Comparing Political Activism:Voter turnout
2
Structure
I. Overview • Core questions and theoretical framework• Cultural modernization v. institutional context• Implications for reform
II. Evidence • Turnout trends 1945-2000 in 191 nations
III. Conclusions • Decline or diversification of civic energies?
3
Democratic Phoenix (Cambridge University Press 2002)
Introduction: – 1. The Rise and Fall of Political Activism?– 2. Theories of Political Activism
I. The Puzzle of Electoral Turnout– 3. Mapping Turnout – 4. Do Institutions Matter?– 5. Who Votes?
II: Political Parties– 6. Mapping Party Activism– 7. Who Joins?
III: Civic Activism– 8. Social Capital & Civic Society– 9. Traditional Mobilizing Agencies: Trade Unions & Churches– 10. New Social Movements, the Internet & Protest Politics
Conclusions:
– 11. Conclusions: From Loyalties to Choice?
4
Resource: www.IDEA.int
5
Why important?
Robert Dahl On Democracy – Two core components of democracy: contestation and participation– Contestation by itself can mean competitive oligarchies/elites– Widespread participation is a necessary but not sufficient condition of
representative democracy. Sorensen’s definition of democracy:
– A highly inclusive level of political participation in the selection of leaders and policies, at least through regular and fair elections, such that no major (adult) social group is excluded.
– “Meaningful and extensive competition among individuals and groups (especially parties) for all portions of government power, at regular intervals…
– A level of civil and political liberties - freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom to form and join organizations…
Source: Georg Sorensen Democracy & Democratization (1993).
6
I. Core puzzles
Trends– What are the main changes over time in key dimensions of political
activism, especially turnout? Is there decline?
Comparisons– Why do forms of political activism vary among nations, especially among
newer and older democracies?
Interpretation– Has there been a steady erosion or a transformation of civic
engagement?
Causes – Cultural modernization v. rational choice institutionalism
7
Why concern?The civic decline thesis
Half-empty ballot box? (Marty Wattenberg)Desertion of party members? (Peter Mair)Partisan dealignment? (Russ Dalton)Hemorrhaging union rolls?Emptying church pews? (Norris and Inglehart)Anemic voluntary organizations? (Bob Putnam)Rising political cynicism? (Joe Nye et al)
8
Or the reinvention of activism?
‘Who’ – agencies– From formal Weberian organizations (parties, unions, &
churches) to transnational policy networks (new social movements and protest politics)
‘What’ – repertoires– From institutionalized membership to ad hoc action coalitions,
from electoral to protest politics
‘Where’ – target– From state-directed to other-directed targets eg WTO, Nike
9
Model of changeFigure 1: Typology of the evolution of political action
REPERTOIRES
Citizen-oriented
repertoires, including
voting, party work and
contact activity
Cause-oriented
repertoires, including
consumer politics,
demonstrations and
petitions
Traditional voluntary
associations, including
churches, unions and
political parties
Older generation
AG
EN
CIE
S
New social movements
and advocacy
networks, including
environmental and
humanitarian
organizations
Younger generation
10
Analytical Model
Societal Modernization
Levels of human development
Political Institutions
E.g.
electoral laws, party systems
Mobilizing AgenciesE.g. unions,
parties, churches
Political Activism
Resources
Motivation
---- Macro-level ---- Meso-level Micro-level
How would you assess the relative importance of each of these factors?
11
Explanations
1. Cultural Modernization - Inglehalt and Dalton– Participation is product of resources (time, money, skills) and
orientations (efficacy/competence, duty, interest, trust)– New style of citizen politics emerging in affluent societies
• Rising human capital – – Education/literacy, media information, & cognitive skills
• Changing cultural attitudes– Decline in deferential loyalties towards authority
• Growing civic skills and organizational capacities – Direct action, new social movements, issue and identity politics
• Generational process– Simple administrative ‘fixes’ (eg ‘motor-voter’) will fail to alter ‘habits of
the heart’
12
Explanations2. Rational choice institutionalism – Anthony Downs
Rules matter for costs and benefits of participation• Potential benefits v. costs (mechanical and psychological)• Eg turnout influenced by frequency of elections, level of office, use of compulsory voting,
registration hurdles, suffrage qualifications, closeness of outcome, party system, electoral system
Strategic calculations by parties and candidates• Get-out-the-vote drives, patterns of party competition
Strategic calculations by citizens• Time/effort v. rewards• Anticipated benefits/impact of action
Reforms alter calculus of costs and benefits • Registration processes eg election day, rolling register• Special voting procedures eg all-postal ballots• Distribution of polling facilities eg malls• Length of polling periods eg weekends• Remote voting eg Internet
Evidence: Voter turnout
14
Measures
Valid votes cast / registered electorate (Vote/REG)Valid votes cast/voting age population (Vote/VAP)
Figure 7.1 Votes cast as a proportion of the voting age population, 1990s
88
83
83
83
82
82
82
81
80
79
79
78
76
76
76
75
73
72
72
67
66
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
58
57
47
38
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Iceland
Israel
Sw eden
Czech Rep
Belgium
Denmark
Chile
Australia
New Zealand
Korea, Rep
Spain
Romania
Slovenia
Portugal
Norw ay
Netherlands
Germany
Taiw an
Ukraine
Ukraine
Lithuania
Belarus
Russia
Peru
Japan
Canada
Mexico
Hungary
Thailand
Poland
US
Sw itzerland
Note: Mean Vote/VAP is measured as the number of valid votes as a proportion of the Voting Age Population in parliamentary elections during the 1990s held in the 32 nations in the CSES dataset under comparison.
Source: International IDEA database Voter Turnout from 1945 to 2000. www.idea.int
16
Vote/VAPMeans
84.8 to 96.7 (16)77.3 to 84.8 (28)71.3 to 77.3 (20)63.9 to 71.3 (23)56 to 63.9 (32)41.4 to 56 (22)12.5 to 41.4 (18)0 to 12.5 (23)
Turnout 1990s
1990s1980s1970s1960s1950s1940s
Mea
n V
ote/
VAP
80
70
60
50
40
30
Type of Society
Postindustrial
High development
Medium development
Low development
Postindustrial
High development
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
Vo
te/V
AP
Australia Austria Belgium Canada Cyprus Denmark
Finland France Germany Greece Iceland Ireland
Israel Italy Japan Luxembourg Malta Netherlands
Norway NZ Portugal Singapore Spain Sweden
Switzerland UK USA
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
Vo
te/V
AP
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
Vo
te/V
AP
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
Vo
te/V
AP
4 5 6 7 8 9
Decade
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
Vo
te/V
AP
4 5 6 7 8 9
Decade4 5 6 7 8 9
Decade
% Vote/VAP 1945-2000
19
US Turnout
Figure 3.2: U.S. Turnout, 1932-2000 Source: US Census Bureau 1932-1996
US Turnout 1932-2000(Presidential Vote/ VAP)
0.0
10.020.0
30.040.0
50.060.0
70.0
1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000
Source: U.S.Census Bureau 1932-1996.
%
25.0
50.0
75.0
100.0V
ote
/VA
P Antigua Argentina Barbados Bolivia Brazil Chile
Colombia Costa Rica Dom. Rep Dominica Ecuador El Salvador
Grenada Guatemala Honduras India Jamaica Liechtenstein
Mexico Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru Sri Lanka
St. Kitts St. Vincent Thailand Trinidad Turkey Uruguay
Venezuela
25.0
50.0
75.0
100.0
Vo
te/V
AP
25.0
50.0
75.0
100.0
Vo
te/V
AP
25.0
50.0
75.0
100.0
Vo
te/V
AP
25.0
50.0
75.0
100.0
Vo
te/V
AP
4 5 6 7 8 9
Decade
25.0
50.0
75.0
100.0
Vo
te/V
AP
% Vote/VAP 1945-2000
Impact of political institutions
22
Explaining turnoutAll national elections in 139 nations,1990s
Model A: Socioeconomic Development Model B: Development + Institutions
b (s.e.) Beta Sig. b (s.e.) Beta Sig.
Constant 45.675 (5.822) *** 76.767 (12.635) ***
DEVELOPMENT
Human Development 0.035 (.006) .314 *** 0.021 (.007) .190 **
Level of Democratization 0.954 (.329) .162 ** 0.839 (.329) .143 **
POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS
Electoral System (Maj (1), PR (3)) 2.652 (1.025) .130 **
Mean population per MP -.0009 (.000) -.095 *
Frequency of national elections -3.471 (.557) -.337 ***
Predom. party system (1=yes) -3.977 (2.467) -.076
Frag. party system (1=yes) -6.228 (3.766) -.076
Presidential (1)/Parliamentary (0) 4.541 (1.767) .115 **
LEGAL RULES
Age of voting eligibility -.991 (.620) -.070
Length of women’s suffrage .191 (.052) .192 ***
Use of compulsory voting 1.964 (2.106) .043
Literacy requirements -20.686 (6.173) -.146 ***
Number of elections 405 405
Adjusted R2 .182 (16.7) .294 (15.5)
Note:Vote/VAP is measured as the number of valid votes as a proportion of the Voting Age Population in 405 parliamentary and presidential national elections held in 139 nations during the 1990s.
23
Compulsory registration
24
Voter registration USA
25
Electoral systems Table 7.2: Electoral systems and turnout, worldwide 1990s
Type of Electoral System Mean Vote/VAP 1990s
Mean Vote/Reg 1990s
N.
MAJORITARIAN
Alternative Vote 65.5 92.9 2
2nd Ballot 58.5 65.0 21
First-Past-The-Post 61.2 67.7 43
Single Non-Transferable Vote 52.6 59.8 2
Block Vote 56.5 70.9 9
All majoritarian 60.4 68.3 77
COMBINED
Combined-Dependent 66.6 71.9 7
Combined-Independent 63.5 69.0 19
All combined 64.0 70.4 26
PROPORTIONAL
List PR 70.0 74.7 59
Single Transferable Vote 83.4 81.7 2
All PR Systems 70.0 74.6 68
All 65.0 70.8 164
Notes:
Mean Vote/VAP is measured as the number of valid votes as a proportion of the Voting Age Population in all nations worldwide that held parliamentary elections during the 1990s.
Mean Vote/Reg is measured as the number of valid votes as a proportion of the registered electorate in all nations worldwide that held parliamentary elections during the 1990s.
N. Number of nations
Source: Calculated from International IDEA database Voter Turnout from 1945 to 2000. www.idea.int.
26
Compulsory VotingTable 4.4
Mean Vote/VAP Mean Vote/Reg N. of Nations
Older democracies Compulsory 79.4 86.9 7
Non-Compulsory 71.7 72.7 32
Difference +7.7 +14.2 39
Newer democracies Compulsory 67.7 75.8 9
Non-Compulsory 69.3 73.9 31
Difference -1.6 +1.9 40
Semi-democracies Compulsory 53.9 60.6 5
Non-Compulsory 56.6 67.0 40
Difference -2.7 -6.4 45
Non-democracies Compulsory 40.9 70.6 2
Non-Compulsory 61.8 67.8 38
Difference -20.9 +2.8 40
All Compulsory 65.9 75.4 23
Non-Compulsory 64.2 70.0 140
Difference +1.9 +5.4 163
Compulsory Voting: The following 23 nations were classified as currently using compulsory voting with the types of democracy shown in Appendix A:
Older democracies: Australia, Belgium, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg.
Newer Democracies: Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Liechtenstein, Panama Canal Zone, Thailand, and Uruguay.
Semi-democracies: Brazil, Guatemala, Honduras, Peru, and Venezuela.
Non-democracies: Singapore and Egypt.
27
Party Competition
50
60
70
80
90
Less than29.9%
30 to 39.9% 40 to 49.9% 50 to 59.9% More than60%
% Vote Share Winning Party
% T
urn
ou
t
Mean Vote/ VAP
Mean Vote/ Reg
Social structure, agency & culture
Model A Model B Model C
b (s.e.) Sig.
b (s.e.) Sig. b (s.e.) Sig.
DEVELOPMENT
Human development 9.94 (2.243) ***
16.599 (2.329) *** 29.59 (2.606) ***
Level of democratization .347 (.057) ***
.555 (.060) *** 1.05 (.068) ***
INSTITUTIONS
Electoral system -.017 (.158) .148 (.036) *** .212 (.040) ***
Population per MP .000 (.000) ***
.000 (.000) *** .000 (.000) ***
Frequency of national elections -.006 (.053) .095 (.055) .363 (.062) ***
Length of women’s enfranchisement .009 (.002) ***
.004 (.002) * .003 (.002)
Use of compulsory voting 2.23 (.149) ***
2.934 (.165) *** 2.23 (.166) ***
Legal voting age -.342 (.062) ***
-.570 (.066) *** -.60 (.071) ***
Party system .447 (.439) -1.357 (.477) ** -2.96 (.517) ***
STRUCTURE
Age (Logged Years) 4.272 (.140) *** 3.96 (.151) ***
Gender (Male=1) .040 (.044) -.16 (.049) ***
Education (7-pt scale) .295 (.019) *** .203 (.021) ***
Income (Household income) .000 (.000) *** .000 (.000) ***
AGENCY
Union membership (1=member) .559 (.064) ***
Religiosity (6-pt scale of church attendance) .056 (.015) ***
Party affiliation (1=yes) 1.69 (.054) ***
CULTURE
Political interest (5 point scale) .257 (.026) ***
Internal political efficacy (10 point scale) .077 (.014) ***
Political trust (10 point scale) .038 (.013) **
Constant -3.29 -11.6 -24.07
Nagelkerke R2 .099 .200 .339
Reported vote, 22 nations (ISSP 1996)
30
Age
% Voted by Age Group
50
60
70
80
90
100
18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 66-75 75+
31
III: Conclusions
Mixed trends since 1945 in electoral turnout, party membership and civic activismEvolution, transformation and reinvention of political activismEarly stages of the modernization process are important for rising activism. From the politics of loyalties to the politics of choice?
Democratic Phoenix: Next class: rise of protest politics
Top Related