Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T22:24:11.864Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Bother? Supporters of Locally Weaker Parties Are Less Likely to Vote or to Vote Sincerely

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2021

Fred Cutler Open the ORCID record for Fred Cutler [Opens in a new window] ,
Alexandre Rivard  and
Antony Hodgson Open the ORCID record for Antony Hodgson [Opens in a new window]
Fred Cutler*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, 1866 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1, Canada
Alexandre Rivard
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, 1866 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1, Canada
Antony Hodgson
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of British Columbia, 2054-6250 Applied Science Lane, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: fred.cutler@ubc.ca.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Voters are deterred from casting a vote and more likely to vote strategically if their preferred choice is less competitive in their electoral district. We use 2019 Canadian Election Study data to show that respondents’ answers to a “how likely are you to vote” question depend on their estimate of their preferred party's local chances of winning, relative to other parties. This deterrent effect on turnout from the competitiveness of a voter's preferred party is concentrated among certain parties (NDP, Green, People's Party of Canada). Under first-past-the-post (FPTP), voters with particular policy perspectives are systematically deterred from voting, relative to other voters. Furthermore, we find that despite supporters of all parties having an incentive to vote strategically if their party is outside the top two in the district, strategic voting is heavily concentrated among voters who prefer parties other than the nationally most competitive two parties.

Résumé

Résumé

Les électeurs sont dissuadés de voter et sont plus susceptibles de voter stratégiquement si leur choix préféré est moins compétitif dans leur circonscription électorale. Nous utilisons les données de l'Étude sur l'élection canadienne 2019 pour montrer que les réponses à la question « Dans quelle mesure êtes-vous susceptible de voter » dépendent de leur estimation des chances locales de victoire de leur parti préféré, par rapport aux autres partis. Cet effet dissuasif de la compétitivité du parti préféré de l'électeur sur le taux de participation est concentré dans certains partis (NPD, Verts, Parti populaire du Canada). Dans le cadre du système majoritaire uninominal à un tour (SMUT), les électeurs ayant des points de vue politiques particuliers sont systématiquement dissuadés de voter, par rapport aux autres électeurs. De plus, nous constatons que, même si les partisans de tous les partis sont incités à voter stratégiquement si leur parti n'est pas parmi les deux premiers dans la circonscription, le vote stratégique est fortement concentré parmi les électeurs qui préfèrent des partis autres que les deux partis les plus compétitifs au niveau national.

Keywords

electoral systemselectionsvoting behaviourturnoutsystèmes électorauxélectionscomportement de votetaux de participation
Type
Research Note/Note de recherche
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 208 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Canadian Political Science Association (l’Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achen, Christopher H. 2019. “Understanding Voter Turnout in Canada: What Data Do We Lack?” Canadian Parliamentary Review 42 (1): 1–8.Google Scholar
Anderson, Christopher and Guillory, Christine. 1997. “Political Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy: A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems.” American Political Science Review 91 (1): 66–81.Google Scholar
Arnold, Felix. 2018. “Turnout and Closeness: Evidence from 60 Years of Bavarian Mayoral Elections.” Scandinavian Journal of Economics 120 (2): 624–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banducci, Susan A. and Karp, Jeffrey A.. 2009. “Electoral Systems, Efficacy, and Voter Turnout.” In The Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, ed. Klingemann, Hans-Dieter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bernauer, Julian and Vatter, Adrian. 2011. “Can't Get No Satisfaction with the Westminster Model? Winners, Losers, and the Effects of Consensual and Direct Democratic Institutions on Satisfaction with Democracy.” European Journal of Political Research 51 (4): 435–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, Jim and Graham, Glenn. 2020. “Electoral Parity or Protecting Minorities? Path Dependency and Consociational Districting in Nova Scotia.” Canadian Political Science Review 14 (1). https://ojs.unbc.ca/index.php/cpsr/article/view/1748.Google Scholar
Blais, André. 2002. “Why Is There So Little Strategic Voting in Canadian Plurality Rule Elections?” Political Studies 50 (3): 445–54.Google Scholar
Blais, André. 2004. “Strategic Voting in the 2002 French Presidential Election.” In The French Voter, ed. Lewis-Beck, Michael S.. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.Google Scholar
Blais, André and Aarts, Kees. 2006. “Electoral Systems and Turnout.” Acta Politica 41: 180–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André and Achen, Christopher H.. 2018. “Civic Duty and Voter Turnout.” Political Behavior 41 (2): 473–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André and Bodet, Marc André. 2006. “How Do Voters Form Expectations about the Parties Chances of Winning the Election?” Social Science Quarterly 87 (3): 477–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André and Carty, R. K.. 1990. “Does Proportional Representation Foster Voter Turnout?” European Journal of Political Research 18 (2): 167–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André and Carty, R. K.. 1991. “The Psychological Impact of Electoral Laws: Measuring Duverger's Elusive Factor.” British Journal of Political Science 21 (1): 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André, Dostie-Goulet, Eugénie and Bodet, Marc André. 2009. “Voting Strategically in Canada and Britain.” In Duverger's Law of Plurality Voting, ed. Grofman, Bernard, Blais, André and Bowler, Shaun. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Blais, André and Gélineau, François. 2007. “Winning, Losing, and Satisfaction with Democracy.” Political Studies 55 (2): 425–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André and Gschwend, Thomas. 2010. “Strategic Defection across Elections Parties, and Voters.” In Citizens, Context, and Choice, ed. Dalton, Russell J. and Anderson, Christopher. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blais, André, Loewen, Peter John, Rubenson, Daniel, Stephenson, Laura B. and Gidengil, Elisabeth. 2018. “Information on Party Strength and Strategic Voting: Evidence of Non-Effects from a Randomized Experiment.” In The Many Faces Of Strategic Voting, ed. Stephenson, Laura B., Aldrich, John H. and Blais, André. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Blais, André, Nadeau, Richard, Gidengil, Elisabeth and Nevitte, Neil. 2001. “Measuring Strategic Voting in Multiparty Plurality Elections.” Electoral Studies 20 (3): 343–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockington, David. 2004. “The Paradox of Proportional Representation: The Effect of Party Systems and Coalitions on Individuals Electoral Participation.” Political Studies 52 (3): 469–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curini, Luigi and Jou, Willy. 2016. “The Conditional Impact of Winner/Loser Status and Ideological Proximity on Citizen Participation.” European Journal of Political Research 55 (4): 767–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, Fred and Hooper, Graeme. 2015. “Winners, Losers, and Electoral System Change.” In Parties and Party Systems: Structure and Context, ed. Johnston, Richard and Sharman, Campbell. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Daoust, Jean-François and Bol, Damien. 2020. “Polarization, Partisan Preferences and Strategic Voting.” Government and Opposition 55 (4): 578–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. New York: Methuen.Google Scholar
Endersby, James W., Galatas, Steven E. and Rackaway, Chapman B.. 2002. “Closeness Counts in Canada: Voter Participation in the 1993 and 1997 Federal Elections.” Journal of Politics 64 (2): 610–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezrow, Lawrence and Xezonakis, Georgios. 2011. “Citizen Satisfaction with Democracy and Parties’ Policy Offerings.” Comparative Political Studies 44 (9): 1152–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallego, Aina, Rico, Guillem and Anduiza, Eva. 2012. “Disproportionality and Voter Turnout in New and Old Democracies.” Electoral Studies 31 (1): 159–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Richard, Scott Matthews, J. and Bittner, Amanda. 2007. “Turnout and the Party System in Canada, 1988–2004.” Electoral Studies 26 (4): 735–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karp, Jeffrey A. and Banducci, Susan A.. 1999. “The Impact of Proportional Representation on Turnout: Evidence from New Zealand.” Australian Journal of Political Science 34 (3): 363–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karp, Jeffrey A. and Banducci, Susan A.. 2008. “Political Efficacy and Participation in Twenty-Seven Democracies: How Electoral Systems Shape Political Behaviour.” British Journal of Political Science 38 (2): 311–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maeda, Ko. 2016. “Voter Turnout and District-Level Competitiveness in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems.” Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties 26 (4): 452–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merolla, Jennifer L. and Stephenson, Laura B.. 2007. “Strategic Voting in Canada: A Cross Time Analysis.” Electoral Studies 26 (2): 235–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 1997. “Choosing Electoral Systems: Proportional Majoritarian and Mixed Systems.” International Political Science Review 18 (3): 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, S. P. 2014. “Not All Election Winners Are Equal.” European Journal of Political Research 53 (2): 308–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Söderlund, Peter. 2017. “Candidate-Centred Electoral Systems and Voter Turnout.” West European Politics 40 (3): 516–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spitzer, Aaron John. 2018. “Reconciling Shared Rule: Liberal Theory, Electoral-Districting Law and ‘National Group’ Representation in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 5 (2): 447–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, Laura B., Harell, Allison, Rubenson, Daniel and Loewen, Peter John. 2020. “2019 Canadian Election Study—Online Survey.” https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/DUS88V, Harvard Dataverse, V1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephenson, Laura B., Harell, Allison, Rubenson, Daniel and Loewen, Peter John. 2021. “Measuring Preferences and Behaviours in the 2019 Canadian Election Study.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 54 (1): 118–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vowles, Jack, Katz, Gabriel and Stevens, Daniel. 2017. “Electoral Competitiveness and Turnout in British Elections, 1964–2010.” Political Science Research and Methods 5 (4): 775–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilford, Allan M. 2017. “Polarization, Number of Parties, and Voter Turnout: Explaining Turnout in 26 OECD Countries.” Social Science Quarterly 98 (5): 1391–1405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar