Abstract
The study presents the findings of an experiment conducted during the 1993 Canadian fedeal election campaign. Students in two universities were exposed to a ten-minute presentation about the rational model of voting and the ‘paradox’ that so many people vote when it is apparently irrational on a cost-benefit basis. Our data indicate that exposure to the presentation decreased turnout in the election by seven percentage points. This result contributes to the debate abut the effect of rational-choice models on real political behavior. More important, the experimental panel data permit the presentation's effect to be decomposed, and this helps explain why people do vote. In this study, turnout was reduced mainly because the presentation diminished the respondents' sense of duty, an effect that was indirect, because there was no reference in the presentation to such motives. Framing the voting act in rational-choice terms induced some students to reconsider whether they should feel obliged to vote.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aldrich, J.H. (1993). Rational choice and turnout. American Journal of Political Science 37: 246–276.
Barry, B. (1970). Sociologists, economists and democracy. London: CollierMacmillan.
Blais, A. and Young, R. (1996). Why do people vote?: An experiment in rationality. Working Paper No. 64, Political Economy Research Group, University of Western Ontario.
Brunk, G. (1980). The impact of rational participation models on voting attitudes. Public Choice 35: 549–564.
Clausen, A.R. (1968). Response validity: Vote report. Public Opinion Quarterly 32: 588–606.
Cyr, A.B. (1975). The calculus of voting reconsidered. Public Opinion Quarterly 39: 19–39.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Dillman, D.A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: A total design method. New York: Wiley.
Ferejohn, J. and Fiorina, M. (1974). The paradox of not voting: A decision theoretic analysis. American Political Science Review 68: 525–536.
Granberg, D. and Holmberg, S. (1992). The Hawthorne effect in election studies: The impact of survey participation on voting. British Journal of Political Science 22: 240–248.
Green, D. and Shapiro, I. (1994). Pathologies of rational choice theory: A critique of applications in political science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Greenwald, A.G., Carnot, C.G., Beach, R. and Young, B. (1987). Increasing voting behaviour by asking people if they expect to vote. Journal of Applied Psychology 72: 315–318.
Grofman, B. (1993). Is turnout the paradox that ate rational choice theory? In B. Grofman (Ed.), Information, participation and choice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kelman, S. (1987). "Public Choice" and Public Spirit: The Public Interest 87: 80–94.
Mueller, D.C. (1989). Public choice II. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Powell, G.B. (1982). Contemporary democracies: Participation, stability and violence. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Pammett, J. (1991). Voting turnout in Canada. In H. Bakvis (Ed.), Voter turnout in Canada. Toronto: Dundurn.
Riker, W.H. and Ordeshook, P.C. (1968). A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review 62: 25–43.
Rosenstone, S.J. and Hansen, J.M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.
Sudman, S. and Bradburn, N.M. (1987). Asking questions: A practical guide to questionnaire design. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Uhlaner, C.J. (1989). Rational turnout: The neglected role of groups. American Journal of Political Science 33: 390–422.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Blais, A., Young, R. Why do people vote? An experiment in rationality. Public Choice 99, 39–55 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018341418956
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018341418956