Polarization, Number of Parties, and Voter Turnout: Explaining Turnout in 26 OECD Countries

Abstract

Objectives. The 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. Methods. Using 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. Results. Findings 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. Conclusions. Results have important implications for theories of turnout, resolving the confusion surrounding how party systems affect political participation.

Anti‐elite parties and political inequality: How challenges to the political mainstream reduce income gaps in internal efficacy

“…In our baseline model, we control for postcommunist countries with their less mature democracies and different party-system dynamics (which are already illustrated in Figure 1). We also control for the effective number of political parties because the availability of alternatives might be a separate mechanism facilitating or complicating party choice (Wilford 2017). The number of parties should also pick up broad differences in electoral systems.…”

“…Concretely, we would expect that anti-elite parties: (1) make decisions (as well as expressing opinions) easier because they radically simplify political questions; (2) emphasise stark differences between parties and thereby illustrate the relevance of party choice; (3) translate diffuse frustrations about the political system into concrete arguments and demands and thereby restore a sense of political agency; (4) stimulate emotions of anger and indignation which typically have a mobilising effect; and (5) dramatise politics with their confrontational style, which could make it more exciting and entertaining for relatively disinterested citizens. Although they usually do not differentiate by income, many studies suggest that polarisation makes it is easier for citizens to connect their preferences to parties (Dalton 2010;Jansen et al 2013;Lachat 2008;Lupu 2015) and to participate in politics (Dalton 2008;Moral 2017;Steiner & Martin 2012;Wilford 2017; for a critical view, see Rogowski 2014). Although they usually do not differentiate by income, many studies suggest that polarisation makes it is easier for citizens to connect their preferences to parties (Dalton 2010;Jansen et al 2013;Lachat 2008;Lupu 2015) and to participate in politics (Dalton 2008;Moral 2017;Steiner & Martin 2012;Wilford 2017; for a critical view, see Rogowski 2014).…”

“…4 The first two mechanisms link back to the polarisation literature. Although they usually do not differentiate by income, many studies suggest that polarisation makes it is easier for citizens to connect their preferences to parties (Dalton 2010;Jansen et al 2013;Lachat 2008;Lupu 2015) and to participate in politics (Dalton 2008;Moral 2017;Steiner & Martin 2012;Wilford 2017; for a critical view, see Rogowski 2014). Moreover, it is often argued that groups with on average lower political sophistication and attention (such as the poor) benefit disproportionately from a diverse and stimulating party system (Dalton 2010;Smidt 2017).…”

Una propuesta de tipología de sistemas de partidos para regímenes democráticos y autoritarios pluralistas su aplicación a los países del Magreb

“…Diverse indicators have been used to measure polarization, such as the location of the parties on an ideological, left-right spectrum or in political families or partisan positions through their political programs (Budge, Robertson and Hearl, 1987;Wildford, 2017). These forms of measurement have the inconvenience of not considering the relative weight of each party (Ocaña and Oñate, 1999: 237).…”

International Migration and Turnout Bias

“…Unicameralism Unicamerialism should increase voter turnout, as elections are more decisive (i.e. legislative power is not shared with a second chamber (Wilford (2017) Dummy: 1 unicameral system, 0 no unicameral system NationMast ers (2015) Material Affluence…”