1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
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
|
