Existing theories of turnout model individuals’ decisions to vote as a function of the utility they would gain from their favored party’s election, the costs of voting, and the intrinsic benefits associated with democratic participation. This project shows that such utility calculations are conditional on electoral rules. In electoral systems with low incentives for strategic behavior, the traditional model of voter turnout is accurate. However, in plurality systems, in which there are stronger incentives for individuals to abandon their true preferences, less importance is placed on the utility associated with the possible success of favored parties.
AchenChristopher H.2002. Toward a new political methodology: Microfoundations and art. Annual Review of Political Science5:423-50.
2.
AdamsJames F.MerrillSamuelGrofmanBernard. 2005. A unified theory of party competition: A cross-national analysis integrating spatial and behavioral factors. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
AlmondGabriel A.VerbaSidney. 1963. The civic culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
BanducciSusan A.KarpJeffrey A.2009. Electoral systems, efficacy, and voter turnout. In The comparative study of electoral systems, ed. KlingemannH.-D., 109-36. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5.
BargstedMatias A.KedarOrit. 2009. Coalition-targeted duvergerian voting: How expectations affect voter choice under proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science53:307-23.
6.
BirchSarah. 2008. Electoral institutions and popular confidence in electoral processes: A cross-national analysis. Electoral Studies77:305-20.
7.
BlaisAndré. 2000. To vote or not to vote: The merits and limits of rational choice theory. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
8.
BlaisAndré. 2006. What affects voter turnout?Annual Review of Political Science9:111-25.
9.
BlaisAndréCartyR. K.1990. Does proportional representation foster voter turnout?European Journal of Political Research18:167-81.
10.
BoatrightRobert Guy. 2008. Who are the spatial voting violators?Electoral Studies27:116-25.
11.
BowlerShaunDonovanToddBrockingtonDavid. 2003. Electoral reform and minority representation: Local experiments with alternative elections. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
BraumoellerBear F.2004. Hypothesis testing and multiplicative interaction terms. International Organization58:807-20.
14.
ChhibberPradeepKollmanKen. 1998. Party aggregation and the number of parties in India and the United States. American Political Science Review92:329-42.
15.
CoxGary W.1997. Making votes count: Strategic coordination in the world’s electoral systems. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
16.
DownsAnthony. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: HarperCollins.
17.
DuffyJohnTavitsMargit. 2008. Beliefs and voting decisions: A test of the pivotal voter model. American Journal of Political Science52:603-18.
18.
DuvergerMaurice. 1954. Political parties, their organization and activity in the modern state. London: Methuen.
19.
EndersbyJames W.KrieckhausJonathan T.2008. Turnout around the globe: The influence of electoral institutions on national voter participation, 1972-2000. Electoral Studies27:601-10.
20.
FranklinMark N.2004. Voter turnout and the dynamics of electoral competition in established democracies since 1945. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
GallagherMichael. 1991. Proportionality, disproportionality, and electoral systems. Electoral Studies10:33-51.
22.
HotellingHarold. 1929. Stability in competition. The Economic Journal39:41-57.
23.
HuberJohn D.1989. Values and partisanship in left-right orientations: Measuring ideology. European Journal of Political Research17:599-621.
24.
InglehartRonald. 1984. The changing structure of political cleavages in Western society. In Electoral change in advanced societies: Realignment or dealignment, ed. DaltonR.FlanaganS. C.BeckP. A., 25-69. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
JackmanRobert W.1987. Political institutions and voter turnout in the industrial democracies. American Political Science Review81:405-23.
26.
JackmanRobert W.MillerRoss A.1995. Voter turnout in the industrial democracies during the 1980s. Comparative Political Studies27:467-92.
27.
KedarOrit. 2005. When moderate voters prefer extreme parties: Policy balancing in parliamentary elections. American Political Science Review99:185-99.
28.
LaaksoMarkuuTaageperaRein. 1979. Effective number of parties: A measure with application to western Europe. Comparative Political Studies12:3-27.
29.
Lewis-BeckMichaelJacobyWilliamNorpothHelmutWeisbergHerbert F.2008. The American voter revisited. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
30.
LijphartArend. 1990. The political consequences of electoral laws, 1945-1985. American Political Science Review84:481-96.
31.
LijphartArend. 1994. Electoral systems and party systems: A study of twenty-seven democracies, 1945-1990. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
32.
LijphartArend. 1999. Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
33.
LongJ. ScottFreeseJeremy. 2006. Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. Second ed.College Station, TX: Stata Press.
34.
MacdonaldStuart ElaineRabinowitzGeorgeListhaugOla. 2007. Simulating models of issue votingPolitical Analysis15:406-27.
35.
NevitteNeilBlaisAndréGidengilElisabethNadeauRichard. 2009. Socioeconomic status and nonvoting: A cross-national comparative analysis. In The comparative study of electoral systems, ed. KlingemannH.-D., 85-108. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
36.
NorrisPippa. 2004. Electoral engineering: Voting rules and political behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
PalfreyThomas R.RosenthalHoward. 1983. A strategic calculus of voting. Public Choice41:7-53.
38.
PowellG. BinghamVanbergGeorg S.2000. Election laws, disproportionality and median correspondence: Implications for two visions of democracy. British Journal of Political Science30:383-411.
39.
PutnamRobert D.1993. Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
40.
RaeDouglas W.1967. The political consequences of electoral laws. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
41.
RikerWilliamOrdeshookPeter C.1968. A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review62:25-42.
42.
VerbaSydneyNieNorman H.1972. Participation in America: Political democracy and social equality. New York: Harper and Row.
43.
WolfingerRaymond E.RosenstoneSteven J.1980. Who votes?New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
