Elsevier

Electoral Studies

Volume 22, Issue 3, September 2003, Pages 449-468
Electoral Studies

Why bother? Determinants of turnout in the European elections

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-3794(01)00054-3Get rights and content

Abstract

This article analyses turnout in the European Parliamentary elections. Turnout is affected partly by the same factors that affect turnout in normal national elections and partly by factors related to the EU. The results show that most of the cross-country variation in turnout can be explained by the same variables as in national elections. Compulsory voting, weekend voting and having other elections simultaneously with EP elections increase turnout. Also some EU specific factors affect turnout, but their effect is smaller. Voters in countries benefiting from the EU subsidies vote more actively than voters in the countries that pay these subsidies. Furthermore, turnout is higher in countries with strong support for the EU membership. Holding elections during weekends and having multiple constituencies in all countries could increase the turnout by approximately 10 percentage points.

Section snippets

Previous research on EP elections turnout

Basically, there are two ways to analyse voter turnout. On the theoretical level one can use system (i.e. country or constituency) or individual (micro) level explanations. The same distinction is reflected in the choice of empirical data. Again, one can use data from the individual level (surveys) or aggregated system level data (e.g. constituency or country level turnout rates). Furthermore, when the analysis concentrates on explaining turnout in the EP elections in particular, some of the

Potential determinants of turnout

The starting point of this analysis is that voters are rational actors and that they weigh the possible benefits and costs of voting and then make their decisions accordingly. However, I do not take a strict rational choice view with regard to voting decisions, which would lead to the infamous Downsian paradox of voting. I accept that there are normative and/or psychological benefits that some voters get from the act of voting itself. Nevertheless, I believe that costs and benefits do matter.

Method and data

In the empirical section regression analysis is used to estimate the significance and weight of various factors that explain the turnout rates. For this purpose the dependent variable has to be defined and measured. The most obvious way is just to use the actual turnout rates in the EU member countries as such as the dependent variable.

Empirical results

The results of the regression analyses are presented in Table 2, Table 3, Table 4. Altogether 18 different regression models were estimated. In Table 2 the dependent variable is the actual turnout figure (model 1), in Table 3 the dependent variable is the difference between turnout rates in the EP elections (model 2) and the previous national parliamentary elections and in Table 4 the turnout in national elections is used as one of the independent variables (model 3).

Each table includes six

Magnitude of changes in turnout rates

Next the results from the regression analyses are used to estimate how turnout rates would be affected by some rather simple changes to the electoral systems in the EU member countries. I calculate the 1999 EP election turnout rates assuming that the elections were held during weekend and countries were divided into multiple constituencies in all EU member countries. These two factors were selected because they involve changes that are reasonably easy to implement if the sufficient political

Conclusions

For a large part, turnout in the European Parliament elections is affected by the same factors as turnout in normal national parliamentary elections (such as compulsory or Sunday voting). However, because the threshold for non-voting is much lower in the EP elections these factors produce much bigger differences in turnout rates between the EU member countries. This may be one explanation for the observed large differences in cross-country turnout rates.

Some EU- or EP-specific factors also

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Tapio Raunio and anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. The data used in this analysis is available at http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/staff/mmattila/ep/.

References (25)

  • C van der Eijk et al.

    What voters teach us about Europe-wide elections: what Europe-wide elections teach us about voters

    Electoral Studies

    (1996)
  • J.H Aldrich

    Rational choice and turnout

    American Journal of Political Science

    (1993)
  • N Beck

    Time-series–cross-section data: what have we learned in the past few years

    Annual Review of Political Science

    (2001)
  • I Begg et al.

    Paying for Europe

    (1998)
  • A Blais et al.

    Turnout in electoral democracies

    European Journal of Political Research

    (1998)
  • J Blondel et al.

    Representation and voter participation

    European Journal of Political Research

    (1997)
  • J Blondel et al.

    People and Parliament in the European Union. Participation, Democracy, and Legitimacy

    (1998)
  • European Commission, 1999. Eurobarometer 51. Public Opinion in the European Union. Brussels, July...
  • European Commission, 2000. Eurobarometer 52. Public Opinion in the European Union. Brussels, July...
  • M Franklin

    How Structural Factors Cause Turnout Variations at European Parliament Elections

    European Union Politics

    (2001)
  • M Franklin

    European elections and the European voter

  • M Franklin et al.

    The institutional context: turnout

    • Cited by (109)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text
    Copyright © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.