Explaining voter turnout in local elections: a global comparative perspective

ABSTRACT

The determinants of voter turnout in local elections are examined using global cross-national time-series comparative evidence from 97 countries. Despite the vast research agenda on turnout, only a few comparative tests at the local level are available. Filling this lacuna, the article explores how seven institutional features are related to local turnout. It analyses both the effects of rules applicable exclusively to local politics (size of municipalities, local authority power, directly elected mayors), and of institutions previously theorised to affect turnout in national elections. Compulsory voting and the concurrence with first-order elections not only powerfully shape turnout in local elections but also help close the turnout deficit relative to national elections. The autonomy of local elected authorities also drives turnout, but we lack evidence for the effects on turnout of electing mayors directly, weekend voting, concurrence with second-order elections and the size of municipalities.

KEYWORDS:

• Election turnout
• local politics
• decentralisation
• electoral systems
• voting behaviour

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors

Karel Kouba is an associate professor of Political Science at the University of Hradec Králové, Czech Republic. His research focuses on electoral behaviour, electoral institutions and democratization in Latin America and post-communist Europe.

Jakub Novák is a PhD student at the Department of Politics, University of Hradec Králové, Czech Republic. His research focuses on political institutions and human rights in West Africa.

Matyáš Strnad is a PhD student at the Department of Politics, University of Hradec Králové, Czech Republic. His research focuses on political participation and referenda in Latin America.

Notes

1 We also include Taiwan in our dataset.

2 Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Comoros, East Timor (Timor-Leste), Fiji, The Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Kiribati, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Federated States of Micronesia, Myanmar (Burma), Nauru, Niger, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Tanzania, Tuvalu, Vatican City.

3 Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Dominica, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, Montenegro, Nepal, Nigeria, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States.

4 For a more complex evaluation of different methods of operationalization of local autonomy, see Ladner et al. (2019).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Czech Science Foundation (Grantová agentura České republiky) [grant number 20-02098S ‘Political Competition and Local Democracy in Comparative Perspective’].