In the last US elections, the voting turnout was approximately 57.5% (Bipartisan Research Center). Over the last few decades, it has been shifting between 50 and 60 percent. This is in stark contrast with various European countries, where the voting turnout rate is significantly higher - 85% and up in some countries (e.g. Denmark, Germany, Sweden)

A major difference between the US and many of these countries is the two party system currently present in the United States. This makes me wonder: does the two party system influence voting turnout? Does it provide for poor engagement among the masses?

Or is it the other way around? Does poor engagement lead to less incitive to start broader political movement?

Has there been any research on the subject?

I'd guess that with only two parties, people in the center of the spectrum might not feel as strongly drawn to either side, especially in the suburban middle class. In a system with multiple parties, the chance of there being a party that more accurately represents ones ideals is simply larger.

  • 2
    It's not fair to compare with Belgium, because it's mandatory to turn up to the voting booth there. – gerrit Dec 9 '12 at 11:01
  • 4
    Another relevant aspect is probably the first-past-the-post system. Most US states are "safe" states for either Democrats or Republicans, so there is much less reason to vote. – gerrit Dec 9 '12 at 11:02
  • Ah, you're absolutely right about Belgium. I've removed Belgium and made the percentage a bit more exact. – Joost Dec 9 '12 at 12:23

I would have to say yes. In the 2012 US election, much was made about "ground games" for each side. The PBS NewsHour talked a lot about their strategy. The Obama/Democratic team not only crafted and threw a ton of money into making the election into a clearer choice between two very different people, but they had tons of people out knocking on doors, getting out the vote. The undecideds weren't all that great in number, so the Dems in particular thought that the most important strategy was to get their base to turn out. They put a lot of resources into doing so and ultimately did just that.

I suppose my point is that the turnout could be a lot worse if there weren't parties spending tens of millions to get their people out, but it could be countered with the thought that if the system was different, more people would care. I'm not so sure. I think that other factors like the size of the country, non-mandatory voting, news consumption habits, and a general apathy within a country that has been shielded from extreme adversity for a long time would have more to do with turnout. It's just hard to get a message out to 300,000,000 people, many of whom don't feel like their lives would be different either way under a new president.

| improve this answer | |
  • An important point to your answer is that the money spent by the Obama/Democrats, and similar money spent by Romney/Republicans, was strongly focused on certain states. If you lived in or next to a swing state you would see political advertisements on TV constantly. But if you lived in a state where there was no doubt who would win, then you might not see any political commercials on TV and certainly no one from either campaign would come knocking on your door. So engagement could definitely be depressed on non-swing states. – Readin Apr 29 '16 at 4:26

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .