Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Voter Turnout Factors (Poor Candidates (It effects turnout because voting…
Voter Turnout Factors
Poor Candidates
It effects turnout because voting can take time and unless a voter is passionate about voting for a candidate then they may have other better things to do with their time so they wont vote which will bring down turnout.
Change, the candidates change at every election and although bad candidates may suppress voting that will only be for the one election. E.g. Voter turnout was only 51.2% in 2000 but in the next election (2004 with a new candidate) it increased to 56.7%
Poorer Candidates wont be able to energize their voter base. E.g. Clinton and African Americans in 2016 which had a decline for the 1st time in 20 years.
This factor isn't as important as it isn't permanent, plus the candidates are elected in primaries. Therefore if there is anyone to blame for poor candidates then it is the voters themselves. Also with unpopular candidates like in 2016 it drove up turnout slightly from 2012. This is evidenced in that 53% of those who voted Trump did so out of being against Trump opposed to 44% who were for Trump. So in a way poor candidates may increase turnout.
-
REDMAP/Redistricting
Will reduce turnout for the exact same reasons as the EC does as people wont see the point of casting their Ballot
Change, because new district can be put in place unlike the EC and new officials can change it. However, can be trend because if done properly then they will have a high incumbency and they wont be voted out.
GOP will often redistrict in favour of them winning in congressional seats which can lead to a similar EC effect in that people know who is going to win. E.g. In Indiana all the congressional seats are safe in turnout in 2014 was 28%
This is important as there will overtime be no change and voters will feel as though there vote is not important.
Polarisation
It will affect turnout especially in safe states as polarised voters living in states where the other party are most likely to win will never vote for the other party. This can be seen to be the case in safe states like Hawaii. In 2016 Hawaii had turnout below 45% and it is a solid democrat safe state so any polarised Republican voters are highly unlikely to vote.
This is more of a trend as voters will become more or less polarised over time and therefore it is only a trend.
More and more voters are becoming split between the two political parties. For these voters that like in safe states like California, Hawaii etc. then they are unlikely to vote if they dont agree with the party who are going to win.
This is important especailly in safe states as it makes people less engaged in voting and it subsequently brings down voter turnout. However in 2016 where voters where seen to be more polarised, turnout increased from 2012.
Lack of Choice
Due to the culture of the lack of 3rd parties more central voters may not identify with either party so will just not vote as they dont agree with either parties idea's enough to vote for them.
Trend, There has never been a 3rd party candidate to win 1 electoral vote. This is consistent and due to the nature of the electoral college only favoring the 2 main parties it is very likely to stay that way.
US presidential election are always split between the Republicans and the Democrats and a vote for a 3rd party will likely lead to a wasted vote, unlike in the UK where in 2010 voting for a 3rd party lead to them being in coalition. If a voter disagree's with both then they will likely not vote.
This is important as seen in 1996 their is appetite for having a 3rd party candidate as Ross Perot gained 8 million votes. So their voters likely do want more diversity among their candidates. However, due to the unlikely nature of a 3rd party candidate even collecting an electoral vote many wont bother.
Electoral College
People feel that there is no point in voting in safe states as the winner is clear. E.g. Clinton + Hawaii 2016 where turnout was blow 45% (less than half)
Trend, The EC does often repress turnout in safe states like can be seen with Hawaii. However, in Texas there was an increase in voter turnout in 2016 despite is being a safe state. The Texas vote highlights the growing Hispanic population in 2016 which is significant because as the population gets larger then the more likely it is Texas will become a swing state which means turnout will likely increase as Turnout in swing states at presidential elections is higher. E.g. Florida turnout in 2016 was 65.61%
The EC will reduce turnout in safe states as everyone already knows who is going to win in those states. E.g. Hawaii (a safe democrat state) in 2016 has turnout of 43%.
This does matter as it means voters aren't engaged. Also highlights the increasing importance of the TX vote
- How do they affect turnout?
- Why does it affect turnout?
- Is this a Change or Trend?
- Does it matter?