Voter turnout is influenced by a variety of individual and social factors. Research shows that whether a person perceives themselves as a "winner" or "loser" after an election, their level of political and social trust, personality traits like conscientiousness, and social pressures all impact their likelihood of voting. The costs and benefits of voting, like fulfilling a civic duty or facing criticism for not voting, also affect an individual's decision. No single factor determines turnout, and different electoral systems can have varying effects depending on other contextual influences.

1. More Than Just Party Lines and Issue Voting: Why People Turn Out to Vote
There are many different questions concerning voter participation that many political
psychologists have attempted to answer. Many researchers test many different variables that
would affect voter turnout. The one conclusion that all of them came to is that there are a
variety of reasons as to why citizens either vote or do not, and it may differ from each country,
to each providence or state within that country. We will look at how voting can create two
groups of people, winners and losers, and how that affects voter turnouts. Other studies have
looked at weather the option of casting a vote for “none of the above” candidates has
motivated citizens to come out and vote. Social trust and the satisfaction individuals have in
both the candidates and their electoral system can play a role in voter turnout. The outcome of
an election can either enforce or deter a person’s decision they made about voting, and can
predict if they will vote in the future. Social experiments have shown the astronomical effects
that societal pressure has on an individual to perform what some categorize as a civic duty.
Instead of looking at every democratic nation separately it is more beneficial to look at the
individual, and see what motivates a person to vote or not to vote.
After an election the population is divided between winners and losers. Clearly one
party wins the presidency, or the parliamentary seat, but there is also a winner portion of the
population and loser portion. The way in which a citizen perceives their government has
everything to do with which group they belong to. In an experiment by Anderson and Tverdova,
(2001), data was collected from parliamentary governments from Japan, New Zealand, and
other countries in Europe. When it comes to the power of government those in the political
minority, the losers, said that the government had too much power, while those in the political

2. majority, the winners, had a more positive view of the government. The next survey question
asked about trustworthiness of civil servants. Those who had voted for the candidates in office
were more likely to agree the civil servants are trustworthy; trustworthiness was relatively even
between those of the majority party and minority party, with only a 5% gap between the two.
Civil servants are generally more trusted across party lines then the evaluation of government
performance is. Across majority and minority parties, there is a general feeling that people do
not have a say in what government does, but a high percentage of people, across the countries
tested feel that elections are an efficient tool for letting the government know dissatisfaction,
and other important problems.
The idea of winners and losers in elections is reinforced by Michael W. Macy. Macy,
(1998), proposed the stochastic learning model that was an extension of the human behavior
model that helped to explain the behavior of a voter. After an election a voter’s choice is either
punished or reinforced. If the citizen voted and their party or candidate won, they are the
winners as Anderson and Tverdova describe, their choice is reinforced; whereas the choice is
punished if they voted for the candidate or party that lost, becoming a part of the loser group.
Similarly this theory works for nonvoters as well. A citizen who did not vote but whose
preferred party or candidate won reinforced their choice of not voting and they will presumably
continue to not vote. However when a citizen does not vote and their party does not win the
election, their choice is punished and at the next election cycle those citizens are more likely to
vote (Kanazawa 1998). Citizens tend to look at their history of voting and the outcomes to
determine their future action of voting or non-voting. On the contrary though, those who are
losers in one election have a higher incentive to take action in the next election. Those who are

3. winners are content, while losers are dissatisfied and will push for more changes within
government institutions (Anderson 2001).
Social and political trust are also huge contributing factors to voter participation. In fact
trust in parliament, or any other legislative branch increases the likelihood of voter
participation, while satisfaction with democracy statistics are less powerful (Gronlund 2007).
Those who are part of the minority part seemingly have less trust in the government then the
majority party. However there is more to political trust than just between the “winners” and
“losers.” The social capital theory suggests that social trust is an important factor of democracy
because it “sustains a cooperative social climate and encourages regard for public interest”
(Zmerli 2008). Trusting is a trait that is the base for showing dissatisfaction at the polls is the
sign of a healthy democracy. This is supported by the Dissatisfied Voter Result, found from data
collected over 90 elections from Western European nations. The data showed that an increase
in citizen satisfaction with government and democracy leads to a decrease in voter turnout
(Ezrow, Xezonakis 2014). Others take this a step further and argue that the type of
representation in a democracy effects voter satisfaction. For example if one party has more
representatives in congress or parliament, members of that political party are more satisfied
with democracy. When a voter supports a party that is underrepresented in a legislature,
especially when compared to the proportion of votes, satisfaction for democracy decreases
(Blais 2015). This suggests the possible effect that certain electoral systems have on democracy
satisfaction and how that effects voter participation.
Another way that voters are able to demonstrate dissatisfaction with their government
is the “none of the above vote” (NOTA). There are many known reasons as to why people do

4. not turn out to vote on election day; they lack information needed to make an informed
decision on a candidate or issue; not voting can symbolize the desire to alienate themselves
from the political spectrum; abstention can stem from the perception of competitiveness
within politics (Damore). People do vote to show dissatisfaction with their government, but if
people continue to be dissatisfied and not vote, it is no longer a healthy democracy (Ezrow
2014). One way to show dissatisfaction with the entire democratic process is to vote “none of
the above.” Voting NOTA symbolizes the dissatisfaction with every candidate on the ballot, and
this can send a clear message to the government and rest of the population. It also shows an
individual’s respect to the electoral process. They are still going through the task of registering
to vote and taking time out of their schedule to vote. NOTA is an option on the ballots in
Nevada, and so data was collected from general and primary, state and federal, elections from
1976 to 2010. Contrary to what the opposition has said, NOTA voting has not been a fad. It has
remained steady for over 30 years. Some contribute this to the theory that it could just be a
fixed portion of the population that is continuing to vote NOTA. The option of NOTA was used
more often in primary races than general elections. The data also concluded that there is no
direct correlation between NOTA and voter turnout. Instead it was found that the increase in
voter turnout led to a decrease in the use of NOTA (Damore 2011). It is hypothesized that NOTA
is just a replacement options who go to the polls uniformed and unaffiliated with a political
party. It becomes an easy option to choose and does not increase an individual’s incentive to
vote.
As seen in the study by Anderson and Tverdova, citizens have a relatively low perception
that they have a say in their government, that their vote is important in determining the

5. outcome, leading to a decrease in voter turnout. This sense of efficacy affects those voters who
prefer small parties in a government (Karp 2008). The number of votes does not translate
directly into the number of seats obtained in a legislature, so with less meaning behind a vote,
the less likely people are to use their vote. Instead, voters feel more “satisfied” in proportional
representation systems. These PR systems enhance party affiliation since they are more
inclusive and specific, rather than large catch-all parties, that attempt to encompass everyone
and their ideologies. These PR systems also are more likely to be competitive, and data shows a
higher voter turnout rate in close elections, because voters have a notion that their one vote
could make a difference in the outcome (Geys 2006).
Contradicting evidence shows that satisfaction for democracy is not higher in
proportional representation due to the fact that proportional representation can lead to the
forming of coalitions. But those that support small partners in a coalition government are found
to not be as happy or satisfied with their government (Blais 2015). Coalition formation is
necessary when there are numerous political parties. This in turn decreases the direct influence
the voter population has in deciding their political leaders (Geys 2006). In the case of the
executive position being chosen by the legislative body, proportional representation enables
political mobilization incentive nearly everywhere. Similarly this would encourage and increase
voter turnout since their vote has a direct effect not only for the legislature but possibly for the
executive as well. In single member districts, some areas, such as urban, high density areas, will
be seen as more important and crucial to the election, and people living in those areas have a
high purpose to vote, while those living in areas that are not of importance would feel no
reason to vote since their vote would not matter (Powell 1986).

6. There is still an ongoing debate about what really effects voter participation, the
number of political parties a country has, the electoral system-how important one vote is to an
election, or does it come down to each individual and their own set of attitudes and beliefs that
motivate them to either vote or to stay home on the day of an election. When it comes to
analyzing different electoral systems it is more difficult to find any continuous factors
connecting them to voter participation. Systems such as proportional representation, plurality,
majoritarian, and mixed can all affect voter turnout under different contextual concepts.
Proportional representation seems to have a positive effect on voter turnout in full
democracies, but the further a country is from being a full democracy, the less impact PR has on
voters (Endersby 2008). Living in a fully democratic nation versus a partially democratic nation
does not affect a person’s choice to vote or not. Other factors, such as required registration,
age requirement of voter, or even compulsory voting, do not explain why people vote.
Another theory political psychologists explore is the possibility of voting acting as a fad.
Initially when countries first change from totalitarian or authoritarian regimes to democracies,
the possibility of choosing your own leader is seen as a luxury; so why does voter participation
decline in the years following newly found independence? Nationalism is one of the main
factors. Those people that came together to overthrow their authoritative regime have a strong
sense of national identity; they feel strongly connected to their nation and want to see it
succeed, and they do so by voting in elections (Kostadinova 2006). That is not saying that old
democracies are not nationalistic, perhaps they show their pride for their country in different
ways, but the citizens voting presently were not alive when their country became a democracy.
Those people have always had the right to vote, they were born with it, and presumably take it

7. for granted. They do not understand what it means to live in a country where you are not given
a choice about who your leaders are. A decline in voting participation in new democracies over
time is a generational issue, not a result of democracy being a fad that fades over time.
Voter participation in democracies is effected by more than just the governmental
makeup of a country. Mostly participation has to do with the individual self and the unique set
of characteristics, personality traits, and beliefs one has. Data shows that citizens who are more
educated, older, wealthier, or tend to align with a particular political party, are more likely to
vote in an election (Singh 2010). This theory is reiterated with another study done that included
interviewing participants face to face from 22 European democracies. The study looked at the
effect that political trust and satisfaction has on voter turnout in parliamentary elections. There
is a strong association between trust and voter turnout. The more citizens trust their
government and civic leaders, the higher percent of the population turns out to vote (Gronlund
2007). The same was found for political satisfaction and voter turnout. The study does not
differentiate between the different types of representation in each country. Instead it is the
character and attitudes of the individual that affect their decision to vote. Certain personality
traits are also found to increase political participation. Out of the Big Five personality traits
those who exhibit extraversion and who are also emotionally stable are associated with
increased levels of participation, including voting. Another one of the Big Five traits linked to
voting is conscientiousness. Individuals with this trait are more likely to vote on election day
(Gerber 2010).
One of the most concrete reasons that nearly every political psychologist finds when
examining why people vote is that people participate when the benefit outweighs the cost. As

8. with most choices in life people make the decision based on how that action will help them and
how much energy they will have to exert in order to complete the task (Singh 2010). The cost
could be registering to vote. In some democracies it is required, even if you do not vote, or in
other democracies the government does not force registration if you do not plan on voting.
Registration can have a monetary cost as well as a timely cost. Registering to vote and actually
voting takes time out of a person’s schedule and those that do not do either find that their time
is better spent doing something else; the cost is too high and the benefit is not worthy. A
benefit of voting is mainly that people feel they are making a contribution to their democracy
and effecting positive change. Voters want to fulfill their civic duty and they want to feel good
about themselves for doing so. They also worry that other citizens will think badly of them if
they do not vote, since voting is seen as a civic duty (Gerber 2010). This could be seen as an
example of in groups and out groups. Those who are patriotic and do their civic duty by voting
are in the in-group. Those who do not are in the out-group and are looked at in a negative view
by the in group. Potential voters do not want to be labeled unpatriotic or be a part of a group
with a negative connotation associated with it, so they will choose to vote to become part of
the in-group. Other pressures come from the entire society, such as the get-out-and-vote
campaigns that often times shows a celebrity advocating the right to vote. This pressure coming
from a celebrity that a citizen might admire or look up to can persuade a person, especially a
younger person, to go out and vote (Geys 2006). The outside social pressure can affect the
voter turnout in an election.
Social norms are a large contributor to voter participation. Factors such as population
size and population stability contribute to voter turnout. Population stability can affect the

9. action of voting in either a positive or negative way. Those who do not intend to stay in an area
for a long time are more likely to not vote, since many of the policies concerning their
geographical area will not concern them since they do not see themselves there in the future.
Those however who do see themselves living for many years in the same place, will go out and
vote since their vote could directly impact their town. Homeowners are also at an increase
probability to vote especially if there are particular policies or issues that affect the value of
homes or land. Those living in smaller, even rural communities have a higher turnout rate due
to the closeness of everyone living in a community (Geys 2006). It is not uncommon also, that
people are more likely to vote if their friends, family, or coworkers vote (Gerber 2011). This
connects to the idea of wanting to fit in and adhere to social norms; “if everyone is voting, then
I should be too” thought process.
An experiment was done to see if past voting behavior effects participation for the
upcoming election. Participants were sent pamphlets in the mail at random. There was a
control group, a group that congratulated former voting behavior, and a group that highlighted
the subject’s abstention at the last election cycle. The results showed an additional 28% in
votes for those who received a pamphlet detailing their abstention. Showing a citizen a
pamphlet that said they voted in the last election only had 18% additional votes (Gerber 2008).
In this case a negative reinforce was more instrumental in getting people out to vote. Their past
action of not voting, which can be seen as going against social norms, is viewed as a negative
action. Since a substantial amount of these people went on to vote in the next election, their
action was reinforced more than a positive feedback. Even though Kanazawa argued that not
voting can be reinforced if your preferred party wins, the experiment by Gerber, Green, and

10. Larimer, disputes this. Kanazawa did not take into consideration how important social pressure
is and the need to feel included in societal practices such as voting. Consequently those who
received a pamphlet that reminded them that they had voted the last election may have felt
that they had already served their civic duty, they had contributed their “fair share” (Gerber
2011). Psychologically they feel that they can forgo voting without a fear of looking like a bad
citizen since they voted in the last election. Mildly shaming a person can lead to a positive
reaction, whereas congratulating an individual and invoking pride can lead to inaction in the
future.
Pressure to go out and vote on election day can come from more than just your peers.
Political campaigns can affect a person’s decision to vote. The Comparative Study of Electoral
Systems tested the outcomes of political mobilization. Subjects of the survey were asked if they
had ever been contacted by a political party to persuade them to vote for the candidate. The
results show that across 23 democracies, old and new, people were more likely to vote if they
had been contacted than if they had not been contacted (Karp 2008). Campaigns can also have
a negative effect on voter turnout as well. Negative or attack ads against a candidate or party’s
opposition can turn voters away from voting in the first place. Or it could lead to normal
supporters of a candidate to vote for the opposition. This tends to lead to the theory that many
people vote off emotion, or based on the character of the candidate rather than at the policies
and issues being discussed (Geys 2006).
The benefit of voting is usually something that the voter hopes to gain, or improve upon
from the party they voted for (Singh). The main goal a voter hopes to accomplish is to have
their preferred candidate elected to office (Kanazawa 1998). People want to be winners, and so

11. they vote in hopes of having the satisfaction of being labeled as a part of the winning team, or
winning political party (Anderson 2001). These goals that the voter wants to see achieved stem
from the individuals own attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs. It is similar these three ideas that
separate people into different political parties. These political beliefs then translate to voting
behavior, and the desired candidate or party that the voter thinks will do the best job in dealing
with issues that closely align with the voters own beliefs and attitudes (Campbell 2013). This
goes back to the idea of Anderson and Tverdova, with there being winners and losers in the
political arena. Not only does your preferred winning the election solidify and reaffirm your
own beliefs and values, but it causes satisfaction and little desire for political change. The losers
of elections are the ones that democracies are based on. They are the minority that is not
satisfied and has the most incentive to work hard for political changes (Campbell 2013).
However the only research then never seems to be done is the satisfaction level of the winners
and losers after the election, perhaps six months to a year or even two years afterwards. If the
elected legislature or executive is not performing well or adhering to promises made, are the
winners still satisfied with their majority party in power? If conditions are not improved, or
changes are made that do not coincide with the values and beliefs of the population that
elected the government, is that majority not going to divide and find different political parties,
or advocate for a new candidate in the next election? Conversely, if the majority party elect
does succeed in office and the condition of the country improves, for example economically, do
the election losers still push for an institutional change? Would they be unsatisfied if things
change for the better even though the people and party that made those changes occur did not
align with you ideologically? More research perhaps needs to be done on the effect the election

12. outcomes have on a voter in the next election cycle to see how adaptable voters are to change,
or if people are stuck ideologically in a certain party.
Although there are numerous questions that are not answered about voter participation
in elections, it is clear that voting should be studied at an individual level, not by encompassing
all voters of all democracies. People exercise their right to vote for mainly individualistic
reasons. They want their vote to better their lives in some way. They do not want to look bad to
their peers by not voting and they want to show a sense of patriotism for their country, and
they think by not doing so they will be placed in a societal outgroup that is looked down upon
by people that do vote. Even though there are many contextual reasons that show voter
turnout is higher in some countries than others, they do not unearth the reason why people
vote. The electoral system, the number of parties a country has, whether it is a new or old
democracy, are all contextual reasons that explain why voter turnout is higher in some nations
than others. The inconsistencies found across the different nations show that just one of those
factors does not contribute to the voter turnout in democracies around the world. Individuals
instead make their own decision and see if the cost of voting will benefit them. If the benefit is
higher than the cost, most likely a person will vote. If the cost of voting is higher than the
supposed benefit, it is more likely that those people will not vote on election day. It is human
nature to want to be a winner in society and to be at the top of the social chain. Voting in an
election is one way to reach that goal, only if your preferred candidate wins. Being a winner
makes a person a part of the majority and a part of the in-group that is highly desired to be in,
but which also can potentially change every election cycle. People vote as a way to raise their
social status and to psychologically feel as though they made a difference.

13. Bibliography
Anderson, Christopher J., and Yuliya V. Tverdova. (2001). Winners, Losers, and Attitudes about
Government in Contemporary Democracies. International Political Science Review, 22(4),
321-338.
Blais, Andre, Alexandre Morin-Chasse, and Shane P. Singh. (2015). Election outcomes,
legislative representation, and satisfaction with democracy. Party Politics, 1-15.
Campbell, Ross. (2013). Winners, losers and the Grand Coalition: Political satisfaction in the
Federal Republic of Germany. International Political Science Review, 36(2), 168-184.
Damore, David F., Mallory M. Waters, and Shaun Bowler. (2011). Unhappy, Uninformed, or
Uninterested? Understanding "None of the Above" Voting. Political Research Quarterly,
65(4), 895-907. 2012.
Ecevit, Yuksel Alper, and Ekrem Karakoc. (2015). The perils of semi-presidentialism: Confidence
in political institutions in contemporary democracies. International Political Science
Review, 1-17. 2015.
Endersby, James W. and Jonathan T. Krieckhaus. (2008). Turnout around the globe: The
influence of electoral institutions on national voter participation, 1972–2000. Electoral
Studies, 27, 601-610. 2008.
Ezrow, Lawrence and Georgios Xezonaki. (2014). Satisfaction with democracy and voter turnout:
A temporal perspective. Party Politics, 1-12.

14. Gerber, A., Donald P. Green., & Christopher W. Larimer. (2008). Social Pressure and Voter
Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment. American Political Science
Review, 102(1), 33-48. Feb. 2008.
Gerber, Alan S., Donald P. Green., & Christopher W. Larimer. (2010). An Experiment Testing the
Relative Effectiveness of Encouraging Voter Participation by Inducing Feelings of Pride or
Shame. Springer Science and Business Media, LLC. 409-422. March 2010.
Gerber, Alan, Gregory A. Huber, David Doherty, Conor M. Dowling, Connor Raso, and Shang E.
Ha. (2011). Personality Traits and Participation in Political Processes. The Journal of
Politics, 73(3), 692-706.
Geys, Benny. (2006). Explaining voter turnout: A review of aggregate-level research. Electoral
Studies, 25, 637-663.
Grönlund, Kimmo, and Maija Setala. (2007). Political Trust, Satisfaction and Voter Turnout.
Comparative European Politics, 5, 400-422.
Kanazawa, S. (1998). A Possible Solution to the Paradox of Voter Turnout. The Journal of Politics,
60(4), 974-995. Nov. 1998.
Karp, Jeffrey., and Susan A. Banducci. (2008). Political Efficacy and Participation in Twenty-
Seven Democracies: How Electoral Systems Shape Political Behaviour. British Journal of
Political Science, 38(2), 311-334. April 2008.
Karp, Jeffery A., and Susan A. Banducci. (2007). Party Mobilization and Political Participation in
New and Old Democracies. Party Politics, 13(2), 217-234.

15. Kostadinova, Tatiana, and Timothy J. Power. (2007). Does Democratization Depress
Participation? Voter Turnout in the Latin American and Eastern European Transitional
Democracies. Political Research Quarterly, 60(3), 363-377.
Powell, G. Bingham. (1986). American Voter Turnout in Comparative Perspective. The American
Political Science Review, 80(1), 17-43.
Singh, Shane. (2010). Contradictory Calculi: Differences in Individuals' Turnout Decisions across
Electoral Systems. Political Research Quarterly, 64(3), 646-655.
Zmerli, Sonja, and Ken Newton. (2008). Social Trust and Attitudes Toward Democracy. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 72(4), 706-724.