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