Why do some people choose to register and vote, and others, equally eligible, reject participating in the electoral process? Generally, political scientists focus on two variables regarding the social psychology of voting. First, to what extent do people feel confident about their ability to understand and successfully engage in voting? Second, to what extent do people believe that their vote counts, that elections actually matter? The first variable is internal efficacy, and the second is external efficacy. According to the research, the higher the score on these subjective estimates, the more likely they will vote.
The logic of the impact of internalefficacy on turnout is straightforward. Drawing on an economic decision-making model, the lower the cost of voting, in terms of time needed to educate oneself, make choices, and actually vote, the more likely a person will vote. The cost of voting will be high in terms of time and effort for someone unfamiliar with the issues of each local and state election. For example, we expect relatively younger people to have lower internal efficacy as they are just beginning to learn about local and state politics and perhaps have recently relocated. The data show this lower turnout.
Who is Likely to Vote? Table 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 show the relationship between the impact of ideology and age on turnout (Baldassare).
Table \(\PageIndex{1}\): Political Ideology and Voter Turnout (2020)
Political Ideology
Likely Voter
Not registered
Liberal
37
30
Conservative
33
31
Moderate
30
38
Table \(\PageIndex{2}\): Age and Voter Turnout (2020)
Age
Likely Voter
Not registered
18 to 34
22
40
35 to 54
32
41
55 and older
46
19
(Baldassare)
The correlation between external efficacy and voter turnout is also straightforward. The more substantial the belief that the political system responds to voters, the greater the likelihood of voting. Multiple factors influence external efficacy. How much confidence do voters have that the voting technology will accurately tabulate their voters, free from error or fraud? Even if the voting system is sound, do the rules of the game alienate the citizen from the government? For example, the winner-take-all system for the U.S. presidential electoral college vote (Nebraska and Maine are exceptions) means that voters of the minority party in a state may feel disenfranchised.
A similar conclusion may be reached by voters who are in legislative districts (local, state, or national) that are perceived to have been drawn to favor one party (gerrymandering), leaving the minority party members feeling that it is hopeless to vote since their candidates are unlikely to win. Once candidates are in office, voters may perceive that politicians are so trapped in the rat race of campaign fundraising that they have little time for them.
A 2015 Public Policy Institute of California poll showed that lack of confidence in the political system was the primary reason people did not register to vote (Baldassare). One might expect Californian voters to have greater faith in direct democracy as a way to check the legislature and sidestep problems caused by special interests in Sacramento and gerrymandered electoral districts. A 2013 Public Policy Institute poll of California voters found two-thirds of Californians are somewhat or very satisfied with direct democracy. However, majorities also worried that special interests were controlling direct democracy.
This survey showed that majorities favored direct democracy reforms that allow for greater deliberation and transparency. This would include the legislature working with initiative sponsors, the legislature being able to amend initiatives after they passed, and greater deliberation about initiatives, including volunteer-only signature gathering, televised debates, and independent commissions to evaluate and give recommendations to voters ("Reforming California's Initiative Process").
To summarize, the voter uses a cost-benefit calculus regarding the choice to vote. The enforcement of voting rights and the successful implementation of efficient procedures for voting provide the basis for promoting high turnout. Then, the subjective evaluations of our abilities (internal efficacy) and how responsive the political system is to our vote (external efficacy) will impact turnout.
This suggests that a variety of public policies may increase turnout. First, when the efficiency of voting (e.g., vote by mail, accessible vote centers with same-day registration) is improved, more people will vote. Second, an educational system that socializes the youth to understand politics and mobilizes them to vote through pre-registration should help. Third, electoral reforms, such as ending gerrymandering, may improve external efficacy and lead to higher voter turnout (California).
For Your Consideration
Think of someone you know who is eligible to vote. Do you believe they voted? Consider some of the characteristics of likely voters (Tables 5.3.1 and 5.3.2) and why people say they do not vote shown in Table 5.3.3. Then, if possible, ask the person you are thinking about whether they voted and why they did or did not vote. To what extent is what you found consistent with the survey data?
Most political scientists would argue that increasing voter turnout is good. We celebrate the fact that 70% of Californians voted in 2020, a jump of 15% from the previous presidential election. We lament that it might only be 35% in a midterm election, or if a county or municipal election was held in an odd year, we might only have 10 % or 20% of the electorate voting. A celebration of higher turnout may be based on two arguments.
First, voting is good in itself. In a constitutional democracy, the people are sovereign, and voting is a way for the people to exercise their power. Hence, the more people who vote, the better. Regardless of how people vote, just the act of voting is to be applauded, enhancing the political system's legitimacy. Moreover, it is also good for the individual citizen. We are better people by reflecting on and participating in civic life. Voting is an act of altruism, like serving on a jury or donating blood. It builds character.
Second, voting has instrumental value. Government policy should reflect the people's demands, and the function of elections is to identify the most salient demands and hold elected officials accountable for addressing them. The higher the turnout, the more an election reflects the diversity of opinion. If there are distinct differences of opinion based on income, education, or other demographic characteristics, increasing turnout should better communicate the needs of previous nonvoters to the government. These two arguments—that increased voter turnout increases political legitimacy and improves policy representation in a constitutional democracy—suggest that, as a society, we should introduce reforms that enhance turnout. The question, of course, is what sorts of reforms are appropriate.
To help us consider this issue, let's conceive of a spectrum of policies about voter turnout that we could place along a continuum of participation, from laws that suppress the vote to laws that protect the right to vote, laws that incentivize voting by encouraging voters to exercise their voice, to the extreme of mandating that everyone votes with penalties for those who do not (Figure 5.3.1).
Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Spectrum of State Policies Regarding Turnout (CC By 4.0; Steven Reti)
At the far left, a political system devoted to the suppression of the vote might allow only a small share of the total population to vote, and it may limit which offices can be popularly elected or what kinds of policies may be subject to direct democracy. Voter suppression was the norm in the United States from its founding until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. One may argue that voter suppression continues today with efforts to reduce electoral competition through gerrymandering or other ways to make it more difficult for people to vote.
Second, a political system devoted to rights might seek to legislate and safeguard universal suffrage for everyone. The best examples are the successive amendments and voting rights laws passed at the national and state levels. Currently, debates about rights include if and when former felons may regain voting rights or if the voting age should be reduced further to allow teenagers to vote.
Third, a political system already devoted to rights might incentivize voting. Much of this is through the educational system and the social system. We encourage young people to vote; state law allows workers time off to go and vote (although they can't take the whole day off!), and civic groups and the media praise the act of voting as virtuous.
Fourth, a political system might recognize voting as so vital that it requires almost everyone to vote and imposes penalties on people who don't. One might argue that elections are the only way for the government to reflect the people's will accurately; hence, requiring the expression of that will should be coerced. This may seem rather strange. However, there are precedents. States mandate jury duty but provide waivers for people who cannot serve for reasons of health or ability. Many other democratic countries, such as Australia, require citizens to vote, and when they do not, a fine is imposed. If something is so important, why not simply mandate it?
Should we be free not to vote? Compulsory voting is not a popular idea in this country. Perhaps Americans value giving people the freedom not to participate. Requiring the expression of opinion, even through a secret ballot, may violate the First Amendment. Secondly, would the quality of voting suffer in the pursuit of increasing the quantity of voting? Would more voters be making poor decisions? The virtue of an act may also diminish if it is required.
Considering this range of possible policies, from suppression to coercion, suggests that our focus on only one statistic, voter turnout, is incomplete. We want increased voting to be voluntary and thoughtful. The choices must be meaningful for the voters, a real competition of ideas and candidates. The citizens' right to vote must be safeguarded, and the citizens' ability to have the information necessary to make good choices must also be promoted. Voting rights deserve protection; electoral laws can make voting more accessible (such as how the Voter's Choice Act provides more time and ways to vote). Voters must commit to educating themselves: considering the issues carefully, determining what is right to promote constitutional values, and thinking about what is best for the public good and not just what is in their self-interest. In other words, voting is part of the practice of citizenship.
