• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Routing 
Critics of American politics and elections oftenfocus on low voter turnout in the United States.They argue that voter turnout is steadily declininglargely because of voter cynicism caused by bigmoney campaigns and negative political advertis-ing. Voter turnout is lower than it was in the1960s, but almost the entire decline happenedbetween 1968 and 1974. Sophisticated anddetailed studies of both public trust in govern-ment and the consequences of political advertis-ing show that neither factor has a negative effecton voter turnout.Turnout is lower than in other developednations, but the United States has a different cul-ture and history than European nations that seelarge majorities of their citizens go to the polls.European standards are not appropriate for judg-ing American turnout.Critics of American politics have misunder-stood voter turnout in the United States. Theproposed remedies—limiting political libertythrough restrictions on campaign finance andon political advertising—are neither analyticallysound nor necessary for a healthy body politic.
Three Myths about Voter Turnoutin the United States
by John Samples
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
 John Samples is director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Representative Government.
Executive Summary
No. 524September 14, 2004
 
Introduction
As the general election of 2004 approach-es, critics of American politics will decry lowvoter turnout in the United States. They willnote that turnout in the United States hassteadily declined since the halcyon days of the 1960s. Some critics will trace that puta-tive decline to the baleful influence of “bigmoney” on voters. The large sums raised andspent by both parties and their campaignswill be said to alienate voters and discourageparticipation. After all, if campaign contribu-tors run the show, why bother to vote? Othercritics will argue that sharply critical advertis-ing (so-called negative ads) discourages vot-ing by fostering cynicism about the politicalprocess. Some self-styled reformers will arguethat the harm done to democracy by bigmoney and negative ads justifies governmentefforts to restrict campaign finance and toregulate the tone of campaign commercials.In sum, critics believe the decline in voterturnout is a sign of sickness in the bodypolitic and that limits on political liberty areneeded to save the patient. Fortunately, thecritics’ diagnosis is wrong and their cureunnecessary.
Has Turnout SteadilyDeclined?
Many people assume Americans are votingless and less, an assumption often repeated butrarely examined. Some pundits have made aprofession of studying and decrying the puta-tive failure of Americans to live up to their polit-ical obligations. Curtis Gans, an analyst oftenquoted on this issue, has written of America’s“disintegrating democracy” where “the nationthat prides itself on being the best example of government of, for, and by the people is rapidlybecoming a nation whose participation is limit-ed to the interested or zealous few.”
1
Complaints about U.S. turnout come intwo versions. Sometimes critics say that theU.S. turnout is among the lowest in devel-oped nations. That is accurate. Many nationsin Europe have higher voter turnout than theUnited States. But the differences betweenU.S. and European voting levels are not nec-essarily a problem. Why should the UnitedStates be judged by European standards? Wehave a different history and political culturethan most of Europe. Government is smallerin the United States, and politics matters lessto the society and its citizens.
2
Many nations inEurope havehigher voterturnout than theUnited States. Butthe differencesbetween U.S. andEuropean votinglevels are notnecessarily aproblem.
Source: Michael McDonald, George Mason University, at http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm.
Figure 1Turnout of Eligible Voters in Presidential Elections, 1948–2000
   E   l   i  g   i   b   l  e   V  o   t  e  r   T  u  r  n  o  u   t   (   %   )
Year 
 
5052545658606264661948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000
Source: Michael McDonald, George Mason University, at http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm.
Figu
 
r 
 
e 1Tu
 
r 
 
nout of Elig
 
ible Vot
 
er 
 
s in P
 
r 
 
es
 
ide
 
nt
 
ial Elect
 
ion
 
s, 1948–2000
 
   E   l   i  g   i   b   l  e   V  o   t  e  r   T  u  r  n  o  u   t   (   %   )
Year 
 
But has turnout in the United States beensteadily declining? Experts have traditionallymeasured voter turnout by dividing thenumber of voters by some measure of poten-tial voters. They have gauged potential votersby the voting age population of a state, anumber easily obtained from the U.S. CensusBureau. That procedure does paint a pictureof a nation slowly abandoning the polls.However, that way of measuring turnout ismisleading.Political scientist Michael McDonald hasshown that the number of Americans actual-ly eligible to vote has become progressivelysmaller than the number of Americans of voting age. In 2004, for example, McDonaldestimates that the United States will have17.5 million people of voting age who are noteligible to vote. In estimating voter turnout,this difference changes everything.Calculations based on eligible voters (not thevoting-age population) show that turnout inpresidential and off-year elections hasremained roughly flat for about 30 years(Figures 1 and 2).McDonald confirms that voter turnouthas gone down from its peak in the 1960s,though turnout has been higher than manyexperts have thought. However, the declinehas not been slow and steady. Instead,turnout has followed two paths, one relative-ly high in the 1950s and 1960s and a lowerpath after the mid-1970s. Turnout droppedinto the second, lower path between 1968and 1974. The trend since the mid-1970s hasbeen flat or slightly downward.The two paths of turnout provide a clue totheir cause. A cause of the decline must haveeither increased or decreased sharply from1968 to 1974 and then have maintained thatlarger or smaller value for the next 30 years.Campaign spending does not fit either sce-nario: spending has risen steadily since the1960s. As we shall see, negative advertisingalso has varied in ways that undermine thebelief that such communications have drivendown turnout.
Campaign Finance andTurnout
Why would increases in campaign spend-ing cause declines in voter turnout? After all,candidates, parties, and groups spend moneyto bring voters to the polls. They spendmoney to stimulate turnout of potential sup-porters, not suppress it. One might expectthat more money would lead to higher, notlower, turnout.
3
Candidates,parties, andgroups spendmoney to bringvoters to thepolls, to stimu-late turnout of potentialsupporters, notsuppress it.
Source: Michael McDonald, George Mason University, at http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm.
Figure 2Turnout of Eligible Voters in Off-YearElections, 1948–2000
Year 
   E   l   i  g   i   b   l  e   V  o   t  e  r   T  u  r  n  o  u   t   (   %   )
 
35373941434547491950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
Source: Michael McDonald, George Mason University, at http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm.
Figur 
 
e 2Tur 
 
nout of Elig
 
ible Vot
 
er 
 
s in Of 
 
f-Year Elect
 
ions, 19
 
48–2000
 
Year 
   E   l   i  g   i   b   l  e   V  o   t  e  r   T  u  r  n  o  u   t   (   %   )
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...