Various factors have an impact on voter turnout. Making
voting compulsory has a direct and dramatic effect on turnout while adding barriers, such as a separate
registration process or unnecessarily scheduling
many elections,
suppresses turnout. In addition, the closer democracies are to
'one person, one vote' increases turnout as voters see that their effort has an impact. This can be seen in the higher turnout rates of proportional parliamentary democracies. For some time, the Gallup Organization has utilized a metric of polls to determine who would vote. These polls would look at "intention to vote, registration status, reported frequency of past voting, awareness of where to vote, interest in politics in general, interest in the particular election, and intensity of candidate preference." Since around 1985, there appears to be a gradual decrease in voter turnout globally when looking at the voting-age population. However, a 2001 article in the
American Political Science Review, Michael McDonald and Samuel Popkin argued, that at least in the United States, voter turnout since 1972 has not actually declined when calculated for those eligible to vote, what they term the voting-eligible population. In 1972,
noncitizens and
ineligible felons (depending on state law) constituted about 2% of the voting-age population. By 2004, ineligible voters constituted nearly 10%. Ineligible voters are not evenly distributed across the country – 20% of California's voting-age population is ineligible to vote – which confounds comparisons of states. Furthermore, they argue that an examination of the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey shows that turnout is low but not declining among the youth, when the high youth turnout of 1972 (the first year 18- to 20-year-olds were eligible to vote in most states) is removed from the trendline. Other forms of political participation have declined, such as voluntary participation in political parties and the attendance of observers at town meetings. Meanwhile, church attendance, membership in professional, fraternal, and student societies, youth groups, and parent-teacher associations has also declined. Some argue that technological developments in society such as "automobilization," suburban living, and "an explosive proliferation of home entertainment devices" have contributed to a loss of community, which in turn has weakened participation in civic life. Putnam argued increased television viewing might directly account for up to half the drop in social capital in the US. At the same time, some forms of participation have increased. People have become far more likely to participate in
boycotts,
demonstrations, and to donate to political campaigns. Many causes have been proposed for what some see as a decline in voter participation though all offered in this section are heavily disputed. When asked why they do not vote, many people report that they have too little free time. James Sherk, member of conservative think-tank The Heritage Foundation asserted that studies have consistently shown that the amount of
leisure time has not decreased, even if the perception of less leisure time results in less participation. While wages and employment decrease voter turnout in gubernatorial elections, they appear to not affect national races.
Geographic mobility has increased over the last few decades, bringing barriers to voting in a district where one is a recent arrival, including knowing little about the local candidates and issues. It has been argued that democratic consolidation (the stabilization of new democracies) contributes to the decline in voter turnout. A 2017 study challenges this, however.
Ease of voting Other methods of making voting easier to increase turnout include
vote-by-mail,
absentee polling and improved access to polls, such as increasing the number of possible voting locations, lowering the average time voters wait in line, or requiring companies to give workers some time off on voting day. A 2017 study found that turnout among older voters increases the earlier polling places open, while turnout among younger voters improves the longer polling places stay open. A 2017 study in
Electoral Studies found that Swiss cantons that reduced the costs of postal voting for voters by prepaying the postage on return envelopes (which otherwise cost 85 Swiss Franc cents) were "associated with a statistically significant 1.8 percentage point increase in voter turnout". A 2016 study in the
American Journal of Political Science found that preregistration – allowing young citizens to register before being eligible to vote – increased turnout by 2 to 8 percentage points. A 2019 study in
Social Science Quarterly found that the introduction of a vote‐by‐mail system in Washington state led to an increase in turnout. Another 2019 study in
Social Science Quarterly found that online voter registration increased voter turnout, in particular for young voters. A 2020 study in
Political Behavior found that a single postcard by election officials to unregistered eligible voters boosted registration rates by a percentage point and turnout by 0.9 percentage points, with the strongest effects on young, first-time voters. The availability of ballot drop boxes increases turnout. A 2018 study in the
British Journal of Political Science found that internet voting in local elections in Ontario, Canada, only had a modest impact on turnout, increasing turnout by 3.5 percentage points. The authors of the study say that the results "suggest that internet voting is unlikely to solve the low turnout crisis, and imply that cost arguments do not fully account for recent turnout declines."
Voter fatigue If there are many elections in close succession, voter turnout tends to decrease as the public tires of participating. In low-turnout Switzerland, the average voter is invited to go to the polls an average of seven times a year; the United States has frequent elections, with two votes per year on average (e.g. local government and
primaries). Eliminating
off-cycle elections boosts turnout while being popular with voters.
Voter registration In the United States and most Latin American nations, voters must go through separate
voter registration procedures before they are allowed to vote. This two-step process quite clearly
decreases turnout. US states with no, or easier, registration requirements have larger turnouts. A country with a highly efficient registration process is France. At the age of eighteen, all youth are
automatically registered. Only new residents and citizens who have moved are responsible for bearing the costs and inconvenience of updating their registration. Similarly, in
Nordic countries, all citizens and residents are included in the official population register, which is simultaneously a tax list, voter registration, and membership in the universal health system. Residents are required by law to report any change of address to the register within a short time after moving. This is also the system in
Germany (but without the membership in the health system).
Spain has also a similar system called "Padrón Municipal de Habitantes", held by municipalities. Persons register themselves in the Padrón as local residents (every resident in Spain must be registered in any municipality). The Padrón is used for providing most local, regional, and national government services. It also serves as the electoral register. In order to avoid duplications and to gather statistics on demography, the Padrón is supervised by a national government agency, the Instituto National de Estatística (INE). La Oficina Electoral del Censo is the bureau, as part of the INE, responsible for compiling the electoral roll. Every Spanish citizen or EU resident, older than 18 years, is automatically included in the voter register.
Compulsory voting A strong factor affecting voter turnout is whether voting is compulsory, as countries that enforce compulsory voting tend to have far higher voter turnout rates. For example, in
Australia, voter registration and attendance at a polling booth have been mandatory since the 1920s, with
the 2016 federal election having turnout figures of 91% for the
House of Representatives and 91.9% for the
Senate. In Singapore, turnout at the
2020 general election was 95.81%, the highest since
1997 where it was 95.91%. This was an increase from the record low of 93.06% at the
2011 general election. Penalties for failing to vote are not always strictly enforced, and sanctions for non-voters are often mild. with voter turnout rates reaching as low as 57% in the
September 2015 Greek legislative election. In Australia, people who do not vote are subject to a small fine, which is easily waived if one of many acceptable excuses for failing to vote is provided. By contrast
Malta, with one of the world's highest voter turnouts, has a single legislature that holds most political power. Malta has a
two-party system in which a small swing in votes can significantly alter the executive. Voters' perceptions of
fairness also have an important effect on salience, where fears of
fraud and corruption can suppress turnout. Minority voters are shown to mobilize when issues pertaining to their group identity become politically salient. A 2017 experimental study found that by sending registered voters between the ages of 18 and 30 a voter guide containing salient information about candidates in an upcoming election (a list of candidate endorsements and the candidates' policy positions on five issues in the campaign) increased turnout by 0.9 points.
Voting advice applications have strong evidence to increase voter turnout and vote choice and moderate evidence to increase voting knowledge. A 2018 study found that "young people who pledge to vote are more likely to turn out than those who are contacted using standard Get-Out-the-Vote materials. Overall, pledging to vote increased voter turnout by 3.7 points among all subjects and 5.6 points for people who had never voted before."
Proportionality Since most votes count in
proportional representation systems, there are fewer "
wasted votes", so voters, aware that their vote can make a difference, are more likely to make the effort to vote, and less likely to vote
tactically. Compared to countries with plurality electoral systems, voter turnout improves and the population is more involved in the political process in ~70% of cases. The exceptions to the rule can include cases where a plurality system has an unusually high number of competitive districts, for example, before it transitions to a proportional one.
Paradox of voting The chance of any one vote determining the outcome is low. Some studies show that a single vote in a voting scheme such as the
Electoral College in the United States has an even lower chance of determining the outcome. Other studies claim that the Electoral College actually increases voting power. Studies using
game theory, which takes into account the ability of voters to interact, have also found that the expected turnout for any large election should be zero. The basic formula for determining whether someone will vote, on the questionable assumption that people act completely rationally, is : PB + D > C, where •
P is the
probability that an individual's vote will affect the outcome of an election, •
B is the perceived benefit that would be received if that person's favored
political party or candidate were elected, •
D originally stood for democracy or
civic duty, but today represents any social or personal
gratification an individual gets from voting, and •
C is the time, effort, and financial cost involved in voting. Since
P is virtually zero in most elections,
PB may be also near zero, and
D is thus the most important element in motivating people to vote. For a person to vote, these factors must outweigh
C. Experimental political science has found that even when
P is likely greater than zero, this term has no effect on voter turnout. Enos and Fowler (2014) conducted a field experiment that exploits the rare opportunity of a tied election for major political office. Informing citizens that the special election to break the tie will be close (meaning a high
P term) has little mobilizing effect on voter turnout. Riker and Ordeshook developed the modern understanding of
D. They listed five major forms of gratification that people receive for voting: complying with the social obligation to vote; affirming one's allegiance to the political system; affirming a partisan preference (also known as expressive voting, or voting for a candidate to express support, not to achieve any outcome); affirming one's importance to the political system; and, for those who find politics interesting and entertaining, researching and making a decision. Other political scientists have since added other motivators and questioned some of Riker and Ordeshook's assumptions. All of these concepts are inherently imprecise, making it difficult to discover exactly why people choose to vote. Recently, several scholars have considered the possibility that B includes not only a personal interest in the outcome, but also a concern for the welfare of others in the society (or at least other members of one's favorite group or party). In particular, experiments in which subject
altruism was measured using a
dictator game showed that concern for the well-being of others is a major factor in predicting turnout and political participation. This motivation is distinct from D, because voters must think others benefit from the
outcome of the election, not their
act of voting in and of itself.
Habit Turnout differences appear to persist over time; in fact, the strongest predictor of individual turnout is whether or not one voted in the previous election. As a result, many scholars think of turnout as habitual behavior that can be learned or unlearned, especially among young adults.
Childhood influences Studies have found that improving children's social skills and enrolling them in high-quality
early-childhood educational programs increases their turnout as adults.
Demographics Voter turnout tends to increase significantly with age. In some countries women below 40 have higher voter turnouts compared to men below 40, while this gender gap can reverse at higher age. Some view that
ethnicity and
race have little effect when education and income differences are taken into account. A 2018 study found that while education did not increase turnout on average, it did raise turnout among individuals from low socioeconomic status households. Occupation has little effect on turnout, with the notable exception of higher voting rates among government employees in many countries. There can also be regional differences in voter turnout. One issue that arises in continent-spanning nations, such as Australia,
Canada, the United States and
Russia, is that of
time zones. Canada banned the broadcasting of election results in any region where the polls have not yet closed; this ban was upheld by the
Supreme Court of Canada.
Differences between elections Within countries there can be important differences in turnout between individual elections. Elections where control of the national
executive is not at stake generally have much lower turnouts—often half that for general elections.
Off-year municipal and provincial elections, and by-elections to fill casual vacancies, typically have lower turnouts, as do elections for the parliament of the supranational
European Union, which is separate from the executive branch of the EU's government. In the United States,
midterm congressional elections attract far lower turnouts than Congressional elections held concurrently with Presidential ones.
Runoff elections also tend to attract lower turnouts.
Competitiveness of races In theory, one of the factors that is most likely to increase turnout is a close race. Following the Downsian Closeness hypothesis and the idea of
instrumental voting, voters rationally estimate the costs and benefits of participating in an election. Benefits exceed the costs if a close outcome of the election is expected and voters believe their ballot may be decisive for the outcome. Additionally, in these elections parties increase their mobilization efforts. Although the logic of instrumental voting applies to all elections, the effects are more prominent in democracies and
majoritarian electoral systems. An example is the
2004 U.S. presidential election. With an intensely polarized electorate and all polls showing a close finish between
President George W. Bush and
Democratic challenger
John F. Kerry, the turnout in the election was close to 60%, resulting in a record number of popular votes for both candidates (around 62 million for Bush and 59 million for Kerry). However, this race also demonstrates the influence that contentious social issues can have on voter turnout; for example, the voter turnout rate in 1860 wherein anti-
slavery candidate Abraham Lincoln won the election was the second-highest on record (81.2 percent, second only to 1876, with 81.8 percent). Nonetheless, there is evidence to support the argument that predictable election results—where one vote is not seen to be able to make a difference—have resulted in lower turnouts, such as
Bill Clinton's 1996 re-election (which featured the lowest voter turnout in the United States since 1924), the
United Kingdom general election of 2001, and the 2005
Spanish referendum on the European Constitution; all of these elections produced decisive results on a low turnout. A 2020 NBER paper, examining evidence from
Swiss referendums, found that an awareness by the electorate that an election would be close increased turnout. Controlling for canton and vote
fixed effects, the study determined "that greater
cantonal newspaper coverage of close polls significantly increases voter turnout" Also in the United States, incarceration, probation, and a
felony record deny 5–6 million Americans of the right to vote, with reforms gradually leading more states to allow people with felony criminal records to vote, while almost none allow incarcerated people to vote.
Weather and timing Research results are mixed as to whether bad weather affects turnout. There is research that shows that
precipitation can reduce turnout, though this effect is generally rather small, with most studies finding each millimeter of rainfall to reduce turnout by 0.015 to 0.1 percentage points. At least two studies, however, found no evidence that weather disruptions reduce turnout. A 2011 study found "that while rain decreases turnout on average, it does not do so in competitive elections." Some research has also investigated the effect of temperature on turnout, with some finding increased temperatures to moderately increase turnout. Some other studies, however, found temperature to have no significant impact on turnout. and
Germany have also found weather-related turnout decreases to benefit the
right, while a
Spanish study
Household socialization A 2018 study in the
American Political Science Review found that the parents to newly enfranchised voters "become 2.8 percentage points more likely to vote." A 2018 study in the journal
Political Behavior found that increasing the size of households increases a household member's propensity to vote. A 2018 PlosOne study found that a "partisan who is married to a co-partisan is more likely to vote. This phenomenon is especially pronounced for partisans in closed primaries, elections in which non-partisan registered spouses are ineligible to participate."
Ballot secrecy According to a 2018 study, get-out-the-vote groups in the United States who emphasize ballot secrecy along with reminders to vote increase turnout by about 1 percentage point among recently registered nonvoters.
Abstention There are philosophical, moral, and practical reasons that some people cite for not voting in electoral politics, typically owing to obstacles to voting, though some of the practical reasons for abstention have more to do with rare, difficult to predict situations arising from flaws in the design of the voting system that fail to efficiently capture voter preferences. ==Increasing voter turnout==