Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:33, 28 September 2022

In political science, voter turnout refers to the participation rate (often defined as those who cast a ballot) of a given election. This can refer to the percentage of registered voters, eligible voters, or all voting-age people. 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."

Institutional factors drive the vast majority of differences in turnout rates. For example, simpler parliamentary democracies where voters get shorter ballots, fewer elections, and a multi-party system that makes accountability easier see much higher turnout than the systems of the United States, Japan, and Switzerland.

Significance

Some parts of society are more likely to vote than others. As turnout approaches 90%, significant differences between voters and nonvoters lessen, but in lower turnout elections the differences between voters and nonvoters can be dramatic.

More importantly than changes in specific election outcomes, voter turnout has seismic long-term implications on the abilities of democracies to function. For example, regulatory capture tends to afflict low-turnout democracies more, blocking popular democratic reforms like streamlining elections.

Institutional factors

Institutional factors have the most significant impact on voter turnout. Making voting compulsory has a direct and dramatic effect on turnout while adding barriers, such as a separate registration process or unnecessarily scheduling many elections, suppresses turnout. In addition, the closer democracies are to 'one person, one vote' increases turnout as voters see that their effort has an impact. This can be seen in the higher turnout rates of proportional parliamentary democracies.

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 and large majorities of republicans and democrats want to consolidate off-cycle elections. Another form of voter fatigue involves presenting voters with massive multipage ballots, as occurs in some parts of the United States.

Voter registration

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. US states with no, or easier, registration requirements have larger turnouts.

A 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 the register within a short time after moving. This is also the system in Germany (but without the membership in the health system).

Compulsory voting

A strong factor affecting voter turnout is whether voting is compulsory, as countries with compulsory voting tend to have higher voter turnout rates. For example, in Australia, voter registration and attendance at a polling booth have been mandatory since the 1920s, with the 2016 federal election having turnout figures of 91% for the House of Representatives and 91.9% for the Senate. In Singapore, where voting is compulsory, turnout at the 2020 general election was 95.81%, the highest since 1997 where it was 95.91%. This was an increase from the record low of 93.06% at the 2011 general election.

Penalties for failing to vote are not always strictly enforced, and sanctions for non-voters are often mild. For instance, while voting is nominally compulsory in Greece for adults up to 70 years of age, no one has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote, with voter turnout rates reaching as low as 57% in the September 2015 Greek legislative election. In Australia, people who do not vote are subject to a small fine, which is easily waived if an acceptable excuse for failing to vote is provided. In Bolivia, however, if a voter fails to participate in an election, they may be denied withdrawal of their salary from the bank for three months.

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

Other methods of making voting easier to increase turnout include vote-by-mail, 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 like France and Switzerland use Internet voting. However, it has only been used sparingly by a few states in part because the US Department of Defense looked into making Internet voting secure, but could not find a way to do so. In terms of just improving turnout, the few experiments with Internet voting have produced mixed results.

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. A 2021 study that used an experiment in Philadelphia found that postcards by election officials encouraging registrants to vote by mail boosted turnout in the 2020 primary elections by 0.4 percentage points.

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.

Numerator (ballots accepted or votes cast)

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.

Denominator (voting-age adults, eligible voters, or registered voters)

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.

Looking for trends

The examples and perspective in this section deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this section, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new section, as appropriate. (December 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Since around 1985, there appears to be a gradual decrease in voter turnout globally when looking at the voting-age population. However, 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.

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.

Many causes have been proposed for what some see as a decline in voter participation though all offered in this section are heavily disputed. 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. Some argue 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.

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.

Differences by country

Voter turnout varies considerably between nations. It tends to be lower in North America, Asia and Latin America than in most of Europe and Oceania. Based on all parliamentary elections between 1945 and 1997, Western Europe averages a 77% turnout, and South and Central America around 54%. 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.

Indonesia, which before 1998 always had a high percentage of voter (more than 87%) but then dip down to low 70% in the 2014, saw a record breaking voters in the 2019 Indonesian general election with more than 158 million people cast their ballots on the same day, and has been called "the world's most complex one-day elections".

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 Nations Human 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. It's important to note that social media is not always used effectively and may sometimes have a negative impact on the results of the election. Barack Obama utilized Facebook to his benefit during his first run for presidency and truly jumpstarted the use of social media in political campaigns. We recently saw the utilization of social media and perhaps the negative impacts social media has on campaigns in the recent 2020 election.

United States

Rosenstone and Hansen contend that there is a decline in turnout in the United States and that it 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. To counter this, 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.

Structural differences between democracies, including the complexity of the system and ease of voting are more often used to explain differences in turnout between nations, with United States voters in particular suffering from a complicated maze of federalism and separation of powers that is relatively unique among democracies. The 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.

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.

Other discussed 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

${\displaystyle PB+D>C,}$

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 may be 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.

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

Studies have found that improving children's social skills and enrolling them in high-quality early-childhood educational programs 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. Public-sector employees have higher voter turnout than private-sector employees.

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. 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.

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. Off-year 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. Following the Downsian Closeness hypothesis and the idea of instrumental voting, voters rationally estimate the costs and benefits of participating in an election. Benefits exceed the costs if a close outcome of the election is expected and voters believe their ballot may be decisive for the outcome. Additionally, in these elections parties increase their mobilization efforts. Although the logic of instrumental voting applies to all elections, the effects are more prominent in democracies and majoritarian electoral systems.

An example is the 2004 U.S. presidential election. With an intensely polarized electorate and all polls showing a close finish between President George W. Bush and Democratic challenger John F. Kerry, the turnout in the 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 2020 NBER paper, examining evidence from Swiss referenda, found that an awareness by the electorate that an election would be close increased turnout. Controlling for canton and vote fixed effects, the study determined "that greater cantonal newspaper coverage of close polls significantly increases voter turnout"

Previous 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.

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 2020 study in Political Behavior found that a single postcard by election officials to unregistered eligible voters boosted registration rates by a percentage point and turnout by 0.9 percentage points, with the strongest effects on young, first-time voters.

The availability of ballot drop boxes increases turnout.

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."

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.

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."

Weather and timing

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.

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."

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.

Reasons for not voting

There are philosophical, moral, and practical reasons that some people cite for not voting in electoral politics, typically owing to obstacles to voting, though some of the practical reasons for abstention have more to do with rare, difficult to predict situations arising from flaws in the design of the voting system that fail to efficiently capture voter preferences.

Notes

1. "Opinion | Want Americans to vote? Give them the day off". Washington Post. Retrieved 2018-10-11.
2. Michael McDonald and Samuel Popkin. "The Myth of the Vanishing Voter" in American Political Science Review. December 2001. P. 970.
3. Michael McDonald and Samuel Popkin. "The Myth of the Vanishing Voter" in American Political Science Review. December 2001. P. 970.
4. Franklin. "Electoral Engineering"
5. Badger, Emily. "What If Everyone Voted?" The New York Times, The New York Times, 29 Oct. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/10/29/upshot/what-if-everyone-voted.html.P. 12-13
6. Anzia, Sarah F. (2013). Timing and Turnout: How Off-Cycle Elections Favor Organized Groups. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-08695-8. p. 210
7. Franklin "Electoral Participation." p. 98
8. Anzia, Sarah F. (2013). Timing and Turnout: How Off-Cycle Elections Favor Organized Groups. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-08695-8. p. 210
9. Arend Lijphart. "Unequal Participation: Democracy's Unresolved Dilemma Archived 2006-03-26 at the Wayback Machine." American Political Science Review.
10. Richard G. Niemi and Herbert F. Weisberg. Controversies in Voting Behavior p. 31
11. ^ "Compulsory Voting". International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Retrieved 2 June 2021.
12. 2016 House of Representatives and Senate elections
13. "GE2020: 4,794 votes cast overseas, taking total voter turnout this election to 95.81%". CNA. Singapore. 15 July 2020.
14. Lee, Min Kok (12 September 2015). "GE2015: Voter turnout at 93.56 per cent, improves slightly from 2011 record low". The Straits Times. Singapore.
15. ^ "Of 31 countries with compulsory voting, a dozen actually enforce it". The News International. 4 February 2013. Retrieved 2 June 2021.
16. "European Election Database - Parliamentary elections in Greece". nsd.no.
17. "Voter Turnout in Greek Elections Drops to New Historic Low". Greek Reporter. 21 September 2015. Retrieved 21 September 2015.
18. The Guardian Compulsory voting around the world Archived 2006-12-10 at the Wayback Machine
19. Mark N. Franklin. "Electoral Participation." in Controversies in Voting Behavior p. 87
20. Richard S. Katz. Democracy and Elections. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
21. 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. p. 308
22. Katz p. 240
23. Lijphart, Arend (March 1997). "Unequal Participation: Democracy's Unresolved Dilemma". American Political Science Review. 91 (1): 1–14. doi:10.2307/2952255. JSTOR 2952255. S2CID 143172061.
24. Blais, Andre (1990). "Does proportional representation foster voter turnout?". European Journal of Political Research. 18 (2): 167–181. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.1990.tb00227.x.
25. Powell "Thirty Democracies." p. 12
26. "Internet voting is just too hackable, say security experts". USA TODAY. Archived from the original on 2016-03-23. Retrieved 2016-03-22.
27. "Voting Drops 83 Percent In All-Digital Election". 26 May 2009. KITV News. Archived from the original on 4 November 2013. Retrieved 2 September 2013.
28. Urbatsch, R. (2017-07-01). "Youthful hours: Shifting poll-opening times manipulates voter demographics". Research & Politics. 4 (3): 2053168017720590. doi:10.1177/2053168017720590. ISSN 2053-1680.
29. Hopkins, Daniel J.; Meredith, Marc; Chainani, Anjali; Olin, Nathaniel; Tse, Tiffany (2021-01-26). "Results from a 2020 field experiment encouraging voting by mail". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 118 (4): e2021022118. Bibcode:2021PNAS..11820210H. doi:10.1073/pnas.2021022118. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 7848624. PMID 33468656.
30. Kimball W. Brace, Overview of Voting Equipment Usage in United States, Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Voting Archived 2009-01-08 at the Wayback Machine, statement to the Election Assistance Commission, May 5, 2004.
31. Douglas W. Jones, Human Factors in Voting Technology Archived 2009-09-19 at the Wayback Machine, presentation to the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws September 29, 2002, Ottawa Canada.
32. Katz p. 239
33. "LPR Population Estimates". 14 April 2016.
34. Niemi and Weisberg "Introduction." Controversies in Voting Behavior. p. 25
35. Wigginton, Michael J.; Stockemer, Daniel; van Schouwen, Jasmine (30 July 2019). "International Migration and Turnout Bias". PS: Political Science & Politics. 53: 33–38. doi:10.1017/S104909651900101X. hdl:10393/39655. ISSN 1049-0965. S2CID 201337124.
36. McDonald "2004 Voting-Age and Voting-Eligible Population Estimates and Voter Turnout" "United States Elections Project". Archived from the original on 2008-04-19. Retrieved 2008-05-23.
37. Katz p. 334
38. Voter turnout trends around the World. Abdurashid Solijonov, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Stockholm: IDEA. 2016. ISBN 978-91-7671-083-8. OCLC 981759546.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
39. Kopf, Dan (February 2017). "Voter turnout is dropping dramatically in the "free world"". Quartz. Retrieved 2022-05-10.
40. Kostelka, Filip; Blais, André (2021). "The Generational and Institutional Sources of the Global Decline in Voter Turnout". World Politics. 73 (4): 629–667. doi:10.1017/S0043887121000149. ISSN 0043-8871. S2CID 237495140.
41. Michael McDonald and Samuel Popkin. "The Myth of the Vanishing Voter" in American Political Science Review.
42. Robert D. Putnam "Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America." in Controversies in Voting Behavior p. 40
43. "Upwards Leisure Mobility: Americans Work Less and Have More LeisureTime than Ever Before". The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on 2016-11-05. Retrieved 2016-11-05.
44. Charles, Kerwin Kofi; Jr, Melvin Stephens (2013). "Employment, Wages, and Voter Turnout". American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. 5 (4): 111–43. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.595.1201. doi:10.1257/app.5.4.111. S2CID 14036680.
45. Sclove p. 241
46. Putnam p. 61
47. Kostelka, Filip (July 2017). "Does Democratic Consolidation Lead to a Decline in Voter Turnout? Global Evidence Since 1939". American Political Science Review. 111 (4): 653–667. doi:10.1017/S0003055417000259. ISSN 0003-0554. S2CID 148964551.
48. IDEA – Regional differences Archived 2006-03-14 at the Wayback Machine
49. Will Indonesians even bother to vote?, Sheith Khidhir, ASEAN Post, 30 March 2019
50. Indonesia's Incredible Elections: Why Indonesian elections are unlike any other in the world, Lowy Institute
51. Indonesia: 193m people, 17,000 islands, one big election. Here's what you need to know, Kate Lamb, The Guardian, 15 April 2019
52. The mind-boggling challenge of Indonesia's election logistics, Ben Bland, Lowy Institute, 3 April 2019
53. Powell, G. Bingham. "American Voter Turnout in Comparative Perspective". The American Political Science Review. 1986: 19.
54. Powell "Thirty Democracies." p. 14
55. Powell. p. 13
56. Kristoffer Holt; Adam Shehata; Jesper Strömbäck; Elisabet Ljungberg (1 February 2013). "Age and the effects of news media attention and social media use on political interest and participation: Do social media function as leveller?". European Journal of Communication. 28 (1): 19–34. doi:10.1177/0267323112465369. S2CID 64283527.
57. "Social Media and Political Participation".
58. Steven J. Rosenstone and John Mark Hansen. "Solving the Puzzle of Participation in Electoral Politics." p. 73
59. Krupnikov, Yanna (2011). "When Does Negativity Demobilize? Tracing the Conditional Effect of Negative Campaigning on Voter Turnout". American Journal of Political Science. 55 (4): 797–813. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00522.x.
60. Niemi and Weisberg p. 30.
61. Michael McDonald and Samuel Popkin. "The Myth of the Vanishing Voter" in American Political Science Review. December 2001. P. 970.
62. Regan, Michael D. "Why Is Voter Turnout so Low in the U.S.?" PBS. PBS, 6 Nov. 2016. Web. 13 Dec. 2016. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/voter-turnout-united-states.
63. ^ Barbour, Christine, and Gerald C. Wright. KEEPING THE REPUBLIC: Power and Citizenship in American Politics. Place of Publication Not Identified: CQ, 2016. Print.
64. Krontiris, Kate; Webb, John; Chapman, Chris (2015-01-01). "Understanding America's Interested Bystander: A Complicated Relationship with Civic Duty". Archived from the original on 2016-12-21. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
65. "Understanding America's "Interested Bystander:" A Complicated Relationship with Civic Duty". Politics & Elections Blog. Archived from the original on 2016-12-20. Retrieved 2016-11-05.
66. Satoshi Kanazawa. "A Possible Solution to the Paradox of Voter Turnout." The Journal of Politics. p. 974
67. Gelman, Katz, and Teurlinckx. "The Mathematics and Statistics of Voting Power." Archived 2012-04-15 at the Wayback Machine 'Statistical Science' 2002, vol 17, no 4
68. ^ Kanazawa p. 975
69. The basic idea behind this formula was developed by Anthony Downs in An Economic Theory of Democracy. published in 1957. The formula itself was developed by William H. Riker and Peter Ordeshook and published in Riker, William H.; Ordeshook, Peter C. (1968). "A Theory of the Calculus of Voting". American Political Science Review. 62: 25–42. doi:10.1017/s000305540011562x.
70. Enos, Ryan D.; Fowler, Anthony (11 March 2014). "Pivotality and Turnout: Evidence from a Field Experiment in the Aftermath of a Tied Election" (PDF). Political Science Research and Methods: 1–11. Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 July 2014. Retrieved 26 July 2014.
71. Riker and Ordeshook, 1968
72. Jankowski, Richard (2002). "Buying a Lottery Ticket to Help the Poor: Altruism, Civic Duty, and Self-Interest in the Decision to Vote". Rationality and Society. 14 (1): 55–77. doi:10.1177/1043463102014001003. S2CID 145359662.
73. Edlin, Aaron, Andrew Gelman, and Noah Kaplan. 2007. "Voting as a Rational Choice: Why and How People Vote to Improve the Well-Being of Others." Rationality and Society.
74. Fowler, James H. "Altruism and Turnout," Journal of Politics 68 (3): 674–683 (August 2006)
75. Fowler, James H., Kam CD "Beyond the Self: Altruism, Social Identity, and Political Participation," Journal of Politics 69 (3): 811–825 (August 2007)
76. Loewen, PJ "Antipathy, Affinity, and Political Participation," Canadian Journal of Political Science (Forthcoming 2010)
77. Fowler, James H. "Habitual Voting and Behavioral Turnout," Journal of Politics 68 (2): 335–344 (May 2006)
78. Plutzer, E (2002). "Becoming a Habitual Voter: Inertia, Resources, and Growth in Young Adulthood". American Political Science Review. 96 (1): 41–56. doi:10.1017/s0003055402004227. S2CID 144005060.
79. Hui, Mary; Hui, Mary (2017-08-17). "A political scientist has discovered a surprising way to increase voter turnout. It starts in childhood". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived from the original on 2017-08-17. Retrieved 2017-08-17.
80. Holbein, John B. (August 2017). "Childhood Skill Development and Adult Political Participation". American Political Science Review. 111 (3): 572–583. doi:10.1017/S0003055417000119. ISSN 0003-0554. S2CID 229167559.
81. Holbein, John B.; Bradshaw, Catherine P.; Munis, B. Kal; Rabinowitz, Jill; Ialongo, Nicholas S. (2021). "Promoting Voter Turnout: an Unanticipated Impact of Early-Childhood Preventive Interventions". Prevention Science. 23 (2): 192–203. doi:10.1007/s11121-021-01275-y. ISSN 1573-6695. PMID 34279777. S2CID 236093052.
82. ^ Sigelman, L.; Roeder, P. W.; Jewell, M. E.; Baer, M. A. (1985). "Voting and nonvoting: A multi-election perspective". American Journal of Political Science. 29 (4): 749–765. doi:10.2307/2111179. JSTOR 2111179.
83. Persson, Mikael; Oskarsson, Sven; Lindgren, Karl-Oskar (2018). "Enhancing Electoral Equality: Can Education Compensate for Family Background Differences in Voting Participation?". American Political Science Review. 113: 108–122. doi:10.1017/S0003055418000746. ISSN 1537-5943.
84. Geys, Benny; Sørensen, Rune J. (2021). "Public Sector Employment and Voter Turnout". American Political Science Review. 116: 367–373. doi:10.1017/S000305542100099X. ISSN 0003-0554.
85. Eisinga, R.; Franses, Ph.-H.; Van Dijk, D. (1998). "Timing of vote decision in first and second order Dutch elections 1978–1995. Evidence from artificial neural networks". Political Analysis. 7 (1): 117–142. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.31.1705. doi:10.1093/pan/7.1.117.
86. "Who Votes: City Election Timing and Voter Composition" Zoltan L. Hajnal, Vladimir Kogan, and G. Agustin Markarian. 19 August 2021. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/who-votes-city-election-timing-and-voter-composition/39CE6B9F0E906228F695248C874C0C36. Cambridge University Press.
87. Lijphart. p. 12
88. Downs, Anthony (1957). "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy". Journal of Political Economy. 65 (2): 135–150. doi:10.1086/257897. ISSN 0022-3808. JSTOR 1827369. S2CID 154363730.
89. Eichhorn, Kristin; Linhart, Eric (2021-08-01). "Estimating the Effect of Competitiveness on Turnout across Regime Types". Political Studies. 69 (3): 602–622. doi:10.1177/0032321720914645. ISSN 0032-3217. S2CID 218958161.
90. ^ Bursztyn, Leonardo; Cantoni, Davide; Funk, Patricia; Yuchtman, Noam (June 2017). "Identifying the Effect of Election Closeness on Voter Turnout: Evidence from Swiss Referenda". NBER Working Paper No. 23490. doi:10.3386/w23490.
91. Gerber, Alan S.; Huber, Gregory A.; Meredith, Marc; Biggers, Daniel R.; Hendry, David J. (2017-07-19). "Does Incarceration Reduce Voting? Evidence about the Political Consequences of Spending Time in Prison" (PDF). The Journal of Politics. 79 (4): 1130–1146. doi:10.1086/692670. ISSN 0022-3816. S2CID 55732337.
92. Schelker, Mark; Schneiter, Marco (October 2017). "The elasticity of voter turnout: Investing 85 cents per voter to increase voter turnout by 4 percent" (PDF). Electoral Studies. 49: 65–74. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2017.07.005.
93. Holbein, John B.; Hillygus, D. Sunshine (2016-04-01). "Making Young Voters: The Impact of Preregistration on Youth Turnout". American Journal of Political Science. 60 (2): 364–382. doi:10.1111/ajps.12177. hdl:10161/10420. ISSN 1540-5907.
94. Henrickson, Kevin E.; Johnson, Erica H. (2019). "Increasing Voter Participation by Altering the Costs and Stakes of Voting". Social Science Quarterly. 100 (3): 869–884. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12583. ISSN 1540-6237. S2CID 149511755.
95. Yu, Jinhai (2019). "Does State Online Voter Registration Increase Voter Turnout?*". Social Science Quarterly. 100 (3): 620–634. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12598. ISSN 1540-6237. S2CID 157548171.
96. Bryant, Lisa A.; Hanmer, Michael J.; Safarpour, Alauna C.; McDonald, Jared (2020-06-19). "The Power of the State: How Postcards from the State Increased Registration and Turnout in Pennsylvania". Political Behavior. 44 (2): 535–549. doi:10.1007/s11109-020-09625-2. ISSN 1573-6687. S2CID 220509432.
97. McGuire, William; O'Brien, Benjamin Gonzalez; Baird, Katherine; Corbett, Benjamin; Collingwood, Loren (2020). "Does Distance Matter? Evaluating the Impact of Drop Boxes on Voter Turnout". Social Science Quarterly. 101 (5): 1789–1809. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12853. ISSN 1540-6237. S2CID 225216841.
98. Goodman, Nicole; Stokes, Leah C. (2018). "Reducing the Cost of Voting: An Evaluation of Internet Voting's Effect on Turnout". British Journal of Political Science. 50 (3): 1155–1167. doi:10.1017/S0007123417000849. ISSN 0007-1234.
99. Miller, Peter; Reynolds, Rebecca; Singer, Matthew (2017-10-01). "Mobilizing the young vote: Direct mail voter guides in the 2015 Chicago mayoral election*". Research & Politics. 4 (4): 2053168017738410. doi:10.1177/2053168017738410. ISSN 2053-1680.
100. Costa, Mia; Schaffner, Brian F.; Prevost, Alicia (2018-05-29). "Walking the walk? Experiments on the effect of pledging to vote on youth turnout". PLOS ONE. 13 (5): e0197066. Bibcode:2018PLoSO..1397066C. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0197066. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 5973556. PMID 29813075.
101. Gomez, Brad T.; Hansford, Thomas G.; Krause, George A. (2007-08-01). "The Republicans Should Pray for Rain: Weather, Turnout, and Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections". Journal of Politics. 69 (3): 649–663. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.550.7559. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00565.x. ISSN 1468-2508. S2CID 1021987.
102. Gatrell, Jay D.; Bierly, Gregory D. (2013-07-03). "Weather and Voter Turnout: Kentucky Primary and General Elections, 1990-2000". Southeastern Geographer. 42 (1): 114–134. doi:10.1353/sgo.2002.0007. ISSN 1549-6929. S2CID 128473916.
103. ^ Artés, Joaquín (2014-06-01). "The rain in Spain: Turnout and partisan voting in Spanish elections". European Journal of Political Economy. 34: 126–141. doi:10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2014.01.005.
104. Eisinga, R.; Te Grotenhuis, M.; Pelzer, B. (2012). "Weather conditions and voter turnout in Dutch national parliament elections, 1971–2010". International Journal of Biometeorology. 56 (4): 783–786. Bibcode:2012IJBm...56..783E. doi:10.1007/s00484-011-0477-7. PMC 3382632. PMID 21792567.
105. Eisinga, R.; Te Grotenhuis, M.; Pelzer, B. (2012). "Weather conditions and political party vote share in Dutch national parliament elections, 1971–2010". International Journal of Biometeorology. 56 (6): 1161–1165. Bibcode:2012IJBm...56.1161E. doi:10.1007/s00484-011-0504-8. PMC 3469786. PMID 22065127.
106. ^ Horiuchi, Yusaku; Kang, Woo Chang (2017-12-05). "Why Should the Republicans Pray for Rain? Electoral Consequences of Rainfall Revisited". American Politics Research. 46 (5): 869–889. doi:10.1177/1532673x17745631. S2CID 8768620.
107. ^ Stockemer, Daniel; Wigginton, Michael (2018-06-01). "Fair weather voters: do Canadians stay at home when the weather is bad?". International Journal of Biometeorology. 62 (6): 1027–1037. Bibcode:2018IJBm...62.1027S. doi:10.1007/s00484-018-1506-6. ISSN 1432-1254. PMID 29392415. S2CID 42645794.
108. Lasala-Blanco, Narayani; Shapiro, Robert Y.; Rivera-Burgos, Viviana (February 2017). "Turnout and weather disruptions: Survey evidence from the 2012 presidential elections in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy". Electoral Studies. 45: 141–152. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2016.11.004.
109. Persson, Mikael; Sundell, Anders; Öhrvall, Richard (2014-03-01). "Does Election Day weather affect voter turnout? Evidence from Swedish elections". Electoral Studies. 33: 335–342. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2013.07.021. ISSN 0261-3794.
110. Fraga, Bernard (2011-06-30). "Voting Costs and Voter Turnout in Competitive Elections". Quarterly Journal of Political Science. 5 (4): 339–356. doi:10.1561/100.00010093. ISSN 1554-0626. S2CID 3911814.
111. Eisinga, Rob; Te Grotenhuis, Manfred; Pelzer, Ben (2012-07-01). "Weather conditions and voter turnout in Dutch national parliament elections, 1971–2010". International Journal of Biometeorology. 56 (4): 783–786. Bibcode:2012IJBm...56..783E. doi:10.1007/s00484-011-0477-7. ISSN 1432-1254. PMC 3382632. PMID 21792567.
112. Ben Lakhdar, Christian; Dubois, Eric (2006-08-01). "Climate and Electoral Turnout in France". French Politics. 4 (2): 137–157. doi:10.1057/palgrave.fp.8200100. ISSN 1476-3427. S2CID 17335291.
113. Artés, Joaquín (2014-06-01). "The rain in Spain: Turnout and partisan voting in Spanish elections". European Journal of Political Economy. 34: 126–141. doi:10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2014.01.005. ISSN 0176-2680.
114. ^ G. Bingham Powell "Voter Turnout in Thirty Democracies." in Electoral Participation.
115. Eisinga, Rob; Te Grotenhuis, Manfred; Pelzer, Ben (2012-07-01). "Weather conditions and voter turnout in Dutch national parliament elections, 1971–2010". International Journal of Biometeorology. 56 (4): 783–786. Bibcode:2012IJBm...56..783E. doi:10.1007/s00484-011-0477-7. ISSN 1432-1254. PMC 3382632. PMID 21792567.
116. Arnold, Felix; Freier, Ronny (2016-03-01). "Only conservatives are voting in the rain: Evidence from German local and state elections". Electoral Studies. 41: 216–221. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.005. ISSN 0261-3794.
117. Dahlgaard, Jens Olav (2018). "Trickle-Up Political Socialization: The Causal Effect on Turnout of Parenting a Newly Enfranchised Voter" (PDF). American Political Science Review. 112 (3): 698–705. doi:10.1017/S0003055418000059. hdl:10398/dcb47ff3-fffd-4aa5-8459-8f348e212bd9. ISSN 0003-0554. S2CID 4711072.
118. Bhatti, Yosef; Fieldhouse, Edward; Hansen, Kasper M. (2018-07-27). "It's a Group Thing: How Voters go to the Polls Together". Political Behavior. 42: 1–34. doi:10.1007/s11109-018-9484-2. ISSN 0190-9320.
119. Hersh, Eitan; Ghitza, Yair (2018-10-10). "Mixed partisan households and electoral participation in the United States". PLOS ONE. 13 (10): e0203997. Bibcode:2018PLoSO..1303997H. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0203997. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 6179382. PMID 30303974.
120. Gerber, Alan S.; Huber, Gregory A.; Fang, Albert H.; Gooch, Andrew (2018). "Nongovernmental Campaign Communication Providing Ballot Secrecy Assurances Increases Turnout: Results From Two Large-Scale Experiments*". Political Science Research and Methods. 6 (3): 613–624. doi:10.1017/psrm.2017.16. ISSN 2049-8470. S2CID 157684156.
121. "Hayden, Grant M. "Abstention: the unexpected power of withholding your vote." Conn. L. Rev. 43 (2010): 585".

References

• Franklin, Mark N. "Electoral Engineering and Cross National Turnout Differences." British Journal of Political Science. 1999.
• Kanazawa, Satoshi. "A Possible Solution to 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. p. 12
• McDonald, Michael and Samuel Popkin. "The Myth of the Vanishing Voter." American Political Science Review. 2001.
• Niemi, Richard G. and Herbert F. Weisberg. eds. Controversies in Voting Behavior. 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.
• Wolfinger, Raymond E. and Steven J. Rosenstone. 1980. Who Votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Wolfinger, R., Glass, D., Squire, P. (1990). Predictors of electoral turnout:an international comparison. Policy Studies Review, 9(3), p551–574, 24p
• Highton, B. (1997). "Easy registration and voter turnout". The Journal of Politics. 59 (2): 565–575. doi:10.1017/s0022381600053585. S2CID 154699757.

Further reading

• Charles Q. Choi (November 2007). "The Genetics of Politics". Scientific American (Print). Scientific American, Inc. pp. 18, 21. ...the desire to vote or abstain from politics might largely be hardwired into our biology
• Philip Lampi (2008-05-29). "A New Nation Votes: American Elections Returns 1787–1825". Digital Collections and Archives. Tufts University. Archived from the original on 2011-02-02. Retrieved 2008-06-24. A New Nation Votes is a searchable collection of election returns from the earliest years of American democracy.
• "The Power Report". makeitanissue.org.uk. The Power Inquiry. 2007-01-19. Archived from the original on 2007-12-08. Retrieved 2008-06-24. The Power Commission was established to discover what is happening to our democracy. It sought to establish why people were disengaging from formal democratic politics in Britain and how these trends could be reversed.
• "Voter Turnout". ElectionGuide. International Foundation for Electoral Systems. Archived from the original on 2008-06-07. Retrieved 2008-06-24. ...ElectionGuide is the most comprehensive and timely source of verified election information and results available online.
• "Voter Turnout". FairVote. Voting and Democracy Research Center. Retrieved 2008-06-24. Voter Turnout is a fundamental quality of fair elections and is generally considered to be a necessary factor for a healthy democracy.
• "Voter Turnout". International IDEA website. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. 2008-06-16. Archived from the original on 2008-12-10. Retrieved 2008-06-23. The International IDEA Voter Turnout Website contains the most comprehensive global collection of political participation statistics available.
• Michael McDonald (2008-04-01). "Voter Turnout". United States Elections Project. Archived from the original on 2008-05-14. Retrieved 2008-06-24. Statistics on voter turnout presented here show that the much-lamented decline in voter participation is an artifact of the way in which it is measured.
• Rhonda Parkinson (2007-03-01). "Voter Turnout in Canada". Maple Leaf Web. Retrieved 2008-06-23. Since the 1980s, voter turnout in federal elections has fallen sharply.

• Voting
• Political science