Suchergebnisse

This article examines how economic hardship and income inequality affect voter turnout across 41 elections from 22 countries. Research on how these factors affect voter turnout has routinely produced uneven results. Furthermore, recent rises in income inequality have led many to revisit how the distribution of resources in society may affect voting. Using multilevel modeling techniques, I find strong evidence that economic hardship negatively affects participation rates for those mainly from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, while income inequality has only marginal effects on overall voter turnout.Related ArticlesStockemer, Daniel. 2013. "Corruption and Turnout in Presidential Elections: A Macro‐Level Quantitative Analysis." Politics & Policy 41 (2): 189‐212. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12012Stockemer, Daniel. 2016. "Is the Turnout Function in Democracies and Nondemocracies Alike or Different?" Politics & Policy 44 (5): 889‐915. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12174Stockemer, Daniel, and Stephanie Parent. 2013. "The Inequality Turnout Nexus: New Evidence from Presidential Elections." Politics & Policy 42 (2): 221‐245. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12067

ObjectivesThe objective of this study is to explore how party systems can affect turnout by exploring the conditional effect of number of parties and party polarization on democracies.MethodsUsing Comparative Manifesto Project data from 26 democracies, this study develops a measure of party systems that interacts party polarization and number of parties to explain turnout.ResultsFindings show that the composition of the party system as a whole is a key determinate of a voter's propensity to vote. Highly polarized systems with few parties spur individuals to vote, while low levels of polarization and many parties reduce incentives to vote.ConclusionsResults have important implications for theories of turnout, resolving the confusion surrounding how party systems affect political participation.