1 / 32

Comparing Political Activism: Voter turnout

Comparing Political Activism: Voter turnout . Structure. Overview Core questions and theoretical framework Cultural modernization v. institutional context Implications for reform Evidence Turnout trends 1945-2000 in 191 nations Conclusions Decline or diversification of civic energies?.

flavio
Télécharger la présentation

Comparing Political Activism: Voter turnout

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparing Political Activism:Voter turnout

  2. Structure • Overview • Core questions and theoretical framework • Cultural modernization v. institutional context • Implications for reform • Evidence • Turnout trends 1945-2000 in 191 nations • Conclusions • Decline or diversification of civic energies?

  3. Democratic Phoenix (Cambridge University Press 2002) • Introduction: • 1.The Rise and Fall of Political Activism? • 2.Theories of Political Activism • I. The Puzzle of Electoral Turnout • 3.Mapping Turnout • 4.Do Institutions Matter? • 5.Who Votes? • II: Political Parties • 6.Mapping Party Activism • 7.Who Joins? • III: Civic Activism • 8.Social Capital & Civic Society • 9.Traditional Mobilizing Agencies: Trade Unions & Churches • 10.   New Social Movements, the Internet & Protest Politics • Conclusions: • 11.Conclusions: From Loyalties to Choice?

  4. Resource: www.IDEA.int

  5. Why important? • Robert Dahl On Democracy • Two core components of democracy: contestation and participation • Contestation by itself can mean competitive oligarchies/elites • Widespread participation is a necessary but not sufficient condition of representative democracy. • Sorensen’s definition of democracy: • A highly inclusive level of political participation in the selection of leaders and policies, at least through regular and fair elections, such that no major (adult) social group is excluded. • “Meaningful and extensive competition among individuals and groups (especially parties) for all portions of government power, at regular intervals… • A level of civil and political liberties - freedom of expression, freedom of the press, freedom to form and join organizations… • Source: Georg SorensenDemocracy & Democratization (1993).

  6. I. Core puzzles • Trends • What are the main changes over time in key dimensions of political activism, especially turnout? Is there decline? • Comparisons • Why do forms of political activism vary among nations, especially among newer and older democracies? • Interpretation • Has there been a steady erosion or a transformation of civic engagement? • Causes • Cultural modernization v. rational choice institutionalism

  7. Why concern?The civic decline thesis • Half-empty ballot box? (Marty Wattenberg) • Desertion of party members? (Peter Mair) • Partisan dealignment? (Russ Dalton) • Hemorrhaging union rolls? • Emptying church pews? (Norris and Inglehart) • Anemic voluntary organizations? (Bob Putnam) • Rising political cynicism? (Joe Nye et al)

  8. Or the reinvention of activism? • ‘Who’ – agencies • From formal Weberian organizations (parties, unions, & churches) to transnational policy networks (new social movements and protest politics) • ‘What’ – repertoires • From institutionalized membership to ad hoc action coalitions, from electoral to protest politics • ‘Where’ – target • From state-directed to other-directed targets eg WTO, Nike

  9. Model of change

  10. Analytical Model Micro-level ---- Macro-level ---- Meso-level Societal Modernization Levels of human development Political Institutions E.g. electoral laws, party systems Resources Mobilizing Agencies E.g. unions, parties, churches Political Activism Motivation How would you assess the relative importance of each of these factors?

  11. Explanations • Cultural Modernization - Inglehalt and Dalton • Participation is product of resources (time, money, skills) and orientations (efficacy/competence, duty, interest, trust) • New style of citizen politics emerging in affluent societies • Rising human capital – • Education/literacy, media information, & cognitive skills • Changing cultural attitudes • Decline in deferential loyalties towards authority • Growing civic skills and organizational capacities • Direct action, new social movements, issue and identity politics • Generational process • Simple administrative ‘fixes’ (eg ‘motor-voter’) will fail to alter ‘habits of the heart’

  12. Explanations 2. Rational choice institutionalism – Anthony Downs • Rules matter for costs and benefits of participation • Potential benefits v. costs (mechanical and psychological) • Eg turnout influenced by frequency of elections, level of office, use of compulsory voting, registration hurdles, suffrage qualifications, closeness of outcome, party system, electoral system • Strategic calculations by parties and candidates • Get-out-the-vote drives, patterns of party competition • Strategic calculations by citizens • Time/effort v. rewards • Anticipated benefits/impact of action • Reforms alter calculus of costs and benefits • Registration processes eg election day, rolling register • Special voting procedures eg all-postal ballots • Distribution of polling facilities eg malls • Length of polling periods eg weekends • Remote voting eg Internet

  13. Evidence: Voter turnout

  14. Measures • Valid votes cast / registered electorate (Vote/REG) • Valid votes cast/voting age population (Vote/VAP)

  15. Postindustrial High development

  16. % Vote/VAP 1945-2000

  17. US Turnout Figure 3.2: U.S. Turnout, 1932-2000 Source: US Census Bureau 1932-1996

  18. % Vote/VAP 1945-2000

  19. Impact of political institutions

  20. Model A: Socioeconomic Development Model B: Development + Institutions b (s.e.) Beta Sig. b (s.e.) Beta Sig. Constant 45.675 (5.822) *** 76.767 (12.635) *** DEVELOPMENT Human Development 0.035 (.006) .314 *** 0.021 (.007) .190 ** Level of Democratization 0.954 (.329) .162 ** 0.839 (.329) .143 ** POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS Electoral System (Maj (1), PR (3)) 2.652 (1.025) .130 ** Mean population per MP -.0009 (.000) -.095 * Frequency of national elections -3.471 (.557) -.337 *** Predom. party system (1=yes) -3.977 (2.467) -.076 Frag. party system (1=yes) -6.228 (3.766) -.076 Presidential (1)/Parliamentary (0) 4.541 (1.767) .115 ** LEGAL RULES Age of voting eligibility -.991 (.620) -.070 Length of women’s suffrage .191 (.052) .192 *** Use of compulsory voting 1.964 (2.106) .043 Literacy requirements -20.686 (6.173) -.146 *** Number of elections 405 405 Adjusted R2 .182 (16.7) .294 (15.5) Explaining turnoutAll national elections in 139 nations,1990s Note:Vote/VAP is measured as the number of valid votes as a proportion of the Voting Age Population in 405 parliamentary and presidential national elections held in 139 nations during the 1990s.

  21. Compulsory registration

  22. Voter registration USA

  23. Electoral systems

  24. Mean Vote/VAP Mean Vote/Reg N. of Nations Older democracies Compulsory 79.4 86.9 7 Non-Compulsory 71.7 72.7 32 Difference +7.7 +14.2 39 Newer democracies Compulsory 67.7 75.8 9 Non-Compulsory 69.3 73.9 31 Difference -1.6 +1.9 40 Semi-democracies Compulsory 53.9 60.6 5 Non-Compulsory 56.6 67.0 40 Difference -2.7 -6.4 45 Non-democracies Compulsory 40.9 70.6 2 Non-Compulsory 61.8 67.8 38 Difference -20.9 +2.8 40 All Compulsory 65.9 75.4 23 Non-Compulsory 64.2 70.0 140 Difference +1.9 +5.4 163 Compulsory VotingTable 4.4 Compulsory Voting: The following 23 nations were classified as currently using compulsory voting with the types of democracy shown in Appendix A: Older democracies: Australia, Belgium, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg. Newer Democracies: Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Liechtenstein, Panama Canal Zone, Thailand, and Uruguay. Semi-democracies: Brazil, Guatemala, Honduras, Peru, and Venezuela. Non-democracies: Singapore and Egypt.

  25. Party Competition

  26. Social structure, agency & culture

  27. Model A Model B Model C b (s.e.) Sig. b (s.e.) Sig. b (s.e.) Sig. DEVELOPMENT Human development 9.94 (2.243) *** 16.599 (2.329) *** 29.59 (2.606) *** Level of democratization .347 (.057) *** .555 (.060) *** 1.05 (.068) *** INSTITUTIONS Electoral system -.017 (.158) .148 (.036) *** .212 (.040) *** Population per MP .000 (.000) *** .000 (.000) *** .000 (.000) *** Frequency of national elections -.006 (.053) .095 (.055) .363 (.062) *** Length of women’s enfranchisement .009 (.002) *** .004 (.002) * .003 (.002) Use of compulsory voting 2.23 (.149) *** 2.934 (.165) *** 2.23 (.166) *** Legal voting age -.342 (.062) *** -.570 (.066) *** -.60 (.071) *** Party system .447 (.439) -1.357 (.477) ** -2.96 (.517) *** STRUCTURE Age (Logged Years) 4.272 (.140) *** 3.96 (.151) *** Gender (Male=1) .040 (.044) -.16 (.049) *** Education (7-pt scale) .295 (.019) *** .203 (.021) *** Income (Household income) .000 (.000) *** .000 (.000) *** AGENCY Union membership (1=member) .559 (.064) *** Religiosity (6-pt scale of church attendance) .056 (.015) *** Party affiliation (1=yes) 1.69 (.054) *** CULTURE Political interest (5 point scale) .257 (.026) *** Internal political efficacy (10 point scale) .077 (.014) *** Political trust (10 point scale) .038 (.013) ** Constant -3.29 -11.6 -24.07 Nagelkerke R2 .099 .200 .339 Reported vote, 22 nations (ISSP 1996)

  28. Age

  29. III: Conclusions • Mixed trends since 1945 in electoral turnout, party membership and civic activism • Evolution, transformation and reinvention of political activism • Early stages of the modernization process are important for rising activism. • From the politics of loyalties to the politics of choice?

  30. Democratic Phoenix:Next class: rise of protest politics

More Related