Lesson 4, Chapter 5 Short Essay
Published on July 5, 2004 By pseudosoldier In International
Why is voter turnout more problematic in the United States than it is in other Western Democracies?

Many other Western style Democracies make voting in elections mandatory, notably Australia, Austria, Belgium, Greece and Italy. Registration laws in the US are more restrictive than in other countries. Western European countries incorporate voter registration into the citizenry registration and identification card issuance process, whereas in the US voter registration is a separate process, and voters must reregister if changing residences.
The party system in the US is also a factor in lower turnout. As the parties are less disciplined and organized in the US, they are less able to mobilize voters. Additionally, many elections in the US are not very competitive, and feature lop-sided opposition. The proportional representation allocation methods used in some other Democracies seem to draw more voters than the winner-takes-all approach that the US has instituted.
Finally, cultural differences may also contribute.

From the text [Politics in America, Fifth Edition, Texas Edition, by Thomas R. Dye]: a chart shows that we get outvoted (percentage-wise) by: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. (The only country we beat was Switzerland, who voted ~45% to our ~50%, according to the chart.) (My above answer to the essay question was paraphrased from the sidebar, "Voter Turnout in Western Democracies," on page 167 of the text.) (I thought some of the essay questions might be more interesting as articles than just the multiple choice questions...) (I like parentheses.)

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jul 05, 2004
Voting is mandatory in Australia...but if it was a choice, I think it would probably be closer to the USA figures...

still... I cant beleive the low turn out... its a bit shocking... but what can you do?

BAM!!!

on Jul 05, 2004
Most people aren't satisfied to vote for "Anyone but (whoever you hate). I know people who simply won't vote unless they have a choice they approve of, and not the lesser of two evils.
on Jul 05, 2004
I know people who simply won't vote unless they have a choice they approve of, and not the lesser of two evils.


Thats probably how I would vote if I had the oppurtunity...

That being said... I probably wouldn't vote very often at all...

BAM!!!
on Jul 05, 2004

Voting isn't something that should be mandatory.  I woudl rather someone not vote than make an ilinformed vote.

on Jul 06, 2004
I'm curious as to the punishments for not voting in mandatory elections. I realize it may differ between countries, but it would be interesting to hear what they are in any of those places (Muggaz? Any idea what it is in oz?)
on Jul 08, 2004
I would only go for mandatory voting if there was an option for None of The Above. If hat block got a plurality of the vote then all candidates would be disbarred from running for that office ever again.
on Jul 08, 2004

Canada's recent federal election had our lowest turnout ever, 60.5%. The previous low was 62.8% in 2000. One analysis:

“Canada will never have a very high turnout relative to some other countries...as long as the divisions in society are not stark working class versus the bourgeoisie,” he said, “I think a lot of Canadians value the fact that they are not living in a society which is particularly polarized.”

Voter turnout has declined over the years. Twenty years ago, voter turnout was 69 per cent, 30 years ago it was between 75 to 76 per cent, and 40 years ago it was 79 per cent. Before the 2000 election, the lowest turnout at 62.9 per cent was when Sir Wilfred Laurier beat the Conservatives in 1896.

Link

on Jul 08, 2004
I think you pay $50 or $150 if you don't turn up to the polling booths in an Australian election. It's not a great deal of money. And you can turn up, get your name crossed out and then not vote. There is no requirement to actually vote, merely to turn up.
on Jul 08, 2004

I think you pay $50 or $150 if you don't turn up to the polling booths in an Australian election. It's not a great deal of money. And you can turn up, get your name crossed out and then not vote. There is no requirement to actually vote, merely to turn up.

And here I thought the only laws in Oz were to make sheep fondling mandatory j/k

on Jul 08, 2004
Hey, Australians don't fondle sheep - we fondle your women. It's the Kiwis (New Zealanders) that fondle the sheep.

Seriously, I don't think voting numbers in Australia would be very high if voting wasn't mandatory - everybody complains about it and noone really cares too much (apart from the bleeding hearts and the war nazis).
on Jul 08, 2004
Thanks for the info cactoblasta. I think it's odd that they let you show, and still not vote... but it accounts for the couple-of-percentage points in the chart better than just assuming that many people chose to pay the fine.

Grey - What happens when we don't elect a President in that system, then? Have another election immediately? The parties would have to reorganize, wouldn't they? Don't you think that would just start a huge chain of disqualification rounds? And wouldn't that system encourage a lot of not-quite-serious "third" parties to participate, if they didn't like the two main candidates (it might cause votes to be thrown to them, reducing the number of votes the main two, increasing the chance for "None of the Above" to win)?
There is also the bad taste in the mouths of many Americans for a system that would award the Presidency based upon a plurality instead of a majority.
on Jul 08, 2004
I did not say the Presidency would be awarded by a plurality simply that a plurality of NOTA would sack the contenders. I think if such a system was enacted the inital election would be rough but that a *lot* of career politicos would be replaced by much more genuine folks. It would clean out the dead wood in the disqual rounds and actually elect someone who was at least beleiveable enough to get a majority.
on Jul 08, 2004
But you would only have a disqual round if the "NOTA" got a plurality. What if, say, they Republican got the plurality, but no one got the majority? Run-off?
I'm sorry I assumed an outcome, but I was trying to extrapolate from given data... There would still be some time needed after a disqual round to find new candidates (and probably to campaign them). Do we just keep the old president until the new election is finally final?
Ooh, evil thought. If we keep the old president, and he was disqualified in that last round... quite the lame duck, eh?
on Jul 08, 2004
Grey - What happens when we don't elect a President in that system, then? Have another election immediately? The parties would have to reorganize, wouldn't they? Don't you think that would just start a huge chain of disqualification rounds? And wouldn't that system encourage a lot of not-quite-serious "third" parties to participate, if they didn't like the two main candidates (it might cause votes to be thrown to them, reducing the number of votes the main two, increasing the chance for "None of the Above" to win)?
There is also the bad taste in the mouths of many Americans for a system that would award the Presidency based upon a plurality instead of a majority.


I am personally endorsing grey's idea....and subsequently announcing my candidate for presidency under the "free sporks for the poor" party.

(by the way, first time I noticed it...."candidate" is a word that is dangerously close to "candidia"...two different kinds of infection, I guess).
on Jul 08, 2004
If no one acheives a majority of the popular vote then NOTS wins by default. Only a majority candidate should be allowed to hold the office.
2 Pages1 2