Other alternative explanations as to why people vote include how much money, time and civic skills an individual has. Someone who has very little spare time is less likely to vote than someone who has plenty of it. Also if a person is surrounded by friends, family and neighbours all of them who participate in voting, then that person is also more likely to vote as they may feel embarrasses not to have voted.
Evidence suggests that there are two dominant factors which seem to have the most profound effect on voter turnout rates. These two factors are the role of institutions and electoral attributes and secondly, cultural and historical factors.
According to Robert W. Jackman, there are five main institutional factors which influence voter turnout. The first is nationally competitive elections. Findings have found tha t countries with nationally competitive districts have higher rates of turnout. (Jackman, pp469) The second factor is electoral proportionality. The findings from this aspect suggest that it is “unlikely that any one vote will be decisive in shaping the overall outcome of an election”. (Jackman, pp470). The third factor is the number of parties in government. Jackman claims that there is an increase in voter turnout when institutional arrangements allow elections a more decisive role in government formation. He finds that a decrease in this decisiveness results in a reduced incentive to vote. The fourth factor which Jackman puts forward is that of unicameralism. Unicameralism complements decisiveness government and hence, improved electoral turnout. (Jackman pp470). And finally the issue of mandatory voting laws. “The penalties imposed by such laws as compulsory voting act as disincentives for not voting and again this fosters electoral turnout. (Jackman, pp470) Another important institutional mechanism that affects turnout is the frequency of elections. If elections occur a few times a year, then voters are less likely to continue to cast their votes. This is particularly evident in Switzerland where citizens seem to suffer from “voter fatigue”. (Jackman and Miller 1995, 482-3). I will examine some of these factors in more detail later on in the essay.
The second dominant influence on electoral turnout is cultural interpretation. Approaches and responses of a cultural group to a given situation can be traced back to the historical experience of that nation, even memories which have been passed down from generation to generation. Greece, Portugal and Spain are all said to have political cultures which hinder political participation. A reasonable explanation fro this may be that each of these countries has undergone a transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one. As a result a certain authoritarian approach to politics had manifested itself in the people of these nations and although the political system has changed, this psychological outlook has not. This belief is supported by Inglehart (1990) who stated that “the people’s cultural approach is distinctive in arguing that peoples responses to their situations are shaped by subjunctive orientations which vary cross-culturally and within subcultures.
As already briefly touched on, the type of political system in place seems to have an effect on electoral turnout. Some analysts believe that the proportional representation system produces higher turnouts because of its encouragement of multi-partyism. It is believed that a large number of parties and candidates give voters the impression that they have a greater choice and as a result more people of different persuasions are encouraged to vote. There is also a realistic chance that some of the smaller parties will be involved in a coalition government and therefore even voters for smaller parties could prove important and consequently increasing the benefits versus cost. Voters would not feel that their vote has been a waste of time when the party that they voted for has a chance of implementing policies. However, some analysts including Jackman argue against this and believe that if the probability of a collation government is high, then many people will abstain form voting as they would believe that the government will be indecisive, instable and short lived. Studies of this subject have not produced any compound results however many of the countries which use the PR system such as Finland, Spain and Portugal have all had high percentages of non-voters in elections during the 1990’s. On the other hand it should also be noted that the only two non-PR systems in the European Union, France and the United Kingdom have had the lowest percentage turnout in recent years. This leads us to believe that there are other reasons as to the decline in electoral turnout in Europe of recent times.
One reason may be due to the level of satisfaction the public has for its government. One explanation for the low turnout in some countries is that people were content with the well being of the country and as a result did not feel that the elections mattered. Still, I do not believe this to be a convincing explanation. In my opinion if a public is happy with the government it would be more likely to show its continuing support at the polls.
Probably a more valid reason in my view, for the decline in turnout, is the growing importance of the European Union. Over the last few decades the European Union has gradually taken away more and more of the decision making policies ou of the hands of the nations and into Brussels. Many people believe that this process will continue over the next few years and as a result national elections seem less important. Europeans are starting to see that the EU controls much of their lives but have no way in holding those who make the decisions responsible as the “European Parliament, the only directly elected part of the EU governing structure, is weak compared to the unelected powerful Council of the EU”. (Fernandez, 2003). As the European Union continues to grow, the democratic deficit will continue to grow. The EU is continually planning to take in more countries, to take over more responsibility and is also in the process of creating a European constitution which all member states will have to abide to. “Except for a few referendums here and there, the consolidation of the European Union seem to be happening without democratic consent”.(Fernandez, 2003) This trend seems to have effected voter turnout in many European countries recently.
This decline in turnout is a worry. Arend Lijpart believes that low turnout signals “unequal influence” where the educated and rich participate more while the poor and disaffected are dropping out of the system. (1997 p3) I agree with Lijphart that a low turnout does signal an unequal influence but disagree that it is only the educated and rich that participate. A low turnout gives extremist parties a greater chance of success. Extremist parties are generally more fanatical followers almost all of whom vote at election time. The result could be extremist parties gaining more seats in elections and a government that may be unrepresentative of public opinion.
E.A Pera is also of the opinion that the decline I electoral turnout is a serious worry. Perea believes that electoral participation promotes competition among parties which is the core of democracy. People who fail to vote can no longer be regarded as an “indicator of satisfaction, but rather as a symptom of apathy, disaffection and alienation on the citizens part” (Perea, pp645) Non voters are therefore showing a distinct lack of interest in political institutions and parties. “Electoral participation may not be the only form of political involvement needed in democracy, but it is nonetheless absolutely essential for guaranteeing the legitimacy of the political system, the representative nature of parliaments and the population control over the composition of government”. (Perea pp646)
Conclusion
For these reasons it is therefore of vital importance to maximise political participation. Generally there are two main notions which are generally believed to get the most out of political participation. The first is a combination of variables all of which aim to make voting easier and more convienent. These include the scheduling of elections at weekends or bank holidays, the availability of mail ballots, holding first and second order elections simultaneously, allowing voters who expect to be absent the option of voting a few days earlier or allowing a relative to vote for them. Other voting amenities which could help election turnout are, having poll booths in hospitals, prisons and old people’s homes, or allowing people to vote in a constituency away from their home. All of these changes individually have the potential to be a small but “distinct stimulus to turnout”. (Lijphart 1996)
The second way of improving voter turnout is to implement compulsory voting. Compulsory voting is currently implemented in Itlay, Greece, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Austria. It is the strongest of all institutional factors” (Lijphart p8) and its success is evident in those countries which abide by it. It is the most straightforward and effective way to ensure people vote. Compulsory voting “has been found to raise turnout by 7-16 percentage points. (Lijphart p8) To furher back this up is the fact that the “turnout for twelve member states (of the European Community) where the vote is not compulsory touches 48% while it registers 79.36% at the level of the European member states where voting is obligatory”. (Perineau, Grunberg, Ysmal, pp209) As I have already stated, compulsory voting is not the only method for assuring high voter turnout but considering the hard evidence supporting its contributions to relatively equal turnout in recent times, it is my opinion that it isa the omst important argument. “Compulsory voting is a valuable solution to our dilemma as it is the only mechanism…that can assume high turnout virtuallt by itself”. (Nemi, Weisberg pp10) It is important that something is done to reverse the decline in electoral participation in Europe.
Bibliography:
Blais, A. To Vote or not to Vote, The Merits and Limits of Rational Choice Theory: University of Pittsburg Press 2000
Jackman, R and R. Miller, Voter Turnout in the Industrial Democracies during the 1980s. Comparative Political Studies (4): 467-492 January 1995
Lijphart, A . Unequal Participation: Democracy’s unresolved dilemma- Presidential Address, American Political Science Assocation, 1996 American Political Science Review 91 (1): 1-14 March 1997
Niemi, G and Weisberg, H. Controversies in Voting Behaviour: Washington D.C: A Division of Congressional Quarterly Inc.
Perea, E.A. Individual characteristics, institutional incentives and electoral abstention in Western Europe, European Journal of Political Research 41 (5-8): 643-674, 2002
Perrineau, P and Grunberg, G and Ysmal, C. Europe at the Polls, The European Elections of 1999: Palgrave.
Fernandez, B, R. Predicting Voter Turnout In EU Countries: UCLA April 2003