Talk:Voter turnout

message: i have heard several arguments stating that the low voter turn out is due to:
1. democracy not being a "good" form of government for several different reasons
2. democracy not being useful form of government in large populations (see the game theory formula)...i think the metaphor was "a drop of water (a vote) will cause ripples in a puddle but not in an ocean"
3. the "communist" argument...which i think refers mainly to how the poor vote less and how in the us the fact that one does not get the day off to vote results in those who can afford not working for a day (usually middle and upper class) vote and those who can't don't.
4. the existentialist argument...people = apathetic and indifferent these days, tired, nauseated, etc.
i am not a proponent of these arguments but i have heard them in the past and found them interesting and personally wouldn't mind seeing these mentioned in the article...but i will leave that in the hands of you dedicated editors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.139.113 (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  points 1 and 2 sound fascist and generally ridiculous nowadays, point 4  is logical and discussed near the end of this article and 3 doesn't make sense since communism doesn't theoretically dissallow voting. --161.76.99.106 05:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The excuse I hear most often is the belief that an individual's vote doesn't count.  A solution to this is to convince others who share your interest to vote and therefore increase your effect on the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.78.130 (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, convince someone who doesn't share your belief, not to vote. :) Stevage 11:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That solution is sorely lacking. Arguably, convincing a majority to vote for your preferred government policy in a country with millions of voters is more difficult than convincing a single monarch. --Jayson Virissimo (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: democracy as a failed system

message: In Australia, voter registration and attendance at a polling booth have been mandatory since the 1920s. These rules are strictly enforced, and the country has one of the world's highest voter turnouts
:Well it is and it isn't. If a person hasn't enroled there is no real way of making a person vote, and authorities are pretty lax in chasing people up to enrol. If you are enroled and don;t show up, btw, you get a letter asking you to explain your absence. A sick certificate or simply an basic explanation (ill relative etc) usually suffices, and that is the end of the matter. If you write you couldn't be bothered, then a small fine is sent your way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is compulsory to attend a polling booth, and be seen to put a paper in the box. it is not compulsory to submit a well formed ballot. It is illegal to propagate the meme that it is legal to attend, but submit an invalid vote. This is of course ludicrous, but nonetheless, it is NOT actually compulsory to 'vote' per se, as much as to attend a place of voting. There is a meaningful way to 'not vote' if you wish to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.12.29.224 (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine this is understood implicitly (you can't really simultaneously have privacy/anonymity of votes and be able to trace back bad votes), although it might be adding explicitly in the article if it isn't already. I guess at some point in the future (maybe even some existing systems) could make it impossible to do this (by computerisation/automisation of the voting process, only allowing a correct vote). Sfnhltb 06:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't think it was compulsory to put the ballot paper in the box. Can't you in theory get your name ticked off and then throw your paper in the bin? Furthermore, if you don't vote and fail to come up with a valid 'excuse', the fine imposed is nominal, around $50 - and it hardly ever gets to this stage anyway. For these reasons, i disagree with the 'strictly enforced' language. Suicup 09:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what the law is. In practice, yes, you can probably throw the paper away. There's probably a chance that if you did that publicly enough, some electoral official would get in a huff about it. Stevage 11:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There have been some recent edits as to whether the % turnout listed should be the % of enrolled voters (95%) or the % of voting age population (81%). I would note that most of the table comes from the same source (Franklin 2001) which uses % of enrolled voters for all countries. If people believe % of VAP is a more appropriate measure they should find a reputable source (perhaps http://www.idea.int) to make a table of % VAP for all countries. It makes no sense to change Australia to % VAP and leave all other countries as turnout (which refers to % of enrolled voters).124.171.8.115 (talk) 04:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Compulsory voting in Australia

message: Voter turnout is highly subjective and votes can be determined by what is being voted on. The statistics for average votes in the U.S. is especially subjective because there are senatorial, representative, and presidential elections, each of which vary to each other by around 10% one way. Also, Demographics plays a greater role than is previously said in the article. Besides just age and socioeconomic class, there is gender and race. These reveal important aspects in voter turnout and I believe it should be added to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.32.55 (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment was made before Sinebot was fully up and running. Signed now. Ken Gallager (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turnout depends on may factors

message: I am new to editing, and I did something to change the notes from 40 to 20. The remaining 20 got stuck under Proportionality sub heading, please help.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.135.110.122 (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can go in and sign the comment, based on the page history. Ken Gallager (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help to correct the notes 

message: Further reading, the link is dead. Is this the same thing? Kernow (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Power Report 

message: Should be retitled, removed, or rewritten. Has confused class with genetics. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I retitled this to "Correlations" then reverted it. This is really a model not just of junk but of really pernicious bad science in service of an ideological position. Rather than cover it up I think it should remain for what shows. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hereditary Factors &sect; 

message: I'm not an academic but intuitively this statement doesnt' seem right. Certainly here in England, there is a clear correlation between turnout and how marginal the seat is, so it's counter-intuitive to say that PB is nearly zero. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "P is virtually zero" 

message: "Voter turnout is the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in an election. "
This first sentence is rather unsatisfactorily ambiguous.  The problem is with the term "eligble voters".  This could be interpreted as (a) the number of citizens excluding those disallowed from voting ( felons, minors etc )  or (b)  the number of potential voters who are actually enrolled or registered on some voter registration list ( a process which does not necessarily occur in all countries ).
There should be a less ambiguous way of expressing this.Eregli bob (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence rather ambiguous 

message: In the table in this section, what does ' № ' mean? 77.213.195.89 (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely wierd. Do not understand it. Should be removed?Zacce (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  International differences table 

message: There's a lot of uncited/missing info in this section. See below for some ideas.
According to a study by the Heritage Foundation, Americans report on average an additional 7.9 hours of leisure time per week since 1965.
Furthermore, according to a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, increases in wages and employment actually decrease voter turnout in gubernatorial elections and do not affect national races.
At the end of the paragraph I will add: 
Google studied the causes behind low voter turnout in the United States in a publication titled Understanding America's "Interested Bystander:" A Complicated Relationship with Civic Duty". Google argues that 48.9% of adult Americans can be classified as "interested bystanders", as they are politically informed but are reticent to involve themselves in the civic and political sphere. This category is not limited to any socioeconomic or demographic groups. Google theorizes that individuals in this category suffer from Voter apathy, as they are are interested in political life but believe that their individual effect would be negligible. These individuals often participate politically on the local level, but shy away from national elections.
Effect of timing on election results and voter turnout.
"The decline in voter turnout is almost wholly concentrated among working age voters.[citation needed]"
Follow up with: Voter turnout rates seem to correlate with wealth more than anything.
Murat39e (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding the reasons for decline section 

message: The first section mentions that Belgium has 'Obligatory Attendance' when voting, and doesn't specify the difference between this and compulsory voting, although clearly distancing the term from compulsory voting. However, there is no real indication of what the term entails, the wikipedia article on the subject is not written, and both sources are in Dutch. When trying to look up the term online, I can find very little, and nothing from credible sources. I believe that adding this term without explaining its difference from compulsory voting will confuse readers and add no real clarification.
Theodore Schultz Iversdale (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obligatory Voting 

message: "cast a ballot" is inaccurate. Turnout in particular races is dictated by the number of voters who cast a valid vote, not the number who cast a ballot, as blank ballots are not counted towards turnout. This definition is wrong, and needs to be remedied. SecretName101 (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening definition