Definition of Voter Turnout - Essay Example

? History and Political Science: Voting. and number submitted History and Political Science: Voting. Introduction A so-called assumption of the modern era may be that The United States of America has become an aspiration for democratic freedom for the rest of the world. USA wants to make itself a model for other democracies. It is a well-known fact that democratic governments are run by the people, and they are accountable for every action. In direct democracy, usually people vote for every issue that surfaces. Nonetheless, there is no perfect model of direct democracy in the world. Therefore, the other option is indirect democracy. In indirect democracy, people vote to choose representatives, and the representatives then take decisions to govern the country. Similarly, the United States of America is an indirect democratic country. In the country, to elect a president people cast their votes. Nonetheless, there are some issues regarding the voter turnout. A low turnout rate has become a dilemma for several past decades. Thus, the claim to become a role model for the rest of the world has become almost shattered. It is evident that the turnout was policy-based, which affected the election of 1988. Thus, in an election we may discern a link between the policy preferences of individuals and their voting ratio. Definition of voter turnout First, we will have to define a voter turnout. Voter turnout refers to the overall number of people who cast their vote in any election. The turnout, generally, exhibits with percentage; however, there are other methods to ascertain the turnout rate of voters. The most general way to evaluate turnout of voters is counting the overall number of votes. This method is known as Total Vote. Obviously, this is the most direct way to count the vote and measure the turnout. However, this method has some setbacks; for example, it counts all votes whether valid or invalid (Pintor et al., 2002). In addition, the method is unable to supplement comparison aspects. The residency requirement for new citizens after that they would be able to cast a vote is another reason for a lower turnout. In 2003, the issue of new residents arose in 44 states. However, these requirements of residency have been set to 30 days before the federal election, yet there are still chances that several eligible voters would not be able to cast their votes (Patterson, 2009). The Election of 1988 in United States In the 1988 presidential election, the voter turnout was 50.1%. The turnout was lower than the standards of American presidential election. They were several reasons for the lower turnout, which will be discussed latter on; however, the present question is who suffered due to the low turnout, George Bush (Republican) or Michael Dukakis (Democrat). The statistical calculations exhibit Dukakis was going to win the election of 1988 if the individuals took part fully in the elections. Most of the individuals who remained unmoved during the elections were the supporters of Democrats. Briefly, one can observe the Republican had the advantage of low turnout of votes; thus, it can be concluded that the election of 1988 – specifically, its result – was not the real picture of the preferences of people. In this regard, in the current paper Radcliff’s aggregate study on the presidential elections from 1928 to 1980 has been examined to evaluate the American National Election of 1988. It has been identified in the current study that the minimum turnout shows harmful results and suggests encouraging voters to take part in voting. Citizens should understand that their votes are a representative of their choice. The lower turnout of the voters has become a significant debatable issue in American society. Moreover, researchers and scholars are being pressurized to find out the real reason of individual voter absentees. In addition, a significant relation is found between Democratic vote division and turnout (DeNardo, 1980). Furthermore, in presidential elections, the Democratic share of votes rises through the turnout of voters (Radcliff, 1995). According to Pacek and Radcliff (1995), in voter turnout leading political parties are improving their vote share. In contrast, Erikson (1995) argues that Radcliff’s statistical models and their adequate condition exhibits stupidity of the Democratic vote share and turnout. Nonetheless, some other researchers think that in different durations, the senatorial and gubernatorial races have also influenced the Democratic vote share and turnout (Nagel & McNulty, 1996). It can become easier to search cautiously the outcomes of lower turnout of voters in 1988 by contemplating a single election only and examining the scale of voting choices of individuals. The focus of the current paper is to study the presidential election studies of Erikson and Radcliff by complementing and contrasting them. In their studies, aggregate data has been implemented to evaluate the presidential elections’ collection. The Democrat Dukakis would have been able to get a large part of the votes in 1988 had there been an overall higher turnout. This is in accordance with standards and in alignment with Radcliff’s approach. The disappointing turnout in 1988’s election made Bush triumphant. The kind of individuals who tend to prefer Republicans vote at lower percentage as compared to the types of individuals who have Democratic preferences; this may be the logical description for the association between Democratic candidate vote share and presidential election results. The above mentioned description is based on the fact that the Democratic Party has the poor lower class as its natural voters, which if they compare to the middle-class supporters of the Republican Party, are less educated and less politically involved. Obviously, white Americans have a greater socioeconomic status in contrast to African Americans. The African American backup Democratic candidates; however, white Americans’ turnout has been greater than the African Americans’ as most of them have abstained from voting. Likewise, there is a correlation between education and voting tendency (Wolfinger & Rosenstone, 1980; Fox & Cloward, 1989; Avey, 1989). It is evident that the turnout was policy-based, which affected the election of 1988. Thus, in the election we may see a link between the policy preferences of individuals and their voting ratio. The Election of 1996 in United States The present U.S. voter registration system is in jeopardy because of residency requirements, jury duty possibility, and automatic registration. These were the possible reasons for lower turnout of voters in the 1996 election. Nevertheless, there is no surety that if the registration system were improved, it would influence the lower turnout at once. Registration requirements cannot help evaluate the reason why the turnout is lower than forty years ago; however, these requirements can aid to ascertain the reason regarding a lower turnout. The plurality voting system is another reason for low voter turnout in the presidential election of the U.S. In plurality voting system, the candidate with most votes wins the election (Hrebenar, et al., 1999). In several other countries, in contrast, the proportional voting system is implemented where the winner is not the person with most votes; instead, the criteria is the substantial ratio of the vote for representation (Hrebenar et al., 1999). The presence of the electoral colleges is another hurdle for lower turnout of votes. In the past, the makers of the United States Constitution found it difficult to elect a president. There were several suggestions at that time; some advised Congress would decide the issue, some stressed that the legislatures would settle the matter, and some put forth the suggestion of popular vote. To settle down all these suggestions, Electoral College was created. According to this system, every state has the right to select the quantity of electors matching to state-representative numbers that are equal in Congress (Patterson, 2009). The Election of 2004 Obviously, in the presidential election of 2004, both Kerry and Bush increased voters’ turnout as compared to 2000 election, though Bush won the election, and Kerry lost. The question to be asked is why did the high turnout in 2004 favor Bush, and why did it not favor Kerry? Some people claim that the gay marriage referendum had affected the voters’ turnout; however, this referendum did not affect the ballots. The main advantage Bush had was, perhaps, the well-organized Republican Government, which boosted turnout in favor of Bush (Tilove, 2004). Several viewers accept that the election of 2004 was not close to the election of 2000. However, the election of 2004 was close to the nine other instances where the winning president received lower than 51% vote. The election of 2004, regarding margin of electoral votes, is the fourth closest after 1868 (Campbell, 2008). The fatigue of voter is another dimension for lower turnout of voting in the U.S. electoral system. If election happened too often, the voter would get tired and would not like to participate in the process of election. Moreover, when voters see that their previously casted vote did not help change the system, they get tired of voting. The U.S. elections do not occur too often; therefore, this reason does not apply here. The elections occur after every four years, and the U.S. democracy is not a direct democracy; thus, there is no call for regular referenda. However, the most tiring effect of the U.S. election is the lengthy election campaigns (Patterson, 2009). Social capital is a term which defines social ties among individuals. It also shows the reaction of individuals and between dissimilar individuals along with the outcome of several movements (Putnam, 2000). Robert Putnam in a few words describes social capital in his book. According to him, the turnout of voters is certainly influenced by social capital. However, after studying the theory of several other scholars, an authentic theory emerges. Various researchers claim that if an individual is more enthusiastic in civic organizational activities, he/she most probably will vote in the election (Harder & Krosnick, 2008). Nonetheless, it must be noted that after the 1950s, people have not been interested in obtaining the membership of any civic organization. Some psychological factors also influence the tendency in voting. Political efficiency is one of the biggest psychological factors. Moreover, if an individual is aware that his/her vote is going to make a difference, he/she would definitely cast his/her vote; thus, the political efficiency would be increased (Duffy & Tavits, 2008). The 2004 election paved the way for a favorable reelection for George W. Bush. The public was slightly inclined to the re-election of President Bush. Moreover, the economy was also in favor of the re-election. Furthermore, President Clinton also spent eight years in The White House; this fact was also favourable for a reelection. The main advantage Bush had was the division of Democrats over the Iraq war. Some of them were of the opinion that the war was mandatory, whereas some thought it was unnecessary. Moreover, other political aspects were dragging towards the reelection. In the end, the election was a tight fight between the Republicans and the Democrats. However, the Republican Party won the battle, but the margin of victory was negligible – 3%. The voters were hesitating between choosing Bush or Kerry. Who is more favorable? Who is more liberal and who is more conservative? Some voters did not give as much importance to terrorism as they did to moral values, health, clean water, education, and jobs (Campbell, 2008). We can conclude after examining the election history of 1988, 1996, and 2004 that not one single factor can affect the voters turnout in the election, specifically, in the United States. On every occasion, the reasons were not similar; therefore, several aspects have to be examined to understand the reason of a lower turnout. The environment and situation in which an election is held is of significant importance while determining its turnout. References Avey, M. J. (1989). The demobilization of American voters: A comprehensive theory of voter turnout. New York: Greenwood Press. Campbell, J. E. (2008). The American campaign: US presidential campaigns and the national vote (Vol. 6). Texas A&M University Press. DeNardo, J. (1980). Turnout and the Vote: The Joke’s on the Democrats. American Political Science Review74:406–20. Duffy, J., & Tavits, M. (2008). Beliefs and voting decisions: A test of the pivotal voter model. American Journal of Political Science, 52(3), 603-618. Erikson, R. S. (1995). Pooling and Statistical Control A Rejoinder to Radcliff.American Politics Research, 23(4), 404-408. Fox, F. P., & Cloward, A. R. (1989).Why American Don’t Vote. New York: Pantheon Books. Harder, J., & Krosnick, J. A. (2008). Why do people vote? A psychological analysis of the causes of voter turnout. Journal of Social Issues, 64(3), 525-549. Hrebenar, R. J., Burbank, M., & Benedict, R. C. (1999). Political parties, interest groups, and political campaigns. Westview Press. Nagel, J. H., & McNulty, J. E. (1996). Partisan effects of voter turnout in senatorial and gubernatorial elections. American Political Science Review, 780-793. Pacek, A., & Radcliff, B. (1995). Turnout and the vote for left-of-centre parties: A cross-national analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 25(1), 137. Patterson, T. E. (2009). The vanishing voter: Public involvement in an age of uncertainty. Vintage. Pintor, R. L., Gratschew, M., & Bittiger, T. (2002). Voter turnout in Western Europe since 1945: a regional report. International Idea. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster. Radcliff, B. (1995). “Turnout and the Vote Revisited: A Reply to Erikson.”American Politics Quarterly23(4):397–403. Tilove, J. (2004) Cutting-edge Mobilization May Have Won the Day for Bush. New house News Service. Retrieved from http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/tilove112604.html Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, J. S. (1980). Who Votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Read More