An increase in the literacy rate is expected to increase voter participation, as with education people become more concerned about politics and confident to express their preference. Education also makes people tolerant to opposing views, less extreme and capable of making more rational decisions (Lipset, 1959). People with more education and experience have a lower cost of acquiring information and thus their cost of voting is lower than that of an uneducated voter whose limited stock of knowledge leads to a higher cost of processing information causing them to opt out of participating in elections. This is also supported by Wolfinger and Rosenstone (1980). According to the U.S. Census 2010 Current Population Survey only 35% of those with …show more content…
Economic development will lead to the creation and dissemination of socio-economic resources. Voters would have increased access to information and the country would benefit from other effects such as higher levels of education and income. Economic development would change the way society interacts and this would hopefully increase the political involvement of citizens and in turn increase voter turnout. A set of cross-national studies of voter participation in advanced industrialized countries found support for the claim that increasing the cognitive and material cost of voting reduces the turnout of the poor and uneducated (Jusko & Shively 2005, Gallego 2009, Nevitte, Blais, Gidengil & Nadeau …show more content…
Staying in one area would increase an individual’s knowledge of that area and the candidates, which would mean that the voter’s cost of obtaining information is low and as a result they would choose to vote (Filer et al., 1993). The expected benefit from voting is affected by the size of the population (Owen and Grofman, 1984; Mueller, 2003). So, the greater the size of the community the smaller the probability that a single voter will make a difference hence is reducing the expected utility from voting and lowering voter participation. The level of population concentration is important as well. Urbanization can lead to a weakening of interpersonal bonds, primary social structures and consensus on norms (Hoffman-Martinot, 1994, Wirth, 1938). The argument here is that cities do not have the same pressure as rural areas for individuals to turnout to vote. This ‘social pressure’ argument builds on the idea that voting is a civic duty, people who decided not to vote may hurt their social reputations (Riker and Ordeshook, 1968; Overbye,
On the national civics assessment, “two-thirds of 12th graders scored below ‘proficient’…and only 9 percent could list two ways a democracy benefits from citizen participation” (O’Connor and Romer 4). The information provided clarifies just how little students know about democracy. Without education on the subject, they are unaware as to how their government contribution is beneficial and why it is needed in the first place. The students, because of their lack of understanding, therefore choose to not take part in their government and fail to carry out their duties as a citizen. The authors provide more research that shows “the better people understand our history and system of government, the more likely they are to vote and participate in the civic life” (O’Connor and Romer 8).
Since the electoral system can change the outcome of the election, it often misrepresents the will of citizens. In electoral system, candidate with most popular votes in states wins electoral votes regardless of difference in popular votes. That means, if people living in urban areas support one candidate, they could easily mislead the results of popular votes. Smaller areas with more population often drag results on one side than larger areas with less population. Either it is a presidential election of 1888 or 2000 election, candidates with higher electoral votes happen to win against people’s popular votes.
"Miller light and bud light…either way you end up with a mighty weak beer!" This is how Jim Hightower (a Texan populist speaker) described the choices that the U.S. electorate had in the 2000 elections. This insinuates that there is a clear lack of distinction between the parties. Along with numerous others, this is one of the reasons why the turnout is so low in the U.S. elections. In trying to explain the low figures at the U.S. elections, analysts have called American voters apathetic to indifferent to downright lazy. I disagree that the 50% (in recent elections) of voters that fail to turnout to vote are lazy and that they have just reason not too. I will also show that the problem lies within the system itself in that the institutional arrangements, electoral and governmental, do not create an environment that is conducive to mass participation. I will address these main issues and several others that have an effect on voter participation. In doing so I will compare America to other established democracies.
“Illiterate citizens seldom vote. Those who do are forced to cast a vote of questionable worth. They cannot make informed decisions based on serious print information. More frequently, they vote for a face, a smile, or a style, not for a mind or character or body of beliefs. Sometimes the can be alerted to their interests by aggressive voter education
Loewen, P. J., Milner, H., & Hicks, B. M. (1997). Does Compulsory Voting Lead To More Informed and Engaged Citizens? An Experimental Test. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 655-672. Retrieved from http://journals1.scholarsportal.info.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/tmp/44514596344978336.pdf
The United States national elections have been experiencing a steady decline of eligible voters showing up to vote. This steady decline has been ongoing since experiencing a significant increase in voter turnout from 1948 through 1960. Over the years there has been significant, meticulous research done to try to pinpoint the cause of the decline in voter turnout over years. All of this research has led to the production of an enormous number of literatures written on the perceived causes. The vast amount of literature produced has led to a number of competing explanations about this decline. The quest for the answer to the question of, why this decline in voter turnout, is very important for an overwhelming majority of Americans and our democratic system because the people/voters can only truly be represented by our government if all eligible voters go out and vote. For this paper I will examine four theories that attempt to explain the decline. The four theories that I will discuss are voting barriers, campaign contributions, negative campaign advertising, and finally the cultural explanation. However, through thorough exploration and critiques of the strengths and weaknesses of these four theories, we will find that the cultural explanation theory is currently the most persuasive theory in the group. Finally, I will also explore some reasons as to why citizens do vote as well.
Karp, Jeffrey A., and Susan A. Banducci. " Political Efficacy and Participation in Twenty-Seven Democracies: How Electoral Systems Shape Political Behaviour." British Journal of Political Science 38 (2008): 311-334. Cambridge Journals. Web. 16 Mar. 2012.
The Chartist movement (a working class political movement) in 1840 believed “People had no one else but themselves to blame for the actions of their politicians” (Nash). What Mr. Nash and the chartist movement believe couldn’t be more on the spot. This country has gotten to the point where people find it hard to walk down their street to the elementary school where the voting polls are, and take a few minutes to cast a vote. A vote that millions of people around the world wish they were able to have them selves. With all the political suffrage that goes on through the world and people forced to love a leader, these no-shows should be thankful to live in a democracy. A place where elections aren’t rigged and the people are truly heard. This is why the topic of voting turnout needs to be raised. Also it’s very annoying to hear people complaining about our President when they did not even vote. It’s a very bad habit to not vote, and it needs to change with the younger citizens of this country. Helping younger people see the importance of voting needs to start with technological and educational ideas while expanding all the way to social event ideas. Only then will America’s ability to find answers to voting turnout increase.
Among the many ways Americans can participate in politics, voting is considered one of the most common and important ways for Americans to get involved. The outcome of any election, especially at the national level, determines who will be making and enforcing the laws that all Americans must abide by. With this in mind one might assume that all Americans are active voters, but studies show the voter turnout is actually astonishingly low. With this unsettling trend it is important to know what statistics say about voter turnout as was as the four major factors that influence participation: Socioeconomic status, education, political environment, and state electoral laws, in order to help boost turnout in future elections.
In the 2012 United States Presidential election 58.2 percent of the registered voters turnout out to vote (IDEA). This figure is in stark contrast to many other wealthy democracies in the western world for the same election cycle (IDEA). This begs the question, why is voter turnout significantly lower in the US compared to the rest of the first world and other OECD countries? There are countless factors that could affect voter turnout, the most standard of which are based on socioeconomic status. But when considering only developed nations, more is at play in predicting turnout. Focus is turned to institutional factors and the effect election mechanisms, such as registration laws and party systems, have on political participation.
During the year of 1870, on the 3rd day in the month of February, the 15th amendment was ratified. The 15th amendment prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Basically, giving all United States citizens the equal right to vote. Thousands of brave men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice to defend the United States constitution that holds our rights. Not to mention all the hard work from several people it took to pass congress. So why not make voting mandatory? Mandatory voting will benefit the United States citizens by allowing everyone to exercise their rights, therefore, entitling us to have a say in the electoral process, possibly making a change to improve our country.
In fact, according to Elections Canada, during the 2011 federal elections, only 61.1% of Canadians exerted their duty as citizen. Hence, some think compulsory voting can remediate the situation. However, mandatory voting is what really could hurt democracy. By forcing every eligible voter to go to the polls, misinformed voters will randomly cast their ballot. Sceptics may believe that by fining individuals who refuse to go to the polls, there will be less ignorant voters. For example, in Australia, where voting is compulsory, Australians who do not cast their ballots have to “pay a 20$ penalty” (Australian Electoral Commission). However, by financially penalising citizens who do not exert their duty, many will be so dissatisfied by the incumbent government that they will simply vote for a party that would not make voting an obligation. These people would ignore the party’s other policies instead of being informed on all the challenges that the country faces and how each party plans on solving them. Nonetheless, the elections are an occasion to elect a leader whose ideologies on many aspects, from immigration to the environment, matches the voter’s most. As a responsible voter, one has to know the policies of each party and has to try to obtain enough “social-scientific knowledge to [assess] these positions” (Brennan 11), which takes a lot of time. Therefore, compulsory voting would make voters more informed, but only on a narrow aspect while ignoring the other issues that should be taken into consideration when choosing the party they will vote for. All in all, mandatory voting would hurt democracy despite the higher participation
The United States is an inspiration of liberty and hope for nations around the world. It is a nation with citizens who have the unalienable rights of, “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” and a model for how democratic nations should be ordered and maneuvered due to its intrinsic values that are held. Democracy is a system of government where the citizens are responsible for shaping their nation to represent who they are and what they stand for. The people have the ultimate power in the nation. However, as no pure direct democracy exists in any nation, an indirect democracy arises, where people vote to elect representatives, who then in turn make the greater part of decisions for the nation.
...eople not voting! Americans are becoming less educated on the issues that they are facing as well as the candidates running at the time of office. However, according Longley (2011) ”Still, 93 percent of infrequent voters agreed that voting is an important part of being a good citizen and 81 percent of nonvoters agreed it is an important way to voice their opinions on issues that affect their families and communities” (pg. 1).
Voter turnout has been declining in the United States throughout history through the potential voters’ personal choice not to vote and ineligibility. According to research a large percentage of individuals are not voting because political parties fail to appeal to the voters and this leads to the voting population losing interest in the campaign, while others postpone registering and by the time they realize their delay the election is upon them.