Voter Turnout in Australia in Comparison to the United States: Understanding the Factors that Influence Voter Turnout

http://www.throng.co.nz/one-news/one-news-gets-australian-electoral-ballot-paper-wrong http://www.komonews.com/news/national/15784082.html

Suraj Karmacharya April 7, 2011 PLTC 211, Professor Baughman Research Paper #2

Introduction: For decades, political scientists and psychologists in the United States (U.S.) have been trying to identify the factors and variables that impact individuals to vote in democratic nations, as voter turnout in this country has been low (Harder 2008, 525). While great amounts of literature have been produced in the last century about this topic, the research has had fairly small impact on finding solutions to motivate Americans to vote. Political scientists have been studying and analyzing voter turnout for decades in order to recognize the possible flaws in the electoral system and areas in dire need of improvement, so that these problems can be fixed and political participation can increase. In comparison to other developed democracies, the U.S. was ranked 25th for turnout in National Elections from 1945-2003 (Hetherington et al. 2010). And times havent changed after 2003. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, voter turnout in the 2008 presidential elections was 56.9% (2008 General Election 2008). This number is fairly high for American voter turnout, as voter turnouts in gubernatorial and senate primaries are much lower. When comparing the United States voter turnout to Australia, the nation with the highest voter turnout in the world, it becomes apparent that America has a long way to go in order to achieve political participation like the Australian population. In Australias 2010 federal election, it was measured that 93.83 % of the population voted in the Senate race (Senate State First Preferences 2010). Comparing the Australian voter turnout and American voter turnout in some ways does not illustrate a completely fair assessment because there are stark differences in terms of the demographic conditions, institutional structures, and voting procedures. However, understanding some of the large factors that constantly supports high voter turnout in Australia provides the U.S. an opportunity to recognize influential variables and forces. Similarly, it raises an important question about whether it is

worth transforming present electoral procedures in America to parallel practices in Australia in order to increase voter turnout. Through numerous studies, it has been identified that particular factors such as the Australian compulsory voting, preferential voting, and the existence of numerous strong minor parties have encouraged high voter turnout. Compulsory Voting (CV) Compulsory voting (CV) has been highly influential in increasing voter turnout in Australia, although this practice remains to be perceived as undemocratic and forceful by many people. This practice has by far the biggest impact on voter turnout in Australia out of all the possible variables. In 1924, the Commonwealth electoral legislation made a statement that declared it shall be the duty of every elector to vote at each election. This law of CV was placed in Australia, as a response to what some individuals from the Liberal government believed was low voter turnout in past elections. In 1903, the federal election only received votes from 46.9 percent of registered voters (RV), which rose to 58.7 percent in 1924 before the CV law was placed. Supporters of CV in Australia argued that voting was a sacred duty, and Democracy demanded its performance. The opposition, however, stated that the implementation of CV would put voters under the power of the party machine. After the implementation of the CV in the first Commonwealth election in 1925, voter turnout was measured at 91.4 percent of RV (Compulsory Voting 2008). Although Australias ability to increase their voter turnout by nearly 32 percentage points right after implementing CV is incredible, the governments method of approving the bill without any input from the Australian people is questionable. A few years after this bill was placed in Commonwealth, it moved on to other states of Australia and the impressive turnouts were recognized globally. It has been measured that Australia has averaged 94.5 percent of turnout in elections since 1946 (Louth 2005, 2). Despite such a great number of

people turning out for every election, there have been many attempts to get rid of CV from the Commonwealth Electoral Act of 1918. Certain groups of people have argued that CV allows parties to lack mass membership and make great efforts to get out the votes because candidates are sure that large numbers of people will turn out. On the other hand, individuals that support this Australian system argue that people should fulfill their civic duty of voting and the voting law ensures maximum participation (Compulsory Voting 2008). Likewise, parties see the financial advantages of CV, since there is no need to invest in get out the vote campaigns, which costs voluntary voting systems like the U.S. quite a lot of money. Although nearly one fourth of the country opposes this system, CV in Australia ensures a greater incentive for voters to cast a ballot because of the financial costs for opposing this system. Downs theory proposes that a voters likelihood of participating can be understood through this formula:

R = (B) (P) C + D
Figure 1: (Harder 2008, 2)

An American voter views this formula quite differently than an Australian voter. This is largely because under the CV system, not voting costs as individual anywhere from $20 to $50, depending on the reason for not voting. On the other hand, for an American voter, there is no detrimental cost (C) from not voting in an election, so there is more freedom for voters in America (Harder 2008, 2). The choice of not voting does not exist for an Australians unless he or she is ready to pay the price. This not only leads to opposition against the voting system for individuals with no political interest, but it also causes many people to vote just for the sake of not getting fined. Because people from poor socio-economic class are the most unlikely to vote, the charge hinders this group the most harmfully. Therefore, this group of people has the most incentive to show up and vote.

In this formula R represents total reward received from voting; B is the benefit a person thinks he or she will receive from having favorite candidate win; C is the total cost of voting, calculated by the time, money, and resources taken; D is physic satisfaction person gains from voting (Harder 2008, 2).

Preferential Voting (PV): Another variable that impacts voter turnout in Australia is the countrys use of a preferential voting (PV) system, which has been claimed to be the best-established and longest-runningin the world (Reilly 2001, 42). In fact, Australia uses the Alternative Vote (AV), the Single Transferable Vote (STV), and the Supplementary Vote (SV) depending on the jurisdictions. The PV system is unique as it causes individuals to rank-order candidates in order of a voters preference (Reilly 2001, 18). Therefore, if an individuals top-ranked candidate lost, the vote would still illustrate the second and third choices. For this reasons, the PV system is perceived to be one of the fairest assessments of a voters choice. When trying to understand the likelihood for people to vote, it is important for us to take a look at the (P) factor in Downs theory, which is a persons perspective on his or her vote impacting the election results (Harder 2008, 2). Because people in Australia are showing their preferences for their candidates by ranking, they feel that they have more power in making a difference. Research and studies have proven that PV increases the incentive to vote because it provides people greater empowerment over the political system (Farrell 2006, 726). It is difficult to measure the direct impacts of PV in Australia because large variables like CV control peoples decision to vote. However, it can be seen that Australians overall prefer the PV for its various advantages. For one, people in Australia have supported the PV system because in some conditions, it allows a single party to take over a majority of seats in the Parliament due to advantages from a phenomenon in PV called the winners bonus( Miragliotta et al. 2010). Australians believe that it is in their countries best political and

economic interest to have a single-party dominate the House of Representatives. Also, in places like America, the voting system does not encourage people to vote for a candidate who doesnt have a high chance of getting elected. In Australia, however, an individual can vote for their favorite candidate despite the partys strength because even if the first candidate looses in the first round, the voters second choice candidate still has an opportunity to win. For all these reasons, PV in Australia continues to play a crucial role in increasing voter turnout, as this system promotes fairness about election outcomes (Farrell 2006, 742). The Impact of Minor Parties: It has been evident that the ability for Australia to have a PV system has motivated parties with various ideologies to campaign, increase voter turnout, and win seats in certain elections despite a strong two party presence. The Federal elections in 2010 especially illustrate the ways in which smaller parties were able to change the political dynamics of Australia. The two dominant parties in Australia have been the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Liberal Party, which has had a long-standing coalition with the National Party. Therefore, the Liberal Party and National Party are often perceived as a single party. Similar to the United States, the preference of parties in Australia is heavily depended on social class. Blue-collar workers and people from a poor socio-economic status support the ALP, while affluent white-collar workers and farmers from the countryside favor the Liberal and National Party (Miragliotta et al. 2010, 181). Because the proportional voting system used in the Senate is more advantageous to third parties, more Senate seats are won by minor parties as opposed to House of Representative seats, which are strongly dominated by the two parties and their coalitions. In the 2010 elections, minor parties won six out of forty Senate seats that were available, whereas only six out of one hundred fifty seats were won in the House (Australian Federal Elections 2010).

The great impact of minor parties on increasing voter turnout in Australia is measurable, especially by looking at the distributions of votes in the Senate elections of 2010. Australia had over 29 parties competing for seats in the Senate. There were a total of 13,217,393 votes casted, of which 12,722,233 were formal ballots. When looking at the data from parties with over 250,000 votes, a significant amount of partisan support, here are the results you get from the 2010 Senate elections (Senate State First Preferences 2010): Parties in 2010 Senate Elections (receiving over 200,000 votes)

Table 1:

Group (Name of Party) Shooters and Fishers Liberal Democrats (LDP) Australian Sex Party Family First Liberal National Party Liberal The Greens Liberal/Nationals Australian Labor Party* Liberal/National Coalition*1 Major Party/Coalition2: Minor Parties3:

Votes Received 214,119 230,191 259,583 267,493 1,015,062 1,092,601 1,667,315 2,724,940 4,469,734 4,871,871 9,341,605 3,380, 682

% of Votes Received 1.68 1.81 2.04 2.10 7.98 8.59 13.11 21.42 35.13 38.30 73.43 25.57

The data above clearly illustrates how minor parties have played a large role in influencing the decisions of Australians to vote. Although the major parties dominated over seventy percent of the Senate votes, Australian people all together had a fairly strong support
1 2

All parties colored blue are part of the Liberal/National coalition This includes all the minor parties in the Liberal/National coalition, including those with less than 200,000 votes 3 Includes all minor parties, including those with less than 200,000 votes; excluding minor parties in the Coalition

for the minor parties. The data above does not show the complete picture because the Liberal/National coalition total has numerous minor parties combined. However, if the complete numbers were to be illustrated, then one would realize that the success of the Liberal/National coalition was as a result of multiple minor parties amalgamating. So one might question, how do minor parties impact voter turnout? The truth is that the Australian political structure provides opportunities for minor parties to be represented, even if it is not particularly easy. For example, in the 2010 Senate elections, the Australian Greens were able to capture six new seats, while the Democratic Labor Party won one seat. The data shows that there are incentives and options to vote for Australians who oppose the two dominant parties. Though the Australian Greens are not in a position to radically reshape the Australian party system, they could be the group that resolves the hung parliament at the end of the year, which shows the gradual increase in power minor parties are obtaining. Likewise, the Greens were the big winners of the 2010 federal elections with nearly 16% of support increasing (Is It Time for Australia 2010). For an Australian who is not particularly fond of the two dominant parties, there is still meaning behind voting. After all, there are options of voting for ambitious minor parties like the Greens, who are trying to make a difference in Australian politics, and there are other parties like the Family First, who are simply trying to send a political message. Implications: The low voter turnout in the United States is a result of individuals not finding the incentive or reward (R) from voting because of their dissatisfaction with American politics or because of barriers that increase the cost of voting. There has been a growing amount of people in America who do not have political interest and thus state that this reason results them in not voting (Hetherington et al. 2010). There also exists many Australians with a similar ideology, but it has been proven through opinion polls that the majority of people do

favor CV. It can be assumed that if an individual is in favor of CV, they are very likely to vote because they see it as a responsibility. Opinion poll findings from 2005 have displayed that over nearly 70 % of Australians favor CV (Hill et al. 2006). The fact that CV is so controversial, yet so dynamic, makes it one of the most interesting factors in influencing high voter turnout. Similarly, since it has been quite effective and used by Australia for over 80 years, it poses the question about whether CV may be a solution for industrialized democratic nations like United States with low voter turnout. On the other hand, perhaps the enforced compulsory law is not necessary for America. The source of low voter turnout in America is considered to be a result of the barriers that the electoral system presents, such as difficult registration processes, difficult voting times and dates of elections, and a two-party system that offers little variation (Hetherington et al. 2010). If solutions could be found to address these issues, voter turnouts could drastically improve in America. If the PV system were to be implemented in the American electoral system, as it already has been in jurisdictions of San Francisco, it would present opportunities in increasing voter turnout. Similarly, using the PV system could in effect help minor parties gain strength in Americas political platform. It has been proven through research that nations with some form of PV motivate individuals to vote more candidate-centered rather than party-centered (Farrell 2006, 731). This is because the PV ranking system gives strength to numerous selected candidates, as opposed to the single preferred candidate in America. Likewise, the current U.S. electoral system does not particularly support in voting for the most favored candidate, since the strengths of the two-party system make it very difficult for non-Democratic and non-Republic candidates to win. Although the Democratic and Republican Party would highly oppose a minor party like the Independents strengthening and winning seats, such a scenario provide an incentive to vote for individuals who oppose the Democratic and Republican party politics. This may not immediately change the two-party

system, but having minor party representation in the Senate and House would add new dimensions and perspectives. Like the CV system, PV also has negative aspects, as it is a system that does not guarantee complete fairness and there are ways parties can manipulate votes. If America were to start using the CV system, American parties would probably follow Australian parties on distributing How-to-vote card on election days. Dominant parties create these cards, which outlines a certain way to rank candidates, so that preferences can be exchanged between parties in order to receive desired outcomes and policy concessions (Miragliotta et al. 2010). This allows committed partisans to not only support a single party, but to also change the fate of other parties. In this sense, the PV system can be quite unfair. Also, studies have shown that the PV system has been particularly problematic for certain ethnic groups of people that are not fluent and literate in English. In Australia, for example, the Aborigines in some areas have shown interest to vote, but have found it hard to understand the PV system (Hill et al. 2010). Any activity that requires reading English would be hard for an illiterate voter, but PV specifically presents certain challenges. Considering that the U.S. also has a diverse group of ethnic minorities that have large illiterate populations, implementing the PV system in America might discourage these groups to vote. Conclusion: By understanding the ways in which the CV law, PV system, and presence of minor parties have influenced Australian voter turnout, we are able to critique the American electoral system and find room for improvement. While there are many Americans who would strongly support these variables, there are also others who would greatly oppose all of them. Finding a consensus is extremely difficult, especially in a large country like the U.S. Therefore, it is in the best interest of Americans to see whether the benefits outweigh the detriments of implicating each variable. CV would guarantee a rise in American voter turnout

and millions of dollars will be saved on get out the vote campaigns, but there will also be a large opposition against this law. PV in some types of elections would give incentive for voters to favor the desired candidate, but implicating this system would not change the dominance of the two-party system any time soon. And likewise, giving minor parties a platform would bring out new voices in American politics and possibly change voter turnouts, but once again, minor parties would need a lot of finances and support to reach the level of the Democrats and Republicans. These possibilities are promising because they have worked their magic in Australia, but the big question is whether they would have their same impact in America.

Works Cited "2008 General Election Turnout Rates." United States Elections Project. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Apr. 2011. <http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html>. "Australian Federal Election, 2010." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Apr. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_2010>. Compulsory Voting in Australian National Elections. Issue brief no. 1832-2883. Parliamentary Library: Parliament of Australia, 2008. Print. Ser. 6. Farrell, David M., and Ian Mcallister. "Voter Satisfaction and Electoral Systems: Does Preferential Voting in Candidate-centered Systems Make a Difference?" European Journal of Political Research 45.5 (2006): 723-49. Print. Harder, Joshua, and Jon A. Krosnick. "Why Do People Vote? A Psychological Analysis of the Causes of Voter Turnout." Journal of Social Issues 64.3 (2008): 525-49. Print. Hetherington, Marc J., and Bruce A. Larson. "Identification, Partisanship, and Elections." Parties, Politics, and Public Policy in America. Washington, DC: CQ, 2010. 206-214. Print. Hill, Lisa, and Kate Alport. "Voting Attitudes and Behaviour Among Aboriginal Peoples: Reports from Anangu Women." Australian Journal of Politics and History 56 (2010): 242-58. Print. Hill, Lisa, and Sally Young. Cause and Effect? Informal and Compulsory Voting Australia. Rep. Newcastle: Australian Political Studies Association Conference,

2006. Print. "Is It Time for Australia to Embrace the Multi-party System?" The Canberra Times [Canberra] 3 June 2010, Final Edition ed.: 19. LexisNexis Academic. Web. 1 Apr. 2011. Louth, Jonathon. Compulsory Voting in Australia: Turnout with and without It. Rep. no. 1832-1526. 1st ed. Vol. 6. Sydney: Australian Review of Public Affairs, 2005. Print. Matsler, Sean. Compulsory Voting in America. Rep. N.p.: University of Southern California Law School, 2003. Print. Miragliotta, Narelle, Wayne Errington, and Nicholas Barry. "Chapter 8: The Importance of the Electoral System." The Australian Political System in Action. South Melbourne, Vic.: Oxford UP, 2010. Print. Reilly, Ben. "Centripetal incentives and political engineering in Australia." Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2001. 42-57. Print. "Senate State First Preferences By Group." Election Results Archive. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Apr. 2011. <http://results.aec.gov.au/15508/Website/SenateStateFirstPrefsByGroup15508-NAT.htm>.