IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uts/ecowps/2021-02.html

Why Waste Your Vote? Informal Voting in Compulsory Elections in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Eamon McGinn

    (University of Technology Sydney)

  • Shiko Maruyama

    (University of Technology Sydney)

Abstract

In Australia, where voting is compulsory, around 5% of votes are informal, not counting toward the outcome. Between 2004�2016, 32% of electorates reported more informal votes than votes in the margin between the winner and runner-up. Using exogenous changes in electorate boundaries, we test two hypotheses from the literature. We find the pivotal voter theory unsupported, except that better-educated voters respond to the margin more strategically. However, we do find that more candidates cause more informal votes. This choice-overload effect is observed regardless of voters� education, indicating the role of time and effort cost rather than just cognitive ability.

Suggested Citation

  • Eamon McGinn & Shiko Maruyama, 2021. "Why Waste Your Vote? Informal Voting in Compulsory Elections in Australia," Working Paper Series 2021/02, Economics Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney.
    • Handle: RePEc:uts:ecowps:2021/02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/article/downloads/InformalVoting20210504.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patricia Funk, 2010. "Social Incentives and Voter Turnout: Evidence from the Swiss Mail Ballot System," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 8(5), pages 1077-1103, September.
    2. Alberto Grillo, 2017. "Risk aversion and bandwagon effect in the pivotal voter model," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 172(3), pages 465-482, September.
    3. Carson, Jamie L. & Engstrom, Erik J. & Roberts, Jason M., 2007. "Candidate Quality, the Personal Vote, and the Incumbency Advantage in Congress," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(2), pages 289-301, May.
    4. Scott W. Desposato & John R. Petrocik, 2003. "The Variable Incumbency Advantage: New Voters, Redistricting, and the Personal Vote," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(1), pages 18-32, January.
    5. Andrew Leigh & Justin Wolfers, 2006. "Competing Approaches to Forecasting Elections: Economic Models, Opinion Polling and Prediction Markets," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 82(258), pages 325-340, September.
    6. Christine Fauvelle-Aymar & Abel François, 2006. "The impact of closeness on turnout: An empirical relation based on a study of a two-round ballot," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 461-483, June.
    7. Vincent Pons & Clémence Tricaud, 2018. "Expressive Voting and Its Cost: Evidence From Runoffs With Two or Three Candidates," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(5), pages 1621-1649, September.
    8. Godefroy, Raphael & Henry, Emeric, 2016. "Voter turnout and fiscal policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 389-406.
    9. Enrico Cantoni, 2020. "A Precinct Too Far: Turnout and Voting Costs," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(1), pages 61-85, January.
    10. Danny Hayes & Seth C. McKee, 2009. "The Participatory Effects of Redistricting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 1006-1023, October.
    11. David Dreyer Lassen, 2005. "The Effect of Information on Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(1), pages 103-118, January.
    12. Alan Gerber & Mitchell Hoffman & John Morgan & Collin Raymond, 2020. "One in a Million: Field Experiments on Perceived Closeness of the Election and Voter Turnout," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 287-325, July.
    13. Hill, Andrew J. & Jones, Daniel B., 2017. "Does partisan affiliation impact the distribution of spending? Evidence from state governments’ expenditures on education," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 58-77.
    14. Henderson, John A. & Sekhon, Jasjeet S. & Titiunik, Rocío, 2016. "Cause or Effect? Turnout in Hispanic Majority-Minority Districts," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(3), pages 404-412, July.
    15. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/7p9a2ge1op95oao5se2oc4ann7 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    17. Palfrey, Thomas R. & Rosenthal, Howard, 1985. "Voter Participation and Strategic Uncertainty," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 79(1), pages 62-78, March.
    18. Kei Kawai & Yuta Toyama & Yasutora Watanabe, 2021. "Voter Turnout and Preference Aggregation," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 13(4), pages 548-586, November.
    19. Maria Paola & Vincenzo Scoppa, 2014. "The impact of closeness on electoral participation exploiting the Italian double ballot system," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 160(3), pages 467-479, September.
    20. Lyytikäinen, Teemu & Tukiainen, Janne, 2019. "Are voters rational?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 230-242.
    21. Nagler, Matthew G., 2015. "Trading off the benefits and costs of choice: Evidence from Australian elections," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 1-12.
    22. Levine, David K. & Palfrey, Thomas R., 2007. "The Paradox of Voter Participation? A Laboratory Study," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 101(1), pages 143-158, February.
    23. Paul S. Herrnson & Michael J. Hanmer & Richard G. Niemi, 2012. "The Impact of Ballot Type on Voter Errors," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(3), pages 716-730, July.
    24. Ho, Daniel E. & Imai, Kosuke & King, Gary & Stuart, Elizabeth A., 2007. "Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 199-236, July.
    25. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(1), pages 249-275.
    26. Matsusaka, John G, 1993. "Election Closeness and Voter Turnout: Evidence from California Ballot Propositions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 313-334, August.
    27. Kelly Bidwell & Katherine Casey & Rachel Glennerster, 2020. "Debates: Voting and Expenditure Responses to Political Communication," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(8), pages 2880-2924.
    28. Lee, David S., 2008. "Randomized experiments from non-random selection in U.S. House elections," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 142(2), pages 675-697, February.
    29. Godefroy, Raphael & Henry, Emeric, 2016. "Voter turnout and fiscal policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 389-406.
    30. Per Pettersson-Lidbom, 2008. "Do Parties Matter for Economic Outcomes? A Regression-Discontinuity Approach," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 6(5), pages 1037-1056, September.
    31. Jones, Daniel B. & Walsh, Randall, 2018. "How do voters matter? Evidence from US congressional redistricting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 25-47.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eleonora Alabrese & Thiemo Fetzer, 2024. "Opinion Polls, Turnout and the Demand for Safe Seats," CESifo Working Paper Series 11063, CESifo.
    2. Leonardo Bursztyn & Davide Cantoni & Patricia Funk & Felix Schönenberger & Noam Yuchtman, 2024. "Identifying the Effect of Election Closeness on Voter Turnout: Evidence from Swiss Referenda," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 22(2), pages 876-914.
    3. Marco Frank & David Stadelmann & Benno Torgler, 2023. "Higher turnout increases incumbency advantages: Evidence from mayoral elections," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(2), pages 529-555, July.
    4. Leonardo Bursztyn & Davide Cantoni & Patricia Funk & Noam Yuchtman, 2017. "Polls, the Press, and Political Participation: The Effects of Anticipated Election Closeness on Voter Turnout," Working Papers 2017-052, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    5. Dmitriy Vorobyev, 2022. "Information disclosure in elections with sequential costly participation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 190(3), pages 317-344, March.
    6. Schreiner, Nicolas, 2021. "Changes in Well-Being Around Elections," Working papers 2021/03, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.
    7. Fink, Alexander, 2012. "The effects of party campaign spending under proportional representation: Evidence from Germany," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 574-592.
    8. Hoffman, Mitchell & León, Gianmarco & Lombardi, María, 2017. "Compulsory voting, turnout, and government spending: Evidence from Austria," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 103-115.
    9. Gersbach, Hans & Mamageishvili, Akaki & Tejada, Oriol, 2021. "The effect of handicaps on turnout for large electorates with an application to assessment voting," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    10. Marco Frank & David Stadelmann & Benno Torgler, 2020. "Electoral Turnout During States of Emergency and Effects on Incumbent Vote Share," CREMA Working Paper Series 2020-10, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    11. Sun, Junze & Schram, Arthur & Sloof, Randolph, 2021. "Elections under biased candidate endorsements — an experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 141-158.
    12. Louis Kaplow & Scott Duke Kominers, 2024. "On the Representativeness of Voter Turnout," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67(4), pages 879-904.
    13. Cagé, Julia & Bekkouche, Yasmine, 2018. "The Heterogeneous Price of a Vote: Evidence from France, 1993-2014," CEPR Discussion Papers 12614, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    14. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/2ahul47tb09rvqfl9eelv7o5ca is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Federico Revelli & Tsung-Sheng Tsai & Cheng-Tai Wu, 2024. "Ties," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 62(1), pages 1-35, February.
    16. Gersbach, Hans & Mamageishvili, Akaki & Tejada, Oriol, 2019. "The Effect of Handicaps on Turnout for Large Electorates: An Application to Assessment Voting," CEPR Discussion Papers 13921, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    17. Sobbrio, Francesco & Navarra, Pietro, 2010. "Electoral participation and communicative voting in Europe," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 185-207, June.
    18. Marco Faravelli & Kenan Kalayci & Carlos Pimienta, 2020. "Costly voting: a large-scale real effort experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 468-492, June.
    19. Alan Gerber & Mitchell Hoffman & John Morgan & Collin Raymond, 2020. "One in a Million: Field Experiments on Perceived Closeness of the Election and Voter Turnout," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 287-325, July.
    20. Jo Thori Lind, 2025. "The Futile Search for the Effect of Turnout," CESifo Working Paper Series 11650, CESifo.
    21. Clemens Puppe & Jana Rollmann, 2023. "Participation in Voting Over Budget Allocations: A Field Experiment," Studies in Choice and Welfare, in: Sascha Kurz & Nicola Maaser & Alexander Mayer (ed.), Advances in Collective Decision Making, pages 355-393, Springer.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C21 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • D73 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Bureaucracy; Administrative Processes in Public Organizations; Corruption
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government
    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uts:ecowps:2021/02. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Duncan Ford (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edutsau.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.