As Americans, we champion ourselves as the pinnacle of democracy. Though the ride has been a bit rough at times, we consider ourselves successful. Yet through all of this, through all of what we tout as our success, we as a people have done very little to make it happen. Voter turnouts for elections throughout the decades has fluctuated since 1960 but overall remained around 50%. Even as the number of registered voters has increased, the percent remains the same (Federal Election Commission, Infoplease)
Many solutions have been offered to remedy this problem, but few do much. But what is the problem? Why won't we vote? Professor Aldrich of Duke University explains that it is the result of what is called the Collective Action problem. Simply put, the more people that participate, they less worth you find your vote having and the lesser benefit you feel you will receive from voting. Seems fair enough, right? But what if I told you that there was a country that completely ruined that notion. There is in fact such a country.
Sweden gained its democracy uneventfully compared to most democratic countries in the world. Notwithstanding this fact, though, Sweden stands out as an unusual case in politics. Not only does their constitution authorize a monarchy and their tax system pay everyone back the same amount (Politics of Sweden Wiki), but their voter turnout is amazing! Why is this significant? Because Sweden for 65 years (1932-2006) has had only one major party. Only within the past decade has another party come to challenge it. Within those 60 years, voter turnout was 80% or higher, 30% higher than Americans in the same period! But why would they bother voting? If you have only one real choice on a ballot, would not you feel your vote was basically pointless? By all means you should.
Here's the difference. Sweden has 18 minor parties. Which one do you hoist up to compete against the juggernaut? Even in the past 2010 elections, 5 minor parties received around 5% of the vote each. So, although the collective action problem still seems to be of no concern to the major problem, thus causing problems with Professor Aldrich's claims, many minor parties give much reason for voter participation, thus bolstering voter turnout.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this immediately. Are you saying that because there are so many minor parties people are more apt to vote because they know that minor party needs all the support it can get?
ReplyDeleteIf so, has there been a recent decline in voter participation that corresponds with the rise of a serious challenging party?
I'm sorry for the confusion, but that is in fact that point. The answer to your question(s) is there is none. Sweden seems to be an anomaly. There should be greater ups and downs with minor parties. The fact that there has been no serious decline in voter participation prior and during the formation of a major challenging party begs the question, what possible motivation do the Swedish people have to vote?
ReplyDeleteI must disagree with the premise that people don't vote because they feel their vote doesn't matter. Within my limited experience with fellow U.S. voters, I have found that people don't vote because they simply don't care! They don't care about politics. There are a variety of reasons for this, ranging from sheer laziness to a natural aversion to the conflictual nature of political dialogue. In essence, I feel that the lower voter turnouts in recent years are a result of a cultural phenomenon, most probably related to the growing dissatisfaction of politics in general by the common American citizen.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that it is fair to categorize Sweden as truly democratic. You compare them to the U.S., however if they have yet to see party transition within the government, then I will remain skeptical on how democratic they are. So, comparing our voter turn out to theirs is comparing apples and oranges.
ReplyDeleteThe comment that people don't vote because they believe their vote doesn't matter carries a lot of merit, more so in some places than others. Take Utah for example. Utah votes Republican, almost all the time, for everything. What good does one more drop in the sea of Republican votes do? Growing up in California, I often wondered if my personal Republican vote was worth much in such a strongly democratic region.
ReplyDeleteSweden may have a better turnout because they have more reason to care. They have many small parties to cater to many different values. If somebody created a party built around my values, you better believe I would be enthusiastic to vote for it. Even if I didn't win, I would be heard.
The United States with its two party system doesn't afford those specially tailored parties. If you vote Republican, some of your values will be covered, others will be ignored, and you'll have to support the values of others you don't necessarily agree with. Look at the current argument between Republican moderates and conservatives. One big party can't cover everyone's needs. Looking at it this way, its easy to understand how some might not be very enthusiastic about voting.
im not sure that creating minor parties would increase voting percentages in the United States, but it would be good if our voting percentages increased. it also possible that there are other reasons that Sweden has a higher voting percentage, perhaps its just more culturally important there to vote.
ReplyDelete