Municipal voter turnout is often considered to be a function of electorate size. According to the rational choice theory of voter behavior, a rational voter is more inclined to abstain in the presence of larger electorates, and more likely to participate in smaller ones. This article examines the impact of electorate size on voter turnout using a multivariate regression model to explain voter participation in Quebec municipalities in the 2009 and 2013 local elections (N = 1040). Several other assumptions pertaining to the rational voter are also tested. We find that rational choice theory explains 45% of municipal voter participation in these Quebec elections and that it supports the probability of pivotal voting. Our analysis also confirms that the number of electors, number of mayoral candidates, tax rate, presence of a political party, and incumbency have different effects on participation in small and large municipalities.
BlaisACartyRK (1990) Does proportional representation foster voter turnout?European Journal of Political Research18(2): 167–181.
4.
BlaisAYoungRLappM (2000) The calculus of voting: An empirical test. European Journal of Political Research37: 181–201.
5.
BlondiauxL (1996) Mort et résurrection de l’électeur rationnel. Les métamorphoses d’une problématique incertaine. Revue française de science politique46(5): 753–791.
6.
BowlerSDonovanTSnippJ (1993) Local sources of information and voter choice in state elections microlevel foundations of the ‘friends and neighbors’ effect. American Politics Research21(4): 473–489.
7.
BreuxSBhererL (2011) Les élections municipales au Québec: enjeux et perspectives, Quebec: Presses de l’Université Laval.
8.
BreuxSCoutureJBhererL (2014) Les candidats sortants: atout ou obstacle à la participation électorale?. Canadian Journal of Urban Research/Revue canadienne de recherche urbaine23(2): 59–78.
9.
CancelaJGeysB (2016) Explaining voter turnout: A meta-analysis of national and subnational elections. Electoral Studies42: 264–275.
10.
CarenN (2007) Big city. Big turnout? Electoral participation in American Cities. Journal of Urban Affairs29(1): 31–46.
11.
CarrJBTavaresA (2014) City size and political participation in local government reassessing the contingent effects of residential location decisions with urban regions. Urban Affairs Review50: 269–302.
12.
ChongDDruckmanJ (2007) Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Journal of Political Science Review101(4): 637–655.
13.
CoateSConlinMMoroA (2008) The performance of pivotal-voter models in small-scale elections: Evidence from Texas liquor referenda. Journal of Public Economics92(3–4): 582–596.
14.
CoxGWMungerMC (1989) Closeness, expenditures and turnout in the 1982 U.S. House elections. American Political Science Review83(1): 217–231.
15.
CoutureJBreuxSBhererL (2014) Analyse écologique des déterminants de la participation électorale municipale au Québec. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique47(04): 787–812.
16.
CutlerFMatthewsJ (2005) The challenge of municipal voting: Vancouver 2002. Canadian Journal of Political Science38(2): 359–382.
17.
DahlRATufteER (1973) Size and Democracy, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
18.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York: Harper and Row.
19.
ElmendorfCSchleicherD (2012) Informing consent: Voter ignorance. Political parties and election law. UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper285: 1–70.
FiorinaMP (1981) Retrospective Voting in American National Elections, New Haven: Yale University Press.
22.
Fischel WA (2001) The Homevoter Hypothesis: How Home Values Influence Local Government Taxation, School Finance, and Land-Use Policies. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
23.
Gaardsted FrandsenA (2002) Size and electoral participation in local elections. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy20: 853–869.
24.
GeysB (2006) Explaining voter turnout: A review of aggregate-level research. Electoral Studies25: 637–663.
25.
GoldsmithMRoseL (2002) Size and democracy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy20: 791–792.
26.
KeyVO (1966) The Responsible Electorate, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
27.
KingG (1997) A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem: Reconstructing Individual Behavior from Aggregate Data, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
28.
KushnerJSiegelD (2006) Why do municipal electors vote?Canadian Journal of Urban Research15(2): 264–277.
29.
KushnerJSiegelDStanwickH (1997) Ontario municipal elections: Voting trends and determinants of electoral success in a Canadian Province. Canadian Journal of Political Science30(3): 539–553.
30.
LassenDD (2005) The effect of information on voter turnout: Evidence from a natural experiment. American Journal of Political Science49(1): 103–118.
31.
LightbodyJ (2006) City Politics, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
ManturukKLindbladMQuerciaRG (2009) Homeownership and local voting in disadvantaged urban neighborhoods. Cityscape11(3): 213–230.
35.
McGregor M and Spicer Z (2014) The Canadian homevoter: Property values and municipal politics in Canada. Journal of Urban Affairs 38(1): 123–139.
36.
MulliganCBHunterCG (2003) The empirical frequency of a pivotal vote. Public Choice116: 31–54.
37.
NakhaieMR (2006) Electoral participation in municipal, provincial and federal elections in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science39(2): 363.
38.
NieNHVerbaSPetrocikJR (1979) The Changing American Voter, Cambridge: Havard University Press.
39.
OliverJEHaSECallenZ (2012) Local Elections and the Politics of Small Scale Democracy, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
40.
OliverJEHaSE (2007) Vote choice in suburban elections. American Political Science Review101(3): 393–408. DOI: 10.1017/S0003055407070323.
41.
PalfreyTRRosenthalH (1985) Voter participation and strategic uncertainty. The American Political Science Review79(1): 62–78.
42.
PercivalGLPercivalMCBowlerS (2007) Taxing, spending, and voting: Voter turnout rates in statewide elections in comparative perspective. State & Local Government Review39(3): 131–143.
43.
PetersonPE (1981) City Limits, Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.
44.
RikerWHOrdeshookPC (1968) A theory of the calculus of voting. The American Political Science Review62(1): 25–42.
45.
SchaffnerBFStrebMWrightG (2001) Teams without uniforms: The nonpartisan ballot in state and local elections. Political Research Quarterly54(1): 7–30. DOI: 10.1177/106591290105400101.
46.
SchneiderMMarchallMRochA (1999) Heuristics, low information rationality, and choosing public goods broken windows as shortcuts to information about school performance. Urban Affairs Review34(5): 729–741.
47.
SmetsKvan HamC (2007) The embarrassment of riches? A meta-analysis of individual-level research on voter turnout. Electoral Studies32(2): 344–359.
48.
Sproule-JonesM (1974) A description and explanation of citizen participation in a Canadian municipality. Public Choice17(1): 73–83.
49.
TavaresACarrJ (2013) So close, yet so far away? The effects of city size. density and growth on local civic participation. Journal of Urban Affairs35(3): 283–302.
50.
Taylor Z (2011) Who elected Rob Ford. and why? An ecological analysis of the 2010 Toronto election. Paper presented at the Canadian Political Science Association, Waterloo, May 11.
51.
TrounstineJ (2009) Information. Turnout and Incumbency in Local Elections, Princeton: Princeton University.
52.
WooldridgeJM (2002) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data, Cambridge: MIT Press.
