Despite improvements in communications and transportation, and nearly 100% literacy, turnout in elections, as measured by the percent of eligible voters that does in fact vote, has decline in the last 100 years. This generalization applies to both elections in "presidential" years (the president is being elected such as 1996) and "off-year" or congressional years such as 1994.

The accompanying figure shows the trends. It also suggests some points worth thinking about.

What explains the decline and persistently low level of voting in the United States. Many social scientists, journalists, and others cite individual characteristics like socio-economic standing. People at the bottom of the social ladder--those with less than a high school education or workers in service industries--less likely to vote than college graduates and professionals. Alternatively voting seems to be strongly associated with psychological factors like interest in and knowledge about politics. Hence, in view of freedom of speech and universal suffrage (practically all adults have the right to vote), it's easy to conclude that failure to take advantage of this freedom represents a personal rejection of an important civic duty. In this sense, non-voters have only themselves to blame. Or at least their lack of participation stems from individual causes because the electoral "system" is open to all who want to be part of it.

Yet this conclusion troubles other analysts who believe that structural or institutional factors affect turnout. The causes they cite include, among others,

• Election and registration laws:
• In the past people wanting to vote had to register. (Registration means a person has to demonstrate to public officials that he or she is a citizen, a resident of a community, a loyal citizen, and the so forth. The burden of proof falls on the individual, not the government.) In some states registering was relatively easy; in others it required considerable time and effort. Political Scientists have noted that places with the simplest registration laws tended to have the highest turnout than those where registration called for a lot of time and energy on the part of the prospective voter.
• A recently passed motor voter law supposedly makes it much easier to registered since a person can now pick up the necessary forms motor vehicle departments when applying for a driver's license or automobile tags. Similarly, registration materials are distributed in other public places such as welfare offices. It remains to be seen if and to what extent this reform increases participation.
• The country traditionally conducts national elections on the first Tuesday in November, an ordinary working day for most citizens. Moreover, the polls (i.e., voting places) usually close by 8:00 p.m. Therefore, lots of people must take time off from work, child care, or other responsibilities in order to vote. Reformers suggest holding elections on weekends, over a period of time, or by establishing a national holiday. The state of Washington, for example, experimented with a reform of this kind in 1996 when it conducted a mail-in election for a special senate election. Once again, whether or not such provisions spread to other states and increase participation remains to be seen.
• The failure of the media
• Many social critics feel that the mass media (newspapers, network and local television news programs, popular magazines) provide such bland and superficial coverage of elections that people simply can't obtain necessary information at an acceptable cost to feel comfortable voting.
• Many historians have argued that the media's failure to inform the public adequately contrasts sharply with the stimulus provided by the earlier partisan press. Around the beginning of the 20th century, many newspapers were openly and unabashedly partisan. Although their news was by definition slanted, they at least encourage their readers to believe that politics was the "moral equivalent of war" and that voting for one party and against another was an important civic duty. Today, the press prides itself on being "objective," on not taking sides (except perhaps on the editorial page). Maybe it is neutral. But one of the unintended costs has been the loss of a stimulus to participate.
• Even if one doesn't accept the value of partisanship in journalism, it remains true that newspapers and television newscasts stress the "horse race" aspects of elections rather than substantive differences between candidates. By stressing who is ahead, who is behind the media leave the electorate confused and apathetic.
• Modern electioneering
• Listen to what candidates say about themselves and their opponents. Much political rhetoric involves platitudes, slogans, imagery, name calling, generalization, oversimplification, and especially avoidance of clear and concrete stands on issues. Candidates, under the guidance of public relations experts, communications gurus, pollsters, "spin doctors," and other advisors, follow strategies of ambiguity that require them to attempt to be all things to all people. How can a candidate accomplish that goal? By not taking clear and specific stands on substantive issues and clarifying differences with the opposition.
• The result, many observers feel, is that the public simply can't find out enough about contestants for public office to make reasoned judgments. Hence, the more candidates attempt to play it safe by staying in the middle of the road (or better yet staying off the road altogether), the more the public looses interest and doesn't bother to vote.
• Political Party Weaknesses
• Never tightly organized, cohesive organizations to begin with, American political parties have undergone a further deterioration during the last 30 years. True, they now raise millions of dollars in campaign funds, produce slick television commercials, provide research, and conduct public opinion polls. But they have enormous difficulty doing what parties traditionally are supposed to do: educate, energize, and especially mobilize the electorate. Worse, they (especially the Democrat party) generally do not articulate coherent policy platforms that they push year in and year out. In fact, for a number of reasons many voters have become so dissatisfied with parties that they feel relatively little attachment to them. Over the last couple of decades the Democratic party has lost some support; but the Republicans have not been the winners. Now "independents," or people without strong party attachments, outnumber partisans in many parts of the country. Since partisans, those who feel close to a party, frequently participate more than independents, participation has slipped even more.

All of these factors suggest that non-voting on one level may be a personal decision. But it's a decision that current structures and practices encourage citizens to make.

Go to election page

Go to Political Science 105 page

Go to H. T. Reynolds page