Explaining voter turnout: A meta-analysis of national and subnational elections
Introduction
Elections are central to democratic polities (Ashworth, 2012, Geys and Mause, 2016), and scholars have long sought to identify and explain variation in electoral participation across time and space. Indeed, few topics in political science have generated a comparable volume of literature, and turnout scholarship witnessed a veritable explosion over the past 15 years. A search for ‘voter turnout’ in Thomson Reuters' Web of Science database, for instance, shows that the absolute number of turnout articles has followed a sharply upward trend since 2000 (see Fig. 1). The number of articles on voter turnout published in 2014 (i.e. 197) is nearly four times the number of articles published in 2000 (i.e. 50). This is not just because more studies are being published in general. An identical query in JSTOR reveals a similar upward trend in the relative proportion of articles dealing with voter turnout within the overall number of articles indexed in its corpus in a given year (i.e. from 0.002 in 2000 to 0.006 in 2012; see Fig. 1).
Clearly, effective accumulation of knowledge stems not only from conducting original studies, but also from taking stock of what we have learnt so far. In addition to literature reviews following a conventional state-of-the-art model (Blais, 2006), two meta-analytic assessments of the determinants of voter turnout were published in recent years. Geys (2006) reviews 83 aggregate-level studies published between 1968 and 2004, while Smets and van Ham (2013) analyse the findings of 90 individual-level studies published between 2000 and 2010. In light of the rapid expansion of the voter turnout literature documented in Fig. 1, this article aims to further develop our knowledge on why people vote by extending the aggregate-level meta-analysis conducted by Geys (2006) in two ways. First, we supplement the 83 studies featured in the original analysis with 102 additional studies published since 2002. This expanded and more diverse pool of literature allows us to increase the validity and generalizability of the meta-analysis, and thereby our confidence in the inferences drawn.
Second, we exploit the larger sample of studies to assess whether, and to what extent, the same set of determinants can explain voter turnout in elections at different levels of government. To the best of our knowledge, no such direct comparison currently exists. In fact, theoretical arguments and explanatory variables in most studies appear to be brought forward without specific attention to the level of government under analysis. Studies of political participation thus generally appear to follow an a-territorial approach in which local or regional politics is effectively viewed as a mere generalization of what goes on at the national level (Baybeck, 2014). As a result, the determinants of political engagement – both at the individual and aggregate level – are implicitly assumed not to differ across territorial levels.
Nevertheless, this view can be contested from a theoretical as well as empirical perspective. For instance, Sellers et al. (2013, p. 8) draw on the tradition of political geography to argue that voters are embedded in places defined by specific ‘collective dynamics of communities and social mobilisation’, which can foster turnout in some types of elections but not others. One recent illustration of this effect is provided in Andersen et al. (2014, p. 157, italics added), who offer strong evidence that ‘higher stakes at the local level increase participation at the local relative to the regional election’. Furthermore, from an empirical point of view, relevant discrepancies clearly exist in the levels of engagement between national and local politics. This is reflected in, for instance, significant variation in voter turnout for elections at different levels of government within the same jurisdiction (Andersen et al., 2014, Horiuchi, 2005, Morlan, 1984, Sørensen, 2015). As such, we cannot simply assume a general equivalence of turnout determinants irrespective of the type of election. By separately analysing studies on voter turnout in national versus subnational elections, we assess the different processes that might conceivably play at distinct levels of government.
Section snippets
Methodological approach
Meta-analyses – which can be defined as ‘quantitative methods for combining information across different studies’ (Tweedie, 2001, p. 9717) – are useful tools to aggregate existing knowledge and highlight what we know and do not know about certain phenomena. Yet, while they are common in, for instance, psychology and medicine, they have remained quite rare in political science (Morton and Williams, 2010, p. 272).1
Re-examining the covariates of turnout
This section replicates the analysis in Geys (2006) on the extended set of studies. For ease of comparison, we focus on the same set of explanatory variables, maintain the same differentiation according to socio-economic, political, and institutional determinants, and repeat the original results in the left-hand panel of Table 1.4
Turnout in national and subnational elections
In most democratic countries, citizens have the opportunity to cast their vote for multiple political offices – including presidents, national legislatures, and state, regional or municipal representatives. Even though such multiple elections may, but need not, take place on the same day, different turnout rates are generally observed across distinct types of elections within the same jurisdiction (Andersen et al., 2014, Horiuchi, 2005, Morlan, 1984, Reif and Schmitt, 1980, Sørensen, 2015).
Conclusion
The empirical literature explaining variation in both individual- and aggregate-level voter turnout rates has grown rapidly in recent years. This paper aimed to take stock of this evolution by extending the meta-analysis of Geys (2006) in two ways. On the one hand, we collected and coded 102 additional articles published since 2002, and replicated the original analysis on the extended database of 185 studies. On the other hand, we differentiate between studies of national and subnational
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the editor, two anonymous referees, Pedro Tavares de Almeida, Paolo Bellucci, Tiago Fernandes and participants of the third graduate conference of FCSH - Nova University of Lisbon (September 2015) for valuable comments and suggestions on a previous version. João Cancela acknowledges the Portuguese funding institution FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia for supporting the research with an individual doctoral grant (SFRH/BD/87140/2012). Benny Geys is grateful
References (51)
- et al.
Voting when the stakes are high
J. Public Econ.
(2014) Proportionality, disproportionality and electoral systems
Elect. Stud.
(1991)Explaining voter turnout: a review of aggregate-level research
Elect. Stud.
(2006)- et al.
Democracy with group identity
Eur. J. Political Econ.
(2015) - et al.
Do voters turn out more under proportional than majoritarian systems? The evidence from Swiss communal elections
Elect. Stud.
(1999) - et al.
First-order, second-order or third-rate? A comparison of turnout in European, local and national elections in the Netherlands
Elect. Stud.
(2014) - et al.
The embarrassment of riches? A meta-analysis of individual-level research on voter turnout
Elect. Stud.
(2013) Meta-analysis: overview
Oil, democracy, and context a meta-analysis
Comp. Polit. Stud.
(2014)Electoral accountability: recent theoretical and empirical work
Annu. Rev. Political Sci.
(2012)
Capture and governance at local and national levels
Am. Econ. Rev.
Local political participation
Social identity and voting behavior
Public Choice
Accountability and local elections: rethinking retrospective voting
J. Polit.
What affects voter turnout?
Annu. Rev. Political Sci.
To Vote or Not to Vote? The Merits and Limits of Rational Choice Theory
Electoral systems and turnout
Acta Polit.
Does proportional representation foster voter turnout?
Eur. J. Political Res.
Socio-economic determinism of voting turnout: a challenge
J. Polit.
Voter Turnout and Inheritance Rules: Evidence from an Alpine Region
Moderating Political Extremism Single Round vs Runoff Elections under Plurality Rule
Does internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research
Polit. Commun.
Strategic Housing Policy, Migration and Sorting Around Population Thresholds
Democracy and economic growth: a meta-analysis
Am. J. Political Sci.
Regression Discontinuity Designs Based on Population Thresholds Pitfalls and Solutions
Cited by (262)
Disparate racial impacts of Shelby County v. Holder on voter turnout
2024, Journal of Public EconomicsPeers’ race in adolescence and voting behavior
2023, Economics of Education ReviewThe Global Dataset on Turnout (GD-Turnout)
2023, Electoral StudiesThe heterogeneous effects of internet voting
2023, European Journal of Political Economy