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

ENC

IES

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 Vo

te/V

AP

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

Vote

/VA

P 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

Vote

/VA

P

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

Vote

/VA

P

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

Vote

/VA

P

4 5 6 7 8 9

Decade

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

Vote

/VA

P

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)

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.0

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

100.0Vo

te/V

AP 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

Vote

/VA

P

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

Vote

/VA

P

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

Vote

/VA

P

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

Vote

/VA

P

4 5 6 7 8 9

Decade

25.0

50.0

75.0

100.0

Vote

/VA

P

% 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 NationsOlder 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

urno

ut

Mean Vote/ VAP

Mean Vote/ Reg

Social structure, agency & culture

    Model A     Model B     Model C    b (s.e.) Si

g.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