Advertisement

Acta Politica

, Volume 53, Issue 3, pp 469–487 | Cite as

Forced to vote, but not for women. The effect of compulsory voting on voting for women

  • Bram Wauters
  • Robin Devroe
Original Article

Abstract

Compulsory voting is an underexposed factor of the electoral system that possibly influences women’s descriptive representation. Studlar and McAllister (Eur J Polit Res 41(2):233–253, 2002) found a negative effect, but no theoretical explanations were given. We develop two possible explanations: voters who only vote because they have to are less politically sophisticated, and therefore vote less sophisticatedly, and/or they have different attitudes about women in political life. From our study, we are able to detect a gendered effect of compulsory voting in Belgium’s flexible-list PR system, but only the vote sophistication explanation is confirmed. Voters who would no longer vote without compulsory voting significantly vote more for top candidates (mostly men) and give significantly less preference votes for candidates lower down the list. This points us to the complexity of the ballot structure as an important new dimension that could help explain gendered voting effects of compulsory voting systems. Finally, since different effects for formal and descriptive representation appear, we posit that compulsory voting constitutes a dilemma for women activists.

Keywords

Compulsory voting Women Gender Electoral systems Preference voting Belgium 

References

  1. André, A., S. Depauw, M.S. Shugart, and R. Chytilek. 2017. Party nomination strategies in flexible-list systems: Do preference votes matter? Party Politics. 23 (5): 589–600. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. André, A., B. Wauters, and J.-B. Pilet. 2010. Voorkeurstemmen bij de regionale verkiezingen van 2009: gebruik en motieven. In De stemmen van het volk. Een analyse van het kiesgedrag in Vlaanderen en Wallonië op 7 juni 2009, ed. K. Deschouwer, P. Delwit, M. Hooghe, and S. Walgrave, 169–199. Brussel: Brussels University Press.Google Scholar
  3. André, A., B. Wauters, and J.-B. Pilet. 2012. It’s not only about lists: Explaining preference voting in Belgium. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 22 (3): 293–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belli, R.F., M.W. Traugott, M. Young, and K.A. McGonagle. 1999. Reducing vote overreporting in surveys: Social desirability, memory failure, and source monitoring. The Public Opinion Quarterly 63 (1): 90–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernhagen, P., and M. Marsh. 2007. The partisan effects of low turnout: Analyzing vote abstention as a missing data problem. Electoral Studies 26 (3): 548–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bittner, A., Terry, J., and S. Piercey. 2010. Who cares? Canadian attitudes about women in politics. In Paper Presented to the The Canadian Political Science Annual Meetings, Concordia University.Google Scholar
  7. Blais, A. 2000. To vote or not to vote? The merits and limits or rational choice theory. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooks, C., and C. Bolzendahl. 2004. The transformation of US gender role attitudes: Cohort replacement, social-structural change, and ideological learning. Social Science Research 33 (1): 106–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brunell, T.L., and J. DiNardo. 2004. A propensity score reweighting approach to estimating the partisan effects of full turnout in American presidential elections. Political Analysis 12 (1): 28–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caluwaerts, D., and M. Reuchamps. 2015. Strengthening democracy through bottom-up deliberation: An assessment of the internal legitimacy of the G1000 project. Acta Politica 50 (2): 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Campbell, R. 2006. Gender and the vote in Britain: Beyond the gender gap?. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  12. Carreras, M. 2012. The rise of outsiders in Latin America, 1980–2010: An institutionalist perspective. Comparative Political Studies 45 (12): 1451–1482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carreras, M., and Y. İrepoğlu. 2013. Trust in elections, vote buying, and turnout in Latin America. Electoral Studies 32 (4): 609–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Caul, M. 1999. Women’s representation in parliament the role of political parties. Party Politics 5 (1): 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crisp, B.F., S. Olivella, M. Malecki, and M. Sher. 2013. Vote-earning strategies in flexible list systems: Seats at the price of unity. Electoral Studies 32 (4): 658–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dandoy, R., M. Reuchamps, and P. Baudewyns. 2015. The 2014 federal and European elections in Belgium. Electoral Studies 39: 153–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Winter, L., and J. Ackaert. 1998. Compulsory voting in Belgium: A reply to Hooghe and Pelleriaux. Electoral Studies 4 (17): 425–428.Google Scholar
  18. Duverger, M. 1955. The political role of women. Paris: Unesco.Google Scholar
  19. Erzeel, S., and D. Caluwaerts. 2015. Is it gender, ideology or resources? Individual-level determinants of preferential voting for male or female candidates. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 25 (3): 1–19.Google Scholar
  20. Fishkin, J. 2009. When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gallego, A. 2010. Understanding unequal turnout: Education and voting in comparative perspective. Electoral Studies 29 (2): 239–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Geys, B., and B. Heyndels. 2003. Influence of ‘cognitive sophistication’on ballot layout effects. Acta Politica 38 (4): 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goodyear-Grant, E., and J. Croskill. 2011. Gender affinity effects in vote choice in Westminster systems: Assessing “Flexible” voters in Canada. Politics & Gender 7 (2): 223–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gordon, S.B., and G.M. Segura. 1997. Cross-national variation in the political sophistication of individuals: Capability or choice? The Journal of Politics 59 (1): 126–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gratschew, M. 2004. Voter turnout in Western Europe. In Compulsory voting in Western Europe, ed. IDEA. Stockholm: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.Google Scholar
  26. Hansford, T.G., and B.T. Gomez. 2010. Estimating the electoral effects of voter turnout. American Political Science Review 104 (02): 268–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hirczy, W. 1994. The impact of mandatory voting laws on turnout: A quasi-experimental approach. Electoral Studies 13 (1): 64–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hooghe, M., and K. Pelleriaux. 1998. Compulsory voting in Belgium: An application of the Lijphart thesis. Electoral Studies 17 (4): 419–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. IDEA. 2015. Compulsory voting. http://www.idea.int/vt/compulsory_voting.cfm. Accessed 5 Nov 2015.
  30. IGVM. 2016. Aanwezigheid van vrouwen in de Belgische wetgevende en uitvoerende instellingen. http://igvm-iefh.belgium.be/nl/activiteiten/politiek/cijfers.
  31. Jennings, M.K. 2006. The gender gap in attitudes and beliefs about the place of women in American political life: A longitudinal, cross-generational analysis. Politics & Gender 2 (2): 193–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Karp, J.A., and D. Brockington. 2005. Social desirability and response validity: A comparative analysis of overreporting voter turnout in five countries. Journal of Politics 67 (3): 825–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kenny, M., and T. Verge. 2016. Opening up the black box: Gender and candidate selection in a new era. Government and Opposition 51 (Special Issue 03): 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kittilson, M.C. 2005. Rising political inequality in established democracies: mobilization, socio-economic status and voter turnout, 1960s to 2000. In Paper Presented to the Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  35. Krook, M.L., and L. Schwindt-Bayer. 2013. Electoral institutions. In The Oxford handbook of gender and politics, ed. G. Waylen, K. Celis, J. Kantola, and L.S. Weldon, 554–578. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lijphart, A. 1997. Unequal participation: Democracy’s unresolved dilemma presidential address, American Political Science Association, 1996. American Political Science Review 91 (1): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Loewen, P.J., H. Milner, and B.M. Hicks. 2008. Does compulsory voting lead to more informed and engaged citizens? An experimental test. Canadian Journal of Political Science 41 (3): 655–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lutz, G. 2010. First come, first served: The effect of ballot position on electoral success in open ballot PR elections. Representation 46 (2): 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maddens, B., B. Wauters, J. Noppe, and S. Fiers. 2006. Effects of campaign spending in an open list PR system: The 2003 legislative elections in Flanders/Belgium. West European Politics 29 (1): 161–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marien, S., A. Schouteden, and B. Wauters. 2017. Voting for women in Belgium’s flexible list system. Politics & Gender 13 (2): 305–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marsh, M. 1985. The voters decide?: Preferential voting in European list systems*. European Journal of Political Research 13 (4): 365–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Matland, R.E. 2005. Enhancing women’s political participation: Legislative recruitment and electoral systems. In Women in parliament: Beyond numbers, ed. J. Ballington, and A. Karam, 93–111. International IDEA: Stockholm.Google Scholar
  43. McElroy, G., and M. Marsh. 2009. Candidate gender and voter choice: Analysis from a multimember preferential voting system. Political Research Quarterly 63(4).Google Scholar
  44. Meier, P. 2004. The mutual contagion effect of legal and party quotas a Belgian perspective. Party Politics 10 (5): 583–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Murray, R. 2014. What makes a good Politician? Reassessing the criteria used for political recruitment. In Paper Presented to the ECPR Joint Sessions Salamanca.Google Scholar
  46. O’Malley, E. 2008. Turn out to turf out?: Effects of changes in election participation rates on election outcomes. The Open Political Science Journal 1 (1): 31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Phillips, A. 1995. The politics of presence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  48. Pilet, J.-B., André, A., Dassonneville, R., Depauw, S., Hooghe, M., Jacobs, D., Kelbel, C., Marien, S., Schouteden, A., Van Aelst, P., and B. Wauters. 2013. Voting for candidate (s). The use of mock ballots in the study of preferential voting. First lessons on the Belgian local elections of 2012. In Paper Presented to the The 3rd Annual General Conference of the European Political Science Association (EPSA), Barcelona.Google Scholar
  49. Pitkin, H.F. 1967. The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  50. Put, G.-J., J. Smulders, and B. Maddens. 2014. Een analyse van het profiel van de Vlaamse verkozenen bij de Kamerverkiezingen van 1987 tot en met 2014. Leuven: KU Leuven.Google Scholar
  51. Quintelier, E., M. Hooghe, and S. Marien. 2011. The effect of compulsory voting on turnout stratification patterns: A cross-national analysis. International Political Science Review. doi: 10.1177/0192512110382016.Google Scholar
  52. Reuchamps, M., D. Caluwaerts, L. De Winter, V. Jacquet, and C. Meulewaeter (2015). Stemplicht en absenteïsme in een multilevel perspectief. In De kiezer ontcijferd: over stemgedrag en stemmotivaties, ed. K. Deschouwer, P. Delwit, M. Hooghe, P. Baudewyns and S. Walgrave, 168–184. Tielt: Lannoo Campus.Google Scholar
  53. Rule, W. 1987. Electoral systems, contextual factors and women’s opportunity for election to parliament in twenty-three democracies. The Western Political Quarterly 40 (3): 477–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schmidt, G.D. 2009. The election of women in list PR systems: Testing the conventional wisdom. Electoral Studies 28 (2): 190–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Selb, P., and R. Lachat. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shugart, M.S., M.E. Valdini, and K. Suominen. 2005. Looking for locals: Voter information demands and personal vote-earning attributes of legislators under proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science 49 (2): 437–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shvedova, N. 2005. Obstacles to women’s participation in parliament. In Women in parliament: Beyond numbers, ed. J. Ballington, and A. Karam, 33. Stockholm: IDEA.Google Scholar
  58. Singh, S., and J. Thornton. 2013. Compulsory voting and the dynamics of partisan identification. European Journal of Political Research 52 (2): 188–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Singh, S.P. 2015. Compulsory voting and the turnout decision calculus. Political Studies 63 (3): 548–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Smulders, J., Put, G.-J., and B. Maddens. 2014. Een vergelijkende analyse van het profiel van de kandidaten voor de Kamerverkiezingen van 1987 tot en met 2014. Research note KULeuven.Google Scholar
  61. Söderlund, P., H. Wass, and A. Blais. 2011. The impact of motivational and contextual factors on turnout in first-and second-order elections. Electoral Studies 30 (4): 689–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Studlar, D.T., and I. McAllister. 2002. Does a critical mass exist? A comparative analysis of women’s legislative representation since 1950. European Journal of Political Research 41 (2): 233–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Vandeleene, A. 2014. Gender quotas and ‘women-friendly’candidate selection: Evidence from Belgium. Representation 50 (3): 337–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Verba, S., K.L. Schlozman, and H.E. Brady. 1995. Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Wauters, B., B. Maddens, and G.-J. Put. 2014. It takes time: The long-term effects of gender quota. Representation 50 (2): 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wauters, B., K. Weekers, and B. Maddens. 2010. Explaining the number of preferential votes for women in an open-list PR system: An investigation of the 2003 federal elections in Flanders (Belgium). Acta Politica 45 (4): 468–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations