Political Behavior

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 65–86 | Cite as

The political consequences of alienation-based and indifference-based voter abstention: Applications to Presidential Elections



We present a unified model of turnout and vote choice that incorporates two distinct motivations for citizens to abstain from voting: alienation from the candidates, and indifference between the candidates. Empirically, we find that alienation and indifference each motivated significant amounts of voter abstention in the 1980–1988 U.S. presidential elections. Using model-based computer simulations—which permit us to manipulate factors affecting turnout—we show that distinguishing between alienation and indifference illuminates three controversies in elections research. First, we find that abstention because of either alienation or indifference benefited Republican candidates, but only very modestly. Second, presidential elections involving attractive candidates motivate higher turnout, but only to the extent that abstention stems from alienation rather than from indifference. Third, paradoxically, citizens’ individual-level tendencies to abstain because of alienation are strongly affected by their evaluations of the candidates’ policies, whereas aggregate turnout rates do not depend significantly on the candidates’ policy platforms.


voter turnout abstention unified model conditional logit 


  1. Adams James, and Merrill Samuel III (2003). “Voter turnout and candidate strategies in American elections”. Journal of Politics 65:161–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, James, Samuel Merrill, III, and Bernard Grofman. (2005). A Unified Theory of Party Competition: A Cross-National Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvarez R. Michael and Jonathan Nagler (1995). “Economics, Issues, and the Perot Candidacy: Voter Choice in the 1992 Presidential Election”. American Journal of Political Science 39:714–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alvarez R. Michael and Jonathan Nagler (1998). “Economics, Entitlements, and Social Issues: Voter Choice in the 1996 Election”. American Journal of Political Science 42:1349–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ansolabehere Steve and James Snyder (2000). “Valence Politics and Equilibrium in Spatial Elections Models”. Public Choice 103:327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brody R.A. and Benjamin Page (1973). “Indifference, alienation, and rational decisions: the effects of candidate evaluation on turnout and the vote”. Public Choice 15:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burden Barry, and Dean Lacy (1999). “The Vote-Stealing and Turnout Effects of Third-Party Candidates in U.S. Presidential Elections, 1968–1996”. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GAGoogle Scholar
  8. Burden Barry (2000). “Voter turnout and the national election studies”. Political Analysis 8:389–398Google Scholar
  9. Citrin Jack, Eric Schickler and John Sides (2003). “What if everyone voted: simulating the impact of increased turnout in senate elections”. American Journal of Political Science 47:75–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Downs Anthony (1957). An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, HarperGoogle Scholar
  11. Endersby James, Steven Galatas and Chapman Rackaway (2002). “Closeness counts in Canada: voter participation in the 1993 and 1997 federal elections”. Journal of Politics 64:610–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Enelow James and Melvin Hinich (1984). The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Erikson Robert and David Romero (1990). “Candidate equilibrium and the behavioral model of the vote”. American Political Science Review 84:1103–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fiorina Morris (1981). Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Grofman Bernard, Guillermo Owen and Christian Collet (1999). “Rethinking the Partisan effects of higher turnout: so what’s the question?”. Public Choice 99:357–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Highton Benjamin and Raymond Wolfinger (2001). “The political implications of higher turnout”. British Journal of Political Science 31 (January): 179–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hinich Melvin and Peter Ordeshook (1970). “Plurality maximization vs. vote maximization: a spatial analysis with variable participation”. American Political Science Review 64:772–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hinich Melvin J. (1978). “Some evidence on non-voting models in the spatial theory of electoral competition”. Public Choice 33:83–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lacy Dean and Barry Burden (1999). “The vote-stealing and turnout effects of Ross Perot in the 1992 U.S. Presidential Election”. American Journal of Political Science 43:233–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martinez Michael and Jeff Gill (2005). “The effects of turnout on Partisan outcomes in U.S. Presidential Elections 1960–2005. Journal of Politics 67(4): 1248–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Munger Michael C. and Gary Cox (1989). “Closeness, expenditure, turnout: the 1982 U.S. House Elections". American Political Science Review 83 (March):217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Petrocik John (1987). “Voter turnout and electoral preference: the anomalous Reagan elections”. In: Kay Lehman Scholzman (eds), Elections in America. Boston, Allen and Unwi, IncGoogle Scholar
  23. Piven Frances and Richard Cloward (1988). Why Americans Don’t Vote. New York, PantheonGoogle Scholar
  24. Plane Dennis L. and Joseph Gershtenson (2004). “Candidates’ ideological locations, abstention, and turnout in midterm senate elections”. Political Behavior 26:69–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Riker William and Peter Ordeshook (1968). “A theory of the calculus of voting.” American Political Science Review 62:25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sanders Mitchell (1998). “Unified models of turnout and vote choice for two-candidate and three-candidate elections”. Political Analysis 7:89–116Google Scholar
  27. Sanders Mitchell (2001). “Uncertainty and turnout”. Political Analysis 9:45–57Google Scholar
  28. Schattschneider E.E. (1960). The Semi-Sovereign People. New York, Holt, Rinehart and WinstonGoogle Scholar
  29. Stokes Donald (1963). “Spatial models of party competition”. American Political Science Review 57:368–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Teixeira Ruy (1992). The Disappearing American Voter. Washington, D.C., The Brookings InstitutionGoogle Scholar
  31. Tucker Harvey J. and Arnold Vedlitz (1986). “Does heavy turnout help Democrats in Presidential Elections?”. American Political Science Review 80: 1291–1298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Weisberg Herbert and Bernard Grofman (1981). “Candidate evaluations and turnout”. American Political Quarterly 9:197–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wolfinger Raymond E . and Steven J. Rosenstone (1980). Who Votes?. New Haven, Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
  34. Zipp John F. (1985). “Perceived representativeness and voting: as assessment of the impact of ‘choices’ vs. ‘echoes”’. American Political Science Review 79:50–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Mathematics and Computer ScienceWilkes UniversityWilkes-BarreUSA

Personalised recommendations