Abstract
Turning out to vote is the most common and important act of political participation in any democracy. Voting is also less well understood and explained empirically than other political acts engaged in regularly by citizens. Turnout, however, presents a special problem for rational choice theories of politics, for it is taken to be the paradigmatic example of the problem of collective action, in which, although all may benefit from voting, it is rarely in the individual's self-interest to vote. This paper begins by examining the problem of explaining turnout. A basic form of rational choice models of turnout is developed--basic in the sense that it is common to all such models. This basic model is shown to be incomplete, and the two most important models, the calculus of voting and the minimax regret model, are illustrated as alternative ways to complete this basic model, along with mention of game-theoretic models. Their strengths and weaknesses are then assessed. The remainder of the paper argues that rational choice accounts of turnout are possible. The first step is to argue that turnout is not an especially problematic version of the collective action problem because it is, for many, a low cost, low [expected] benefit decision. A "strategic politicians" account of turnout and campaigns is examined next. A reinterpretation of the intrinsic benefits of voting is then considered and is used to examine the most important substantive problem in the turnout literature, its decline. These steps, I argue, make theories of ordinary political decisions at once both more political and more integrated into the politics of the larger system.
Journal Information
The American Journal of Political Science [AJPS], published four times each year, is one of the most widely-read political science journals in the United States. AJPS is a general journal of political science open to all members of the profession and to all areas of the discipline of political science. JSTOR provides a digital archive of the print version of American Journal of Political Science. The electronic version of American Journal of Political Science is available at //www.blackwell-synergy.com/servlet/useragent?func=showIssues&code;=ajps. Authorized users may be able to access the full text articles at this site.
Publisher Information
The Midwest Political Science Association, founded in 1939, is a national organization of more than 2,800 political science professors, researchers, students, and public administrators from throughout the United States and over 50 foreign countries. The association is dedicated to the advancement of scholarly communication in all areas of political science. Each year the association sponsors a three-day conference of political scientists in Chicago for the purpose of presenting and discussing the latest research in political science. More than 2,000 individuals participate in this conference, which features 300 panels and programs on politics. The MPSA is headquartered at Indiana University. For further information, contact William D. Morgan, Executive Director, email: .
Rights & Usage
This item is part of a JSTOR Collection.
For terms and use, please refer to our Terms and Conditions
American Journal of Political Science © 1993 Midwest Political Science Association
Request Permissions
A recent Pew Research Center report finds several indications of public concern over campaign spending. There is widespread – and bipartisan – agreement that people who make large political donations should not have more political influence than others, but Americans largely don’t see that as a description of the country today.
And there is extensive support for reining in campaign spending: 77% of the public says “there should be limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations” can spend on political campaigns; just 20% say they should be able to spend as much as they want.
Democrats are more likely to support limits on campaign spending than are Republicans, and there is a similar gap in views on whether effective laws could be written. Still, 71% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say there should be limits on campaign spending and 54% say new laws that would be effective in limiting the influence of money in politics could be written. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, even larger majorities favor spending limits [85%] and think new laws would be effective [77%].
Nearly three-quarters of the public [74%] says it is very important that major political donors not have more influence than others, while an additional 16% view this as somewhat important.
However, only a relatively small share of the public feels this is actually the case today. About a quarter [26%] feel that the statement “people who give a lot of money to elected officials do not have more influence than others” describes the country very or somewhat well; roughly seven-in-ten [72%] say this does not describe the country well, with 43% saying it describes it “not at all well.”
Those who have contributed to candidates or campaigns themselves in recent years – the vast majority of whom make donations of less than $250 – are particularly likely to reject the characterization of the country as a place where people who give a lot of money to elected officials do not have more influence than others: 50% say this does not describe the country at all well, compared with 41% of those who have not given a political contribution in the past five years.
Contributors more likely to see elected officials as responsive
Overall, 37% of Americans say that they feel it is at least somewhat likely their representative would help them with a problem if they contacted her or him. However, about half [53%] of those who have given money to a political candidate or group in the last year believe their representative would help. Belief that one’s member of Congress will help them with a problem is highest [63%] among the subset of donors who have given more than $250 to a candidate or campaign in the past year.
A similar pattern is seen on the question of whether or not people feel ordinary citizens can make a difference. Among those who did not make a political contribution in the past year, about half say there is a lot ordinary citizens can do to influence the government in Washington. By comparison, 66% of donors, including 74% of those who gave more than $250, say there is a lot ordinary citizens can do to make a difference.
Bradley Jones is a former senior researcher focusing on politics at Pew Research Center.