turnout b/rich/29_turnout new file mode 100644 index 0000000..267c35a --- /dev/null +++ b/rich/29_turnout @@ -0,0 +1,87 @@ +Turnout is critical to the health of a democracy +- Democracy = policies are representative of the people +- So how healthy is the US? +1996 48.4% +2000 50.7% +2004 55.7% +2008 58.2% +2012 54.9% +2016 55.5% +- That's low, the second lowest of all industrialized democracies + - And the lowest, Switzerland, doesn't actually have important + national elections +- What explains participation? + +The Decision to Vote or Not (real Political Science) +- Socioeconomic factors + - Age: older people are more likely to vote + - 18--21: less than 1 in 3 chance of voting + - >21: 54% + - Education: education increases voting + - College educated people are way more likely to vote + - Minority status is a poor factor for understanding US voting + - Sometimes better for less free democracies + - Income + - More money -> more likely to be salaried -> more flexible hrs + - Actually pretty poor explanatory variables + - Correlate with eachother + - Determine individual voting, not actual group participation + - National turnout is a group behavior +- Motivational factors + - Catch-all category, in a way + - Satisfaction theory: people aren't dissatisfied with the system + - Voter turnout hasn't increased as distrust has increased + - The least satisfied are actually the least likely to vote + (wealthy, high education, older should be MORE satisfied) + - Doesn't really work + - Modern Campaigns' influence + - Actually explains some voter turnout + - Voters don't like "negative campaigns" and too political + atmosphere, so they don't vote + - But it's not enough because it was just as loud 100 years ago + - "Social Rootedness" + - Around 60 years ago, you would grow up, go to college, work, + live, and die in your community. + - Rootedness -> care about your community + - Has decreased a lot, corresponding with a decrease in turnout + - Doesn't fully explain spikes in voter turnout + - Cultural factor? + - Well, Americans like politics; political shows are super + popular. #1 show on TV is Fox News. + - No real measurement, almost undisproveable (pseudoscientific) +- Institutional factors + - Formal or informal, control the cost vs benefit and structure + of voting + - Actually establish who gets to play + - Structure of political competition + - How districts are organized and representation is decided + - US = winner-take-all, single-member districts + - Promotes single competitive districts, low party + representation + - Proportionality + - How # of votes received transforms into # of seats awarded + - The less proportional, the lower the turnout + - Parliament, ex. has higher turnout than US + - "my guy is going to {win,lose} anyway" (esp 3rd parties) + - Number of Parties (party competition) + - One argument goes this way: people outside the main parties + (like a communist more extreme than Dems or a fascist more + extreme than Reps) + - But people often vote strategically + - Unicameralism + - One chamber -> more turnout + - "A second source of competition" + - Lower tournout on non-presidential, non-senate years + - Statistically significant, but 2-3 percentage points + - Registration process + - Has improved a LOT in recent years + - Mandatory voting + - Neutralizes most of the cost of voting + - #1 institutional variable + - Still small penalties, even in compulsory voting states (ex. + Australia) + - Like doctor's note will get you out even + - Italy puts you on a list + - Electoral Format + - Plurality/majoritarian vs proportional + - Proportional improves turnout |