Motivating voter turnout
Voting is the foremost right of citizens in a democracy.
However, many — including about 35 per cent of eligible voters in Newfoundland and Labrador — do not exercise this right. The voter turnout rate in Newfoundland and Labrador for the 2015 federal election was only 67 per cent of registered voters. Although this was nine per cent higher than in the 2011 election, the province still has the lowest voter turnout in the country. Historically, Newfoundland and Labrador has among the lowest turnouts at the federal level and its turnout is chronically low at the provincial, municipal, and even school board levels.
Historically, Newfoundland and Labrador has among the lowest turnout (of voters) at the federal level and its turnout is chronically low at the provincial, municipal, and even school board levels.
Low turnout is often considered undesirable since a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of all voters to participate freely and fully in society and to have an equal say in law-making. Also, non-voters can eventually lose interest in other areas like civic rights. In fact, voter turnout is frequently used as a measure of a democracy’s health.
Social scientists have done significant research in various fields on why citizens decide to vote or not and on factors to help increase turnouts. The low turnout has been attributed to a wide array of economic, demographic, cultural, technological, and institutional factors. The main conclusion is that there is no perfect solution: a mix of strategies should be used with each having an incremental effect. The main justifications given by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for not voting in 2015 federal elections are: everyday life or health reasons (48 per cent, i.e., too busy, 18 per cent; out of town, 19 per cent; illness or disability, 11 per cent); political reasons (36 per cent); and electoral process-related reasons (six per cent).
The main suggestion for overcoming “everyday life or health” reasons is to create multiple voting opportunities, e.g., advance polls, vote-by-mail options, and even electronic voting systems. The City of St. John’s uses vote-by-mail, which at least theoretically should reduce these obstacles. However, more study is needed on the real impact of vote-by-mail systems as some research finds the benefits fairly minimal and others find it counterproductive. For example, Kousser and Mullin observed that voters assigned to vote by mail turn out at lower rates than those sent to a polling place.
The most common reason, given by 32 per cent of Newfoundland and Labrador nonvoters in the October 2015 federal election, is “not being interested in politics.” Studies typically focus on informing people about the importance of their vote in electing a government that works for them, and convincing them that their vote is pivotal. Theoretically, if voters feel that not many people will vote, they will have more incentive to vote. It is clear that if no one else votes, then the probability that a single vote will be pivotal is significant, creating an incentive to vote. The underlying assumption is that voters only care about influencing the election. In line with that, Ledyard showed that when the two candidates take distinct positions, it provides incentive for voters to vote. This reasoning has been followed in most elections. However, these theories haven’t been sufficiently successful in convincing people to cast their votes.
In the decision-theoretic approach, economists have suggested that voters derive “a consumption benefit” from the act of voting, for example, a “payout” from fulfilling their civic obligation to vote. Behavioural scientists provide a neat explanation about what this benefit is and what affects it. They say the environment in which we make decisions can fundamentally alter them. Whether or not we cast our vote is affected by what we think others are doing, how voting makes us feel about ourselves, and what we need to do to vote. Here is a list of the main factors suggested by behavioural science to increase turnout:
1.Making concrete plans helps people translate goals into actions. Voter records show there is a greater chance people will vote if they are asked about their plans (when, where, and how they will vote).
2.Desire to conform to the social norm is important. We are more likely to do what most people are doing. This goes against the logic of convincing people that not many will vote. However, researchers have observed that when potential voters receive direct mail saying that they and their neighbours will be advised after the election of who voted, more than an 8 per cent increase in turnout is achieved. Publicizing voting records may therefore increase the salience of this social obligation, possibly by shaming non-voters.
3.Be a voter. When people recognize their identity as voters or upstanding citizens, there is a better chance they will act on it and vote. Studies8 showed a considerable increase (more than 10 per cent) increase in turnout among people who participated in a pre-election survey on “How important is it to you to be a voter?”
These points suggest that a very effective way to increase turnout is to remind citizens of their responsibility to vote and help them have a step- by-step plan of how and when they will vote. A combination of all these suggestions could have a massive impact.
About the author
Nahid Masoudi (Economics, Memorial University of Newfoundland) is an economist and game theorist interested in behaviour and the strategic interactions of individuals. She has used game theory to study issues in environmental and natural resource management and has published in Resource and Energy Economics, Environmental and Resource Economics, Environment and Development Economics, and Automatica.