25
(Feddersen, 2004). Nevertheless this theory has been very influential in the field of electoral research and has been adopted and expanded by several scholars to improve its explanatory power. For example in an attempt to solve the paradox of voting Riker and Ordeshook (1968:28) add citizen duty as a motivational factor for the voter. Fiorin (1981) contends that voters are indeed rational as they adopt retrospective voting strategy as they vote. Other scholars (Feddersen and Sandroni, 2002; Edlin et al, 2005; Coate and Conlin, 2004) used group-based models approach to voter turnout in which they sought to substitute social interests for selfish interests as the main reason for an voter turning out to vote.
There were some other equally important developments in the literature on voter turnout. One such was Jackman (1987)’s fairly influential institutionalist model of electoral turnout. The main argument of the model is voting is an act governed by institutional rules, laws and procedures and as such, the type of institutions in place is an important determinant of voter turnout rates. Jackman (1987) and Powell (1986) conducted cross-national studies on voter turnout and found that institutional differences like the electoral systems, registration process, voting age, the party system among others significantly affected the variations in turnout rates.
Jackman (1987: 412) points out the classic examples of the United States and Switzerland whose turnout rates are severely depressed by the institutional settings particularly the registration process, outweighing the favourable political attitudes of their populations. The study’s findings were later replicated by many other studies like (Blais and Dobryznska, 1998; Norris, 2003; Endersby and Krieckhaus, 2008) who found institutional factors to significantly affect turnout rates. The institutionalist model lays emphasis on factors like the electoral system, party system, legal rules for registration, the level of the election and various other institutional variables that may affect the overall turnout. The preceding discussion has highlighted the major developments in electoral research which continue to influence literature in the field. The vast majority of the previous literature falls squarely into one or the other of these models with other studies using an overlapping approach combining one or two of these models.
26
the act of citizens casting a vote. It is the measurement of voter turnout that has been a thorny issue in the literature and as such it is obviously an important issue that merits deeper exploration (Geys, 2006). The implications of voter turnout goes beyond its face value as a percentage of people who cast their votes in the elections. It reflects on, among other things, the openness and the inclusiveness of the political system, as well the quality of democratic institutions (Franklin, 2004). However, the precise definition and operationalization of the concept is far from a settled issue in the literature on electoral studies (Geys, 2006: 638).
Table 3: shows the differences in the definition of voter turnout in 83 studies on electoral participation.
Definition Frequency
Absolute number of votes cast 3 Number voted/voting age population 36 Number voted/number of eligible voters 13 Number voted/number registered 23 Number voted/size of electorate 2
No clear reference given 10
Source: Adapted from Geys, B. (2006). Explaining voter turnout: A review of aggregate-level research.
Electoral studies, 25, pp. 637-663.
The way turnout is defined or measured is important because it determines the interpretation of electoral turnout rates and therefore any consideration of intervention from the relevant stakeholders. For example when as shown in Figure 2 in the last chapter when voter turnout in the last three South African local elections is measured as a percentage of the registered voters it averages above 50%. When measured against the voting age population the average drops to below 30%. Deciding on how to measure voter turnout therefore is a not a trivial affair as it can influence the outcome of the research and the conclusions that can be drawn on the quality of democracy (Herzenberg, 2011). As the information displayed on Table 3 above indicates, scholars of voter turnout have adopted different definitions of turnout and the bone of contention has been the choice of the denominator in measuring voter turnout (Ryan, 2006:8). About three studies of the 83 surveyed by Geys define turnout as the absolute number of votes cast. This measure simply refers to the number of people who cast their votes and is silent on any comparative measures thus making it less useful for scholars of turnout.
27
About 36 studies from the 83 studies examined, which is also the highest frequency, define voter turnout as the percentage of the voting age population. It divides the number of people who turned out to vote by the number of people in the country who are above the legal age of voting. For example it would be the number over the age of 18 in South Africa. Most studies (Squire et al, 1987; Nagel and McNulty, 1996; Powell, 1986; Jackman, 1987; Blais and Dobryznska, 1998) have used this measure. The argument here is that voter turnout and registration to vote are the same and therefore it would not be worthwhile measuring voter turnout against the number of registered voters (Powell, 1986; Squire et al 1987). The method has been praised as it takes into account those of a voting age who are eligible to vote but did not register to vote or simply failed to turnout. Scholars, however have expressed reservations on the accuracy of the method (Ryan, 2006; Kersting, 2009). Concerns have been raised about the VAP not being an accurate measure because it includes people of voting age who are not necessarily citizens of the particular country and therefore not eligible to vote (Ryan, 2006; McDonald and Popkin 2001).
Furthermore, 13 studies define voter turnout as a ratio of the voting eligible population (VEP) a method devised by McDonald and Popkin (2001). They argue that low voter turnout records in American elections are simply an artifact of the VAP and not an actual reality (Ibid, 2001:963). This method eliminates the influence of non-eligible citizens of voting age by estimating the percentage of the immigrants and subtracting it from the voting age population. However, lack of reliable data on the number of immigrants in many countries has seen this method being shunned by scholars in comparative studies of voter turnout (Geys, 2006). Another 23 studies defined voter turnout as the percentage of the registered voters (Chinsinga, 2006; Fauvelle-Aymar, 2008; Barwig, 2009; Bourbeau and Scruggs, 2007). However, this method has come under heavy criticism for inflating turnout as it eliminates the large number of eligible citizens who did not register to vote (Herzenberg, 2011). Quite tellingly, a total of 10 studies do not give a clear reference on how they define voter turnout.
The statistics shown on Table 3 indicate the extent to which the appropriate definition and measurement of voter turnout is a contested issue in electoral research. The most common definitions of voter turnout used in the literature are the ratio of the voting age population and the ratio of the registered voters. Indeed most studies use a combination of these two methods of operationalising voter turnout for conducting comparative studies on cross-national basis.
In most instances the method of operationalization adopted by scholars is guided by the
28
availability of data in the context in question. For example the voting eligible population has much to recommend it as a method of calculating voter turnout but the non-availability of data concerning the number of non-eligible citizens makes it unreliable to use.