The relationship between district magnitude and turnout remains hotly debated, and previous studies suggest positive, negative, and nonlinear effects depending on other institutional characteristics. This article contributes to the empirical literature by conducting a quasi-experimental test on the effect of district magnitude in a context of a single nontransferable vote (SNTV) system with weak partisan ties: municipal council elections in Japan. Exploiting a credible source of exogenous variation in district magnitude and using a fuzzy regression discontinuity design, we reveal that a 5-seat increase in an average-magnitude district reduces turnout by 4 percentage points, which accounts for a 6.9% drop in the size of the electorate. We reason that, in the context of SNTV with weak parties, higher district magnitude leads to information overload, which may lower voters’ incentives to turn out.
AburakawaH (2005) Chiki Syakai ni okeru Chiho Gikai Chiho Giin no Sonzai. Bulletin of Shokei Gakuin University51: 103–114.
2.
BlaisA (2006) What affects voter turnout?Annual Review of Political Science9: 111–125.
3.
BlaisAAartsK (2006) Electoral systems and turnout. Acta Politica41(2): 180–196.
4.
BlaisACartyKR (1990) Does proportional representation foster voter turnout?European Journal of Political Research18(2): 167–181.
5.
BlaisADobrzynskaA (1998) Turnout in electoral democracies. European Journal of Political Research33(2): 239–261.
6.
BouldingCBrownDS (2015) Do political parties matter for turnout? Number of parties, electoral rules and local elections in Brazil and Bolivia. Party Politics21(3): 404–416.
7.
BrockingtonD (2004) The paradox of proportional representation: the effect of party systems and coalitions on individuals electoral participation. Political Studies52(3): 469–490.
8.
BrolloFNanniciniTPerottiR. (2013) The political resource curse. American Economic Review103(5): 1759–1796.
9.
CalonicoSCattaneoMDTitiunikR (2015) rdrobust: An R package for robust nonparametric inference in regression-discontinuity designs. R Journal7(1): 38–51.
10.
CancelaJGeysB (2016) Explaining voter turnout: a meta-analysis of national and subnational elections. Electoral Studies42: 264–275.
11.
CareyJMShugartMS (1995) Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: a rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies14(4): 417–439.
12.
CattaneoMDTitiunikRVazquez-BareG. (2016) Interpreting regression discontinuity designs with multiple cutoffs. The Journal of Politics78(4): 1229–1248.
13.
EggersAC (2015) Proportionality and turnout evidence from French municipalities. Comparative Political Studies48(2): 135–167.
14.
EggersACFreierRGrembiV. (2017) Regression discontinuity designs based on population thresholds: pitfalls and solutions. American Journal of Political Science. DOI:10.1111/ajps.12332.
15.
FornosCAPowerTJGarandJC (2004) Explaining voter turnout in Latin America, 1980 to 2000. Comparative Political Studies37(8): 909–940.
16.
FranklinMN (2004) Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies since 1945. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
FukumotoKand HoriuchiY (2011) Making outsiders’ votes count: detecting electoral fraud through a natural experiment. American Political Science Review105(3): 586–603.
18.
GelmanAImbensG (2014) Why high-order polynomials should not be used in regression discontinuity designs. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper29495.
19.
GeysB (2006) Explaining voter turnout: a review of aggregate-level research. Electoral Studies25(4): 637–663.
20.
GrofmanBSelbP (2011) Turnout and the (effective) number of parties at the national and district levels: a puzzle-solving approach. Party Politics17(1): 93–117.
21.
HahnJToddPder KlaauwWV (2001) Identification and estimation of treatment effects with a regression-discontinuity design. Econometrica69(1): 201–209.
22.
HallARRudebuschGDWilcoxDW (1996) Judging instrument relevance in instrumental variables estimation. International Economic Review37(2): 283–298.
23.
HoriuchiY (2005) Institutions, Incentives and Electoral Participation in Japan: CrossLevel and Cross-National Perspectives. New York: Routledge.
24.
HoriuchiYSaitoJYamadaK (2015) Removing boundaries, losing connections: electoral consequences of local government reform in Japan. Journal of East Asian Studies15(1): 99–125.
25.
HuberJDKernellGand LeoniEL (2005) Institutional context, cognitive resources and party attachments across democracies. Political Analysis13(4): 365–386.
26.
ImbensGKalyanaramanK (2011) Optimal bandwidth choice for the regression discontinuity estimator. Review of Economic Studies79(3): 933–959.
27.
ImbensGWLemieuxT (2008) Regression discontinuity designs: a guide to practice. Journal of Econometrics142(2): 615–635.
28.
JackmanRW (1987) Political institutions and voter turnout in the industrial democracies. American Political Science Review81(2): 405–423.
29.
JackmanRWMillerRA (1995) Voter turnout in the industrial democracies during the 1980s. Comparative Political Studies27(4): 467–492.
30.
JacobsKSpieringsN (2010) District magnitude and voter turnout a multilevel analysis of self-reported voting in the 32 Dominican Republic districts. Electoral Studies29(4): 704–718.
31.
KostadinovaTPowerTJ (2007) Does democratization depress participation? Voter turnout in the Latin American and Eastern European Transitional Democracies. Political Research Quarterly60(3): 363–377.
32.
LauRRRedlawskDP (2006) How Voters Decide: Information Processing in Election Campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.
33.
McCraryJ (2008) Manipulation of the running variable in the regression discontinuity design: a density test. Journal of Econometrics142(2): 698–714.
34.
McCubbinsMDRosenbluthF (1995) Party provision for personal politics: dividing the Vote in Japan. In: CowheyPFMcCubbinsMD (eds), Structure and Policy in Japan and the United States. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 35–55.
35.
MuramatsuM (1997) Local Power in the Japanese State. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Pettersson-LidbomP (2012) Does the size of the legislature affect the size of government? Evidence from two natural experiments. Journal of Public Economics96(3): 269–278.
38.
PowellGBJr (1986) American voter turnout in comparative perspective. American Political Science Review80(1): 17–43.
39.
SanzC (2017) The effect of electoral systems on voter turnout: evidence from a natural experiment. Political Science Research and Methods: 5(4): 689–710.
40.
SelbP (2009) A deeper look at the proportionality-turnout nexus. Comparative Political Studies42(4): 527–548.
41.
StockJHWrightJHYogoM (2012) A survey of weak instruments and weak identification in generalized method of moments. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics20(4): 518–529.
42.
TaageperaRSelbPGrofmanB (2014) How turnout depends on the number of parties: a logical model. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties24(4): 393–413.
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.
