In this chapter we ask three general questions about voting, each followed by a more specific

question about voting in the United States. First, we ask why people vote. This leads us to the puzzle
of why voting turnout in the United States is low. Second, we ask how people vote. This brings us to
the question of whether party loyalties in the United States are shifting. Finally, we ask what wins
elections. This takes us to some of the strategies used in U.S. elections.

WHY DO PEOPLE VOTE?

the United States was never high; its peak in 1960 was 63 percent. Turnout in Sweden, Germany, and
Italy has reached 90 percent. Black South Africans in 1994. allowed to vote for the first time, had a
turnout of 86 percent, a measure of how much they appreciated the right to cast a ballot.

In nonpresidential elections, U.S. turnout is perhaps a quarter to a third. Why do Americans vote so
little? Typically, more than half of U.S. nonvoters say they are uninterested in or dissatisfied with
candidates. Many feel their vote makes no difference or that none of the candidates is really good.
Another reason is the U.S. party system, in which the two large parties may not offer an interesting
or clearcut choice; both tend to centrist positions. Television saturates voters so long in advance-often
with primitive, dirty political spots-that disgust many with both parties by election day. Fewer than
one adult American in twenty is involved enough in politics to attend a political meeting, contribute
money, or canvass a neighborhood.

U.S. nonvoting has brought major debate among political scientists. One school views the decline
with alarm, arguing that low electoral participation means that many Americans are turning away
from the political system, which loses legitimacy. Another school is unworried, arguing that the
decline means Americans most of the time are basically satisfied with the system, or not sufficiently
dissatisfied to go to register and vote. Countries with very high voter turnouts may have a sort of
political fever in which partisan politics has become too intense. The United States experienced some
of this intensity in 2004, when emotional issues and a divided electorate brought out more voters.

IS THE U.S. ELECTORAL SYSTEM DEFECTIVE?

The 2000 U.S. presidential election was a double train wreck, and both train wrecks were Twaiting to happen: (1) an anachronistic Electoral College was eventually going to deny victory
to the popular-vote winner; and (2) a defective balloting mechanism was eventually going to really matter. Gore, with a nontrivial half-a-million more votes (0.51 percent more). lost in
electoral votes to Bush, 271-266. Similar situations had happened three times in the nineteenth century.

States and counties use whatever balloting system they wish, including defective ones. Some still use paper ballots, some hand-lever voting machines designed in 1892, and some light-
scanned ballots. Counties are slow to upgrade to electronic and touch-screen systems because of cost. The worst type of system was in Palm Beach County, Florida, which had a widely
used and cheap forty-year-old technology: Voters put an IBM-type card into a metal frame and punched out a rectangle by their choice. Some of the little "chads"-as high as 6 percent-
were not completely punched out, so counting machines read them as "no vote." The system was long known to be defective and had spawned court cases in several states: Massachusetts
had outlawed it.

Making things worse in Palm Beach was a two-page "butterfly ballot that confused voters, many of whom accidentally voted for rightwing populist Pat Buchanan instead of the intend-
ed Al Gore. Those who tried to fix the error by making another punch invalidated the
ir ballot. This strongly Democratic county lost some 20,000 votes for Gore, several times more than were needed to win Florida and to win in the Electoral College.

The Electoral College was designed to overrepresent states with fewer voters, especially the Southern states, where slave-owning elites rejected notions of "one person, one vote." Each
state gets as many electors as its senators and representatives, so even very small states get three electors. A vote for president in a thinly populated state has several times the power of a
vote for president in a populous state. A vote in Wyoming is worth almost four times that of a vote in California. And small states, a huge swath of the middle of America, tend to go
Republican. States with big cities, clustered in the Northeast and on the Great Lakes and West Coast, tend to go Democrat.

The Electoral College is widely thought to be an anachronism but can't be seriously reformed because nineteen small states with three or fewer representatives like being
overrepresented.
Why the difference between European and American turnout? One obvious reason is that in Europe
registration is automatic, upon reaching eighteen local authorities register you. Americans must
register personally, months before the election and before campaign excitement mounts. U.S.
elections are held on Tuesdays, in much of Europe on Sundays. The U.S. long ballot with many local,
state, and national candidates plus referendums baffles voters. European (and Canadian)

These states can block constitutional change, which requires two-thirds of each house plus three-fourths of the state legislatures. Is the U.S. system unreformable?

ballots are simple, usually just a choice of party, and most countries control and limit television
political advertising: some allow none. America might take a hint.
 WHO VOTES?
Voters in most democracies tend to be middle-aged and better educated with white-collar jobs, more
urban and suburban than rural. They are also more likely to identify with a political party. Nonvoters
show the reverse of these characteristics: young, lacking education, and with blue-collar or no jobs.
Income and education, race, age, gender, and area of residence are key factors in who votes.

DOWN'S THEORY OF VOTING

In a landmark 1957 work, An Economic Theory of Democracy, Anthony Downs theorized that people vote Lif the returns outweigh the costs. That is, if the stakes seem important,
citizens will go to the trouble of voting. Property owners fearing tax hikes are much more likely to vote than renters not immedi- ately hurt by the tax. The cost of political information,
both financial and personal, also determines whether a person will vote. Not all have the energy or interest to follow political news or attend po- litical meetings. Accordingly, the poor
and uneducated in every society are the least likely to vote.

INCOME AND EDUCATION

High-income people vote more than the less affluent, the well-educated more than high-school
dropouts. These two characteristics often come together (good education leads to good salaries) and
reinforce each other. High income gives people a stake in election outcomes, and education raises
levels of interest and sophistication.

Factory workers in small towns may see little difference between candidates. They pay taxes, follow
rules, make a living, and see little difference under Democratic or Republican administrations. In
contrast, executives and professionals feel involved and see a direct relationship between who wins
and their personal fortune. Blue-collar workers are also affected by a change in administration, but
they are less likely to know it.

The difference between voters and nonvoters is a feeling of efficacy, the feeling that one has at least a
little power. It tends to be low for workers and high for professionals. Better-off and better-educated
people have seen interest groups succeed in changing policy. Blue-collar workers likely see political
life as a "silent majority." Friends, neighbors, and family rarely had much wealth and rarely organized
to pressure the government.

Well-educated people have broader interests in elections beyond personal economic stakes. The
college-educated person-wealthy or not-is more interested, better informed, and more likely to
participate in elections. As we discussed in Chapter 7, education provides a sense of participation and
an abstract intellectual curiosity, which makes people more likely to follow political news and feel
involved. Much research shows that education is the strongest determinant of who votes.

RACE

Despite federal laws and black organizations, black voting rates are lower than white. The gap may
eventually close as black income and education levels rise. The 1965 Voting Rights Act overcame
some of the barriers placed in the way of black registration, chiefly in the South. Many blacks have
gone through political con- sciousness-raising and learned the value of participation and voting. Some
previously racist white politicians got the message and became respectful toward their

Black voter registration in recent decades has enfranchised a group of citizens who previously had little political clout but who are now courted by candidates of both parties. (Laima E.
Druskis)

black constituents. Latinos faced similar problems and also showed low turnouts. Race, accordingly, is
still a factor in U.S. election turnout.
 AGE

Young people-those under twenty-five-typically feel less politically involved, and they vote less.
About half of U.S. citizens eighteen to twenty-five are currently not registered to vote. Young people,
with little income and property, also feel economically uninvolved with election outcomes. When
they start paying taxes, they become more interested. Focused on the concerns of youth, many have
no time or interest in political questions, which seem abstract and distant.

In 1971 the Twenty-sixth Amendment lowered the U.S. voting age from twenty-one to eighteen at
almost the same time that most other democracies did. The results were similar: The newly
enfranchised young people did not vote as much as their elders, and when they did, their votes were
little different. Middleaged and older people are more likely to vote than the young, probably because
the middle- aged person is at peak earning power, and the old person is concerned about Social
Security and Medicare. In recent U.S. elections, those over seventy show the highest turnout.

GENDER

Traditionally, men were more likely to vote than women in almost every society. Women had only
comparatively recently won the right to vote. (Switzerland enfranchised women only in 1971.) Since
1920, when female suffrage was granted
in the United States, the gap between men's and women's voter turnout narrowed and then even
reversed; in recent U.S. elections women have voted more than men, a reflection of women's higher
educational levels.

PLACE OF RESIDENCE

City dwellers are more likely to vote than rural residents. Polling stations are nearer in cities. People
who have lived in the same place for a long time are more likely to vote than are transients or
newcomers, for longtime residents feel more involved in local affairs and are more likely to
participate in groups and activities in the community.

Voter turnout in the U.S. South is somewhat lighter than in the North and West, a reflection of lower
living standards and a lack of party competition. But the South and its politics have changed, and now
turnout in the South is approaching that of other areas. Other nations are also characterized by
regional differences in voter participation. In France, the areas south of the Loire River have a lower
voter turnout than the northern areas of the country.

THE PUZZLE OF EDUCATION AND VOTING

Il studies agree that education makes people more participatory. But declining U.S. turnout Ahappened precisely as U.S. educational levels grew, America has the highest percentage of
both young people in college and college-educated citizens. That should make us very participatory and should lead to rising voter turnouts.

No one has cracked this puzzle. Education may not mean what it used to. The sheer numbers of U.S. college graduates have diluted its former elite status. A college degree, in terms of
getting a job nowadays, is more like a high-school diploma before World War II. Many majors are vocational or career-related and do not awaken curiosity or knowledge of the nation
and world.

And perhaps voting does not mean what it used to. Even well-educated citizens may not see a great choice between parties and candidates. Potential voters may be turned off by negative
campaigning and conclude that all politicians are dirty. (In 2004, however, negative ads seemed to have boosted turnout.) As we considered in Chapter 9, some blame television for a
decline in political participation.

Postmaterialism offers another explanation. According to this cultural theory, in all the indus- trialized nations the economy has moved away from manufacturing and into knowledge
and infor- mation industries. With this has come a shift of values, away from society and toward self. Only personal things matter in the New Age: relationships, correct diet, outdoor
activities, and music. So- cial and political questions no longer interest many. If the postmaterialism theory is accurate, we might see less political involvement, and education will incline
people to avoid politics. If true, this does not bode well for democracy.