Why?

[Knives]

Do so few people vote?

IMHO, voting should be compulsory.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Because they don't like the candidates, or don't want to bother.  Too busy could be another one.   

[5280]

Because they don't like the candidates, or don't want to bother.  Too busy could be another one.   

[Joe Republic]

Most people simply don't care.  It's hard for us here in our election-obsessed bubble to understand, but normal everyday Anericans would rather talk about celebrities, sports or everyday drama in their individual lives.  Politics is boring and hard to understand.

[Napoleon]

Great thread title!

[Zanas]

Most people simply don't care.  It's hard for us here in our election-obsessed bubble to understand, but normal everyday Anericans would rather talk about celebrities, sports or everyday drama in their individual lives.  Politicians is are boring and hard to understand on purpose so that the people won't take its fate into its hands.

Fixed.

[opebo]

Capitalism excludes them from power.

[milhouse24]

People are only interested and attracted to good-looking and handsome candidates.  Much of Obama's appeals is that he is young, handsome, media-friendly, hollywood-friendly, looks good shirtless at the beach, and voters under 30, particularly women under 30 are motivated to vote because of a candidate's looks.  If politicians looked like Hollywood actors, then turnout would skyrocket.

[Antonio the Sixth]

All this doesn't explain why turnout in the US is much lower than in nearly all modern democracies. I guess a great part of this is due to the rigidity of the party system and the general deadlock that prevails in all institutions.

[Mr. Morden]

All this doesn't explain why turnout in the US is much lower than in nearly all modern democracies. I guess a great part of this is due to the rigidity of the party system and the general deadlock that prevails in all institutions.

What is voter turnout like in the UK and Canada?

[Antonio the Sixth]

All this doesn't explain why turnout in the US is much lower than in nearly all modern democracies. I guess a great part of this is due to the rigidity of the party system and the general deadlock that prevails in all institutions.

What is voter turnout like in the UK and Canada?

65.1% in UK in 2010, 61.1% in Canada in 2011. And these are countries where turnout is already pretty low compared to places like continental Europe.

[Mr. Morden]

All this doesn't explain why turnout in the US is much lower than in nearly all modern democracies. I guess a great part of this is due to the rigidity of the party system and the general deadlock that prevails in all institutions.

What is voter turnout like in the UK and Canada?

65.1% in UK in 2010, 61.1% in Canada in 2011. And these are countries where turnout is already pretty low compared to places like continental Europe.

According to this, the turnout in the 2008 US presidential election was ~62-63% of eligible voters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_US_Presidential_Election#Turnout

2004 was a bit less, but not by much.  (Granted the preceding few presidential elections were much lower.)  So not that different from the UK and Canada.  Of course, this assumes that we're talking about turnout as a %age of eligible voters in all cases, rather than VAP, or some other metric.

[Antonio the Sixth]

2004 was already considered a case of exceptional turnout, and 2008 was even more unique. In the preceding decades, turnout had always been hovering around 45% and 55%, and might be back to these levels this year. And that, of course, is for presidential years.

Plus, as I said, Canada and UK are still the low end of the spectrum for developed countries.

[Mr. Morden]

Hovering around 45 and 55%?  Has the US ever had a presidential election with turnout as a fraction of eligible voters below 50%?  Wasn't even 1996 above 50%?

In any case, I assume that part of the reason for the US, UK, and Canada being low is because of the electoral system, and the fact that both 1) votes in noncompetitive states or districts are "wasted", and 2) FPTP means that voting for longshot parties is pointless, other than for symbolic reasons.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What exactly is meant by 'eligible voters?'

[Mr. Morden]

What exactly is meant by 'eligible voters?'

Citizens of the country in question who are 18 or older.  Though I take your point that the definition runs into difficulty if you take into account people whose eligibility has been rescinded because of a criminal conviction.

[minionofmidas]

Turnout has been dropping like a stone in most European countries recently.

Could it be that nobody wants to vote for politicians who can't change anything because they've deliberately locked themselves into Friedman's Fecal Straitjacket?

[Magic 8-Ball]

Hovering around 45 and 55%?  Has the US ever had a presidential election with turnout as a fraction of eligible voters below 50%?  Wasn't even 1996 above 50%?

In any case, I assume that part of the reason for the US, UK, and Canada being low is because of the electoral system, and the fact that both 1) votes in noncompetitive states or districts are "wasted", and 2) FPTP means that voting for longshot parties is pointless, other than for symbolic reasons.

According to this website, it's happened thrice - 1920, 1924, and 1996.

[Mr. Morden]

Hovering around 45 and 55%?  Has the US ever had a presidential election with turnout as a fraction of eligible voters below 50%?  Wasn't even 1996 above 50%?

In any case, I assume that part of the reason for the US, UK, and Canada being low is because of the electoral system, and the fact that both 1) votes in noncompetitive states or districts are "wasted", and 2) FPTP means that voting for longshot parties is pointless, other than for symbolic reasons.

According to this website, it's happened thrice - 1920, 1924, and 1996.

But isn't that measuring turnout as a %age of voting age population?  So, it includes non-citizens in the turnout calculation, which skews the answer downwards.  Is that the same definition of turnout being used when we compare to the turnout of other countries?

[Magic 8-Ball]

Yeah, that completely slipped my mind.  Let's blame it on a lack of sleep.   Either way, Mea culpa.

I can't find a nice chart with a turnout-to-eligible-voter comparison; the best I could find is this Washington Post article from 2006 that says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And a graph (green is %eligible voters):

[Antonio the Sixth]

Hovering around 45 and 55%?  Has the US ever had a presidential election with turnout as a fraction of eligible voters below 50%?  Wasn't even 1996 above 50%?

In any case, I assume that part of the reason for the US, UK, and Canada being low is because of the electoral system, and the fact that both 1) votes in noncompetitive states or districts are "wasted", and 2) FPTP means that voting for longshot parties is pointless, other than for symbolic reasons.

I have indicated the rigidity of the two-party system (and thus voting system, which is intrinsically related to it) as a cause for the low turnout in the US. In the UK and Canada, where the choice is slightly broader, turnout is slightly higher. In countries that have PR like Germany or Italy, it's usually at 70-80%.

[emailking]

Do so few people vote?

IMHO, voting should be compulsory.

When you say it should be compulsory, would it be acceptable to cast a blank ballot? If "election day" were extended to last a week, I could support a proposal like that...i.e. force you to show up in the voting booth.

But I don't think anybody should be compelled to vote for a candidate they do not want to win...and that would be the de facto result if blank ballots are not allowed.

[minionofmidas]

There would also be the option of the radically new step of officially paying people to vote - not the campaigns but the government. Say a fiver per head.

[justfollowingtheelections]

It's because of rational ignorance:  the theory according to which we choose not to vote or inform ourselves of the candidates' positions because we feel the costs of voting or informing ourselves exceed the benefits.
And that is true to some extent.  Almost no elections are ever decided by one vote, so why waste our time reading about Obama's or Romney's position on social security when we can party instead?