Voter Turnout and Competitive Politics

Third Quarter 2000

by David T. Koyzis

It is a curious paradox that while Americans are famously attached to democracy in principle, this does not lead to a high voter turnout on election days. According to statistics compiled by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance in Stockholm, the United States ranks 139th out of 172 countries in voter turnout, with an average of only 48.3 percent of eligible voters casting a ballot in all general elections held since 1945. By contrast, Canada ranks 77th, with 68.4 percent turnout in federal parliamentary elections.

Why are U.S. rates so low? Some argue that the requirement of advanced registration in most states is the culprit. Others point to the enfranchisement of minorities and younger people during the 1960s and 70s, since these groups show less interest in voting. Still others blame the complexity of the voting process, which includes ballots with scores of candidates running for a range of different offices, not to mention various referendum issues in many states.

One fact can definitely be said to affect voter turnout in the U.S.—a presidential election. Over the past half century, Americans have tended to vote in larger numbers in presidential elections. The high water mark was reached in 1960, when 63.1 percent of eligible voters cast ballots for John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. During midterm congressional elections, turnout invariably dips below 40 percent, with a mere 36.4 percent voting in 1986.

However, the IDEA survey calls attention to another factor, which has also been noted by the Center for Voting and Democracy in Maryland. Evidence points to a clear link between electoral systems and voter turnout. The United States has a single-member-plurality system (SMP) in which a candidate may win election with a bare majority of votes if only two candidates are competing. One can win with even less than a majority if three or more candidates are running in the same district for the only seat. Winner takes all. Canada has the same SMP system, but five different parties are represented in the House of Commons in Ottawa. The greater number of parties competing in elections may explain Canada's higher voter turnout rate. According to the IDEA survey, in 542 elections around the world, where the largest party won less than half of the votes, voter turnout was a full 10 percent higher than in the 263 elections where one party won over 50 percent of the vote. In other words, when voters' choices are more limited and their votes are regularly wasted because they have been cast for a losing candidate, the incentive to vote is weaker.

It is interesting to note, for example, that in the 1992 presidential election, voter turnout abruptly and unexpectedly increased to 55.2 percent from 50.1 percent in 1988. That year featured a three-way race, including Ross Perot as well as George Bush and Bill Clinton. If the International IDEA's findings are correct, then the somewhat greater competitiveness of the 1992 campaign is what brought out more people to the polls. Just four years later, with Perot a much less credible candidate and Clinton favored to win a second term, turnout dipped to a historic low of 47.2 percent.

What is the answer? Consider the following possibilities.

First, some form of PR, possibly coupled with the current SMP system, could be adopted for the House of Representatives. This would open the field to other parties and break the duopoly of the Democrats and Republicans.

Second, we should dispense with the formality of the Electoral College, whose effect on presidential elections is similar to that of SMP insofar as it can produce artificial presidential majorities. Future presidential elections should be conducted by a direct preferential ballot leading to the election of the candidate who wins a majority of the votes. If no candidate receives an absolute majority in the first round, then hold a run-off election between the first round's top two vote getters.

Third, new political parties should be formed and existing par-ties strengthened. The Republican and Democratic parties are among the weakest in the world with respect to being able to present to voters a team of candidates united by coherent principles and a program for governing the country. Disciplined parties, capable both of competing for political power and of cooperating for political purposes, are a prerequisite for stimulating popular support and participation at the polls.

Fourth, in a twist on the much touted argument for term limits, serious consideration should be given to extending the term of service of Representatives from two to four years. Why? Because it is difficult for a legislative body to make the tough decisions necessary for just governance if its members are preoccupied with their own prospects for reelection. Adopting four-year terms would also tie congressional elections more closely to presidential elections.

[Dr. Koyzis is a U.S. citizen who teaches political science at Redeemer University College, Ancaster, Ontario, Canada.]