Compulsory Voting Rules, Reluctant Voters and Ideological Proximity Voting

Abstract

Political theorists have argued that democracies should strive for high turnout, leading to an argument for the introduction of compulsory voting, one of the surest ways to increase turnout. Others have warned that this obligation comes at a cost of lower quality votes. We investigate these claims by examining the impact of compulsory voting on proximity voting. First, we examine individuals’ voting behavior in three countries with strong compulsory voting laws: Australia, Belgium and Brazil. Election surveys in these countries include a hypothetical question about the likelihood of voting without legal obligation. We continue with an examination of the effects of compulsory voting in Switzerland, which varies across cantons. Our results support the ‘reluctant voter’ hypothesis: Compelling voters to vote tends to weaken the impact of proximity considerations on electoral behaviour, although this effect remains limited and is only significant in half of the elections that were investigated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    We acknowledge that other criteria as well might contribute to high quality vote choices. For example, a vote that is informed by mechanisms of accountability as well can be considered a vote that contributes to the realization of democratic representation (Przeworski et al., 1999). However, it falls beyond the scope of this paper to investigate whether compulsory voting rules affect other factors that contribute to a “correct” vote as well.

  2. 2.

    Note however, that Singh (2016) complements this cross-national analysis with an analysis of the variation between cantons in Switzerland.

  3. 3.

    Data and replication files for all analyses presented in this paper are available at the Political Behavior Dataverse: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/59F366.

  4. 4.

    When one of the candidates receive more than 50 percent of valid votes in the first round, the election ends and this candidate is elected president. Otherwise, the two candidates who received the highest percentages of valid votes in the first round compete with each other for the presidency in a second and final round.

  5. 5.

    Our focus is on the vote choice in the second round of the presidential elections, and thus the choice between the two most popular candidates.

  6. 6.

    Among voters who casted a valid vote, 33.1% do not remember who they voted for in 2002, 55.9% in 2006, 39.3% in 2010 and 51.6% in 2014.

  7. 7.

    The Effective Number of Parties, in terms of the vote share is reported. Calculations from the 2013 Australian, the 2014 Brazilian and the 2014 Belgian elections.

  8. 8.

    Online Appendix A offers an overview of the compulsory voting rules over time in different Swiss cantons. The information in Online Appendix A is obtained from Funk (2007).

  9. 9.

    We are grateful to Pierre Baudewyns for providing us with access to the 1991 and 1999 Belgian Election Studies. Our analyses of Belgian data are restricted to these three election studies because some crucial variables (e.g., left–right-placement of parties) are missing in other surveys.

  10. 10.

    While the size of the coefficients changes somewhat, significance levels do not. Results are available from the authors.

  11. 11.

    Even though partisanship is one of the most studied determinants of voting behavior, the concept is contested and its impact debated in multiple countries. In addition, it could be argued that partisanship is endogenous to ideological proximity. We have therefore replicated our analyses while omitting partisanship from all models. As evident from Online Appendix N, doing so only marginally affects the results and does not substantively alter our conclusions.

  12. 12.

    Though it should also be pointed out that this evidence is rather weak in the context of presidential elections in Brazil, despite the fact that previous research has argued that left–right labels are of importance in Latin American democracies as well (Nadeau et al., 2017; Zechmeister and Corral, 2013).

  13. 13.

    Logit coefficient of − 0.482 + 0.339 = − 0.143, which corresponds to an odds ratio of 0.867. The reciprocal of this is 1/0.867 = 1.15.

  14. 14.

    Actual turnout rates and the percentage of respondents who indicated having voted in each of the election surveys are reported in Online Appendix D (in supplementary material).

  15. 15.

    We use a nearest neighbor matching estimator, with a caliper of 0.2 standard deviations (Rubin and Thomas 2000). We make use of the R MatchIt package to match respondents (Ho et al. 2007).

  16. 16.

    In contrast to the analyses of the data from Australia, Belgium and Brazil, we do not include the strength of partisanship, as it was only included in the 1995 election study which would further reduce the estimation sample. Note however, that the results are robust to including partisan strength and relying on a more reduced sample. These results are available from the authors.

References

  1. Almeida, A.C.M., & Rachel, M., Brazilian Election Study. (2002). Campinas: center for studies on public opinion (CESOP), University of Campinas, [Computer file].

  2. Alvarez, M. R., & Nagler, J. (1998). When politics and models collide: estimating models of multiparty elections. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 55–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Avery, J. M. (2015). Does who votes matter? income bias in voter turnout and economic inequality in the American States from 1980 to 2010. Political Behavior, 37(4), 955–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bean, C. et al., Australian Election Study. (2007). Canberra: Australian Data Archive, The Australian National University, 2008 [Computer file].

  5. Bean, C., Gow, D., & McAllister, I., Australian Election Study. (2001). Canberra: Australian Data Archive, The Australian National University, 2004 [computer file].

  6. Bean, C. et al., Australian Election Study. (2004) Canberra: Australian Data Archive, The Australian National University, 2005 [computer file].

  7. Bechtel, M. M., Hangartner, D., & Schmid, L. (2016). Does compulsory voting increase support for leftist policy? American Journal of Political Science, 60(3), 752–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Birch, S. (2009). Full participation. A comparative study of compulsory voting. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Blais, A., & Dobrzynska, A. (1998). Turnout in electoral democracies. European Journal of Political Research, 33(2), 239–261.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bormann, N.-C., & Golder, M. (2013). Democratic electoral systems around the world. Electoral Studies, 32(2), 360–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brennan, J., & Hill, L. (2014). Compulsory voting: for and against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Brody, Richard A., & Page, Benjamin I. (1972). Comment: The assessment of policy voting. American Political Science Review, 66(2), 450–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Carreras, M. (2016). Compulsory voting and political engagement (beyond the ballot box): A multilevel analysis. Electoral Studies, 43, 158–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chilton, A., & Versteeg, M. (2016). Do constitutional rights make a difference? American Journal of Political Science, 60(3), 575–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dalton, R. J., Farrell, D. M., & McAllister, I. (2011). Political parties and democratic linkage. How parties organize democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dalton, R. J., & McAllister, I. (2015). Random walk or planned excursion? Continuity and change in the left-right positions of political parties. Comparative Political Studies, 48(6), 759–787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dassonneville, R., & Hooghe, M. (2017). Voter turnout decline and stratification: Quasi experimental and comparative evidence of a growing educational gap. Politics, 37(2), 184–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dassonneville, R., Hooghe, M., & Miller, P. (2017). Compulsory voting, inequality, and the quality of the vote: The impact of compulsory voting on accountability and proximity voting. West European Politics, 40(3), 621–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. De Leon, F. L. L., & Rizzi, R. (2014). A test for the rational ignorance hypothesis: Evidence from a natural experiment in Brazil. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(4), 380–398.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Elliott, K. (2017). Aid for our purposes. mandatory voting as precommitment and nudge. Journal of Politics, 79(2), 656–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ferwerda, J. (2014). Electoral consequences of declining participation: A natural experiment in Austria. Electoral Studies, 35, 242–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Finseraas, H., & Vernby, K. (2014). A mixed blessing for the left? Early voting, turnout and election outcomes in Norway. Electoral Studies, 33, 278–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fowler, A. (2013). Electoral and policy consequences of voter turnout: Evidence from compulsory voting in Australia. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 8(2), 159–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Funk, P. (2007). Is there an expressive function of law? An empirical analysis of voting laws with symbolic fines. American Law and Economics Review, 9(1), 135–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gallagher, M. (2016). Electoral systems web site. www.tcd.ie/Political_Science/staff/michael_gallagher/ElSystems/. Accessed 1 Oct 2016).

  26. Goren, P. (1997). Political expertise and issue voting in presidential elections. Political Research Quarterly, 50(2), 387–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2007). Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis, 15(3), 199–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hooghe, M., & Stiers, D. (2017). Do reluctant voters vote less accurately? the effect of compulsory voting on party-voter congruence in Australia and Belgium. Australian Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 75–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. ISPO/PIOP. (1991). General Election Study–Belgium, Codebook and questionnaire. Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve : ISPO/PIOP.

  30. ISPO/PIOP. (1999). General Election Study—Belgium, Codebook and questionnaire. Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve: ISPO/PIOP.

  31. Jackman, S. (1999). Non-compulsory voting in Australia? What surveys can (can’t) tell us. Electoral Studies, 18(1), 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Jaitman, L. (2013). The causal effect of compulsory voting laws on turnout: Does skill matter? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 92, 79–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jakee, K., & Sun, G.-Z. (2006). Is compulsory voting more democratic? Public Choice, 129(1/2), 61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Joesten, D. A., & Stone, W. J. (2014). Reassessing proximity voting: Expertise, party, and choice in congressional elections. Journal of Politics, 76(3), 740–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lacy, D., & Christenson, D. P. (2017). Who votes for the future? Information, expectations, and endogeneity in economic voting. Political Behavior, 39(2), 347–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lau, R. R., Andersen, D. J., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2008). An exploration of correct voting in recent U.S. presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 52(2), 395–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lau, R. R., Patel, P., Fahmy, D., & Kaufman, R. (2014). Correct voting across thirty-three democracies: a preliminary analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 39–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. R. (2006). How voters decide: information processing in election campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lijphart, A. (1997). Unequal participation: democracy’s unresolved dilemma. American Political Science Review, 91(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Loewen, P. J., Milner, H., & Hicks, B. M. (2008). Does compulsory voting lead to more informed and engaged citizens? An experimental test. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 655–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mackerras, M., & McAllister, I. (1999). Compulsory voting, party stability and electoral advantage in Australia. Electoral Studies, 18(2), 217–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Markus, G. B., & Converse, Ph E. (1979). A dynamic simultaneous equation model of electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 73(4), 1055–1070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. McAllister, I. et al., Australian Election Study. (2010). Canberra: Australian Data Archive, Australian National University, 2011 [Computer file].

  44. McAllister, I. et al., Australian Election Study. (2013). Canberra: Australian Data Archive, Australian National University, 2014 [Computer file].

  45. McFadden, D. (1974). The measurement of urban travel demand. Journal of Public Economics, 3(4), 303–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Medeiros, M., Gauvin, J.-P., & Chhim, C. (2015). Refining vote choice in an ethno-regionalist context: Three-dimensional ideological voting in Catalonia and Quebec. Electoral Studies, 40, 14–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Meneghelo, R., Brazilian Election Study. (2014) Campinas: Center for Studies on Public Opinion (CESOP), University of Campinas, 2014 [Computer file].

  48. Meneghelo, R., Clifford, Y., & de Almeida A.C.M., Brazilian Election Study. (2006). Campinas: Center for Studies on Public Opinion (CESOP), University of Campinas, 2006 [Computer file].

  49. Meneghelo, R., & Marta, M., Brazilian Election Study. (2010). Campinas: Center for Studies on Public Opinion (CESOP), University of Campinas, 2010 [Computer file].

  50. Miller, P., & Dassonneville, R. (2016). High Turnout in the low countries: Partisan effects of the abolition of compulsory voting in the Netherlands. Electoral Studies, 44, 132–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Moon, D. (1990). What you use depends on what you have. Information effects on the determinants of electoral choice. American Politics Quarterly, 18(1), 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Nadeau, R., Bélanger, É., Lewis-Beck, M., Turgeon, M., & Gélineau, F. (2017). Latin American Elections. Choice and Change. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. PartiRep. (2014). PartiRep Election Study 2014. Brussels: PartiRep [dataset].

  54. Power, T. J. (2009). Compulsory for whom? Mandatory voting and electoral participation in Brazil, 1986–2006. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 1(1), 97–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Przeworski, A., Stokes, S., & Manin, B. (Eds.). (1999). Democracy, accountability, and representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Reif, K., & Schmitt, H. (1997). Second-order elections. European Journal of Political Research, 31(1/2), 109–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Rosema, M. (2007). Low turnout: threat to democracy or blessing in disguise? Consequences of citizens’ varying tendencies to vote. Electoral Studies, 26(3), 612–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Rubin, D. B. (1979). Using multivariate matched sampling and regression adjustment to control bias in observational studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75(366a), 318–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Rubin, D. B., & Thomas, N. (2000). Combining propensity score matching with additional adjustments for prognostic covariates. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(450), 573–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Selb, P., & Lachat, R. (2009). The more, the better? Counterfactual evidence on the effect of compulsory voting on the consistency of party choice. European Journal of Political Research, 48(5), 573–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Selb, P., & Munzert, S. (2013). Voter Overrepresentation, vote misreporting, and turnout bias in postelection surveys. Electoral Studies, 32(1), 186–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Selects: Swiss National Election Studies, cumulated file 1971–2011 [Dataset]. Distributed by FORS, Lausanne, 2013.

  63. Sheppard, J. (2015). Compulsory voting and political knowledge: Testing a ‘compelled engagement’ hypothesis. Electoral Studies, 40, 300–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Shineman, V. (2018). If you mobilize them, they will become informed: experimental evidence that information acquisition is endogenous to costs and incentives to participate. British Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 189–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Singh, S. P. (2015). Compulsory voting and the turnout decision calculus. Political Studies, 63(3), 548–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Singh, S. P. (2016). Elections as poorer reflections of preferences under compulsory voting. Electoral Studies, 44, 56–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Singh, S. P., & Roy, J. (2014). Political knowledge, the decision calculus, and proximity voting. Electoral Studies, 34, 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Smets, K., & van Ham, C. (2013). The embarrassment of riches? A meta-analysis of individual-level research on voter turnout. Electoral Studies, 32(2), 344–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Thomassen, J., & van Ham, C. (2014). Failing political representation or a change in kind? Models of representation and empirical trends in Europe. West European Politics, 37(2), 400–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. van der Eijk, C., Schmitt, H., & Binder, T. (2005). Left-Right Orientations and Party Choice. In J. Thomassen (Ed.), The European Voter (pp. 166–190). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Zechmeister, E., & Corral, M. (2013). Individual and contextual constraints on ideological labels in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies, 46(6), 675–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Previous versions of this paper were presented at the 75th Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association (Chicago), at the School of Politics and International Relations at the Australian National University, and at a lunch seminar at Université de Montréal. We are particularly grateful to Johannes Bergh, Christopher Jensen, Ian McAllister and Shane Singh for comments and suggestions. Ruth Dassonneville acknowledges support of the Canada Research Chair Program (Canada Research Chair on Electoral Democracy/démocratie électorale), and Marc Hooghe acknowledges support from the European Research Council (ERC Advanced Grant 295920). Richard Lau received financial support from the School of Arts and Sciences at Rutgers University. Dieter Stiers acknowledges the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) for financial support.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruth Dassonneville.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 469 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dassonneville, R., Feitosa, F., Hooghe, M. et al. Compulsory Voting Rules, Reluctant Voters and Ideological Proximity Voting. Polit Behav 41, 209–230 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9448-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Compulsory voting
  • Correct voting
  • Left–right
  • Ideological proximity
  • Reluctant voter