This thesis contains an introduction and four essays that together address the issues of turnout and habitual voting. Although voting is less unequal than other forms of political participation, it is still biased in favour of more socially affluent citizens. One way to achieve more equal participation is to increase the general turnout. This is the implication of the `law of dispersion', formulated by Tingsten in 1937, which states that as turnout increases, participatory equality also increases. In Essay I, co-written with Mikael Persson and Maria Solevid, we revisit Tingsten's law and find new empirical support for it. One possible path to improving general turnout is the formation of voting habits. It is argued by some scholars that voting is a habit formed early on in life, when young people encounter their first elections after coming of age. It is, however, still a matter of debate as to whether voting is an act of habit. Three of the four essays in this thesis tackle this question in various ways. In Essay II, I study voting among young people who encounter their first election in different social contexts depending on their age, and how these differing contexts affect their propensity to vote in their first and second election. In Essay III, I examine whether experiencing a European Parliament election with a low turnout as a first election affects the likelihood of casting a vote in a subsequent national parliamentary election. In Essay IV, co-written with Sven Oskarsson, we study student mock elections, which constitute the first, albeit hypothetical, election experience for many young people. The main result is that the first election a young person faces is not as important as has been claimed in previous research. Regardless of whether the initial experience takes place in a context that encourages turnout or the first election encountered is a low-stimulus election that fails to draw crowds to the polls, there is no substantial impact on turnout in subsequent elections. One implication of this finding is that lowering the voting age is not likely to increase voting rates, not even in the longer term. Den här avhandlingen innefattar ett introduktionskapitel och fyra artiklar som tillsammans behandlar valdeltagande och röstning som en vana. Även om röstning i allmänna val är den mest jämlika formen av politiskt deltagande finns ändå tydliga skillnader i deltagande mellan befolkningsgrupper med olika socioekonomisk bakgrund. Ett sätt att nå ett mer jämlikt deltagande är genom ett högre valdeltagande. Det är innebörden av det lagbundna samband som Tingsten fann år 1937 och som förutsäger att skillnaden i deltagande mellan olika grupper är mindre ju högre valdeltagandet är. I avhandlingens första artikel, samförfattad med Mikael Persson och Maria Solevid, undersöker vi om detta samband fortfarande har empiriskt stöd och finner att så är fallet. En tänkbar väg till ett högre valdeltagande går via ett främjande av vanemässig röstning. En del forskare hävdar nämligen att röstning är en vana och att den vanan formas redan i de första val där en ung person har möjlighet rösta. Huruvida röstning är en vana är dock omdebatterat. Tre av avhandlingens artiklar tar på olika sätt upp den frågan. I avhandlingens andra artikel studerar jag unga personer som beroende på när de är födda får rösta för första gången vid olika åldrar och därmed i skilda social kontexter. Frågan jag ställer är hur dessa skillnader påverkar deras benägenhet att rösta i det valet och i det därpå följande. Vissa unga personer får rösta för första gången efter att ha nått rösträttsåldern i ett Europaparlamentsval där valdeltagandet är lågt. I den tredje artikeln undersöker jag ifall den erfarenheten har någon inverkan på deltagandet i ett därpå följande riksdagsval. I den fjärde artikeln, samförfattad med Sven Oskarsson, studerar vi om de skolval som arrangeras i många skolor har någon inverkan på studenters senare deltagande i riktiga val. Avhandlingens huvudresultat är att deltagande i det första valet en ung person får rösta i saknar den betydelse för framtida valdeltagande som hävdats i tidigare forskning. Oavsett om det första valet äger rum i en kontext som främjar röstning eller om det är ett val som väcker lite intresse, får det ingen substantiell effekt på benägenheten att rösta i följande val. En implikation av detta resultat är att en sänkt rösträttsålder troligen inte skulle ge ett högre valdeltagande, inte ens på längre sikt.

The solution to youth voter turnout requires focus on helping young people follow through on their political interests and intentions.

This book explores the consequences of lowering the voting age to 16 from a global perspective, bringing together empirical research from countries where at least some 16-year-olds are able to vote. With the aim to show what really happens when younger people can take part in elections, the authors engage with the key debates on earlier enfranchisement and examine the lead-up to and impact of changes to the voting age in countries across the globe. The book provides the most comprehensive synthesis on this topic, including detailed case studies and broad comparative analyses. It summarizes what can be said about youth political participation and attitudes, and highlights where further research is needed. The findings will be of great interest to researchers working in youth political socialization and engagement, as well as to policymakers, youth workers and activists.

For decades, journalists have called the winners of U.S. presidential elections—often in error—well before the closing of the polls. In Votes That Count and Voters Who Don’t, Sharon E. Jarvis and Soo-Hye Han investigate what motivates journalists to call elections before the votes have been tallied and, more importantly, what this and similar practices signal to the electorate about the value of voter participation. Jarvis and Han track how journalists have told the story of electoral participation during the last eighteen presidential elections, revealing how the portrayal of voters in the popular press has evolved over the last half century from that of mobilized partisan actors vital to electoral outcomes to that of pawns of political elites and captives of a flawed electoral system. The authors engage with experiments and focus groups to reveal the effects that these portrayals have on voters and share their findings in interviews with prominent journalists. Votes That Count and Voters Who Don’t not only explores the failings of the media but also shows how the story of electoral participation might be told in ways that support both democratic and journalistic values. At a time when professional strategists are pressuring journalists to provide favorable coverage for their causes and candidates, this book invites academics, organizations, the press, and citizens alike to advocate for the voter’s place in the news.

From the award-winning author of Out of Order—named the best political science book of the last decade by the American Political Science Association—comes this landmark book about why Americans don’t vote. Based on more than 80,000 interviews, The Vanishing Voter investigates why—despite a better educated citizenry, the end of racial barriers to voting, and simplified voter registration procedures—the percentage of voters has steadily decreased to the point that the United States now has nearly the lowest voting rate in the world. Patterson cites the blurring of differences between the political parties, the news media’s negative bias, and flaws in the election system to explain this disturbing trend while suggesting specific reforms intended to bring Americans back to the polls. Astute, far-reaching, and impeccably researched, The Vanishing Voter engages the very meaning of our relationship to our government.

This book focuses on the root causes of the generation gap in voter turnout—changes in media consumption habits over time. It lays out an argument as to why young people have been tuning out politics in recent years, both in the United States and in other established democracies.

An in-depth look into the psychology of voters around the world, how voters shape elections, and how elections transform citizens and affect their lives Could understanding whether elections make people happy and bring them closure matter more than who they vote for? What if people did not vote for what they want but for what they believe is right based on roles they implicitly assume? Do elections make people cry? This book invites readers on a unique journey inside the mind of a voter using unprecedented data from the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, South Africa, and Georgia throughout a period when the world evolved from the centrist dominance of Obama and Mandela to the shock victories of Brexit and Trump. Michael Bruter and Sarah Harrison explore three interrelated aspects of the heart and mind of voters: the psychological bases of their behavior, how they experience elections and the emotions this entails, and how and when elections bring democratic resolution. The authors examine unique concepts including electoral identity, atmosphere, ergonomics, and hostility. From filming the shadow of voters in the polling booth, to panel study surveys, election diaries, and interviews, Bruter and Harrison unveil insights into the conscious and subconscious sides of citizens’ psychology throughout a unique decade for electoral democracy. They highlight how citizens’ personality, memory, and identity affect their vote and experience of elections, when elections generate hope or hopelessness, and how subtle differences in electoral arrangements interact with voters’ psychology to trigger different emotions. Inside the Mind of a Voter radically shifts electoral science, moving away from implicitly institution-centric visions of behavior to understand elections from the point of view of voters.

The importance of the youth vote to any democracy is central to this cross-cultural analysis of the unique role of elections—and the dangers of abstention—in a democratic society. Comparative data from the parliamentary elections of 15 European democracies illustrate the scope of the problem of low youth turnout, and analyses of the reasons for such negligible participation are presented. Specially commissioned interviews conducted in several countries worldwide bring the opinions and views of young people themselves into the study. Additionally, descriptions of specific programmes for increasing youth participation enacted in Chile, Russia, South Africa, and the United States and included, as are proposals for a variety of activities that governmental and nongovernmental organizations can use to draw young citizens into the electoral arena.

Who Votes Now? compares the demographic characteristics and political views of voters and nonvoters in American presidential elections since 1972 and examines how electoral reforms and the choices offered by candidates influence voter turnout. Drawing on a wealth of data from the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey and the American National Election Studies, Jan Leighley and Jonathan Nagler demonstrate that the rich have consistently voted more than the poor for the past four decades, and that voters are substantially more conservative in their economic views than nonvoters. They find that women are now more likely to vote than men, that the gap in voting rates between blacks and whites has largely disappeared, and that older Americans continue to vote more than younger Americans. Leighley and Nagler also show how electoral reforms such as Election Day voter registration and absentee voting have boosted voter turnout, and how turnout would also rise if parties offered more distinct choices. Providing the most systematic analysis available of modern voter turnout, Who Votes Now? reveals that persistent class bias in turnout has enduring political consequences, and that it really does matter who votes and who doesn't.

Voting is a habit. People learn the habit of voting, or not, based on experience in their first few elections. Elections that do not stimulate high turnout among young adults leave a 'footprint' of low turnout in the age structure of the electorate as many individuals who were new at those elections fail to vote at subsequent elections. Elections that stimulate high turnout leave a high turnout footprint. So a country's turnout history provides a baseline for current turnout that is largely set, except for young adults. This baseline shifts as older generations leave the electorate and as changes in political and institutional circumstances affect the turnout of new generations. Among the changes that have affected turnout in recent years, the lowering of the voting age in most established democracies has been particularly important in creating a low turnout footprint that has grown with each election.