In the Dutch municipal elections of last March, turnout among ethnic minorities was much higher than expected. At least as remarkable was their voting behaviour: eighty percent voted for the social-democrat PvdA, which helped the party secure a victory. During previous years, ethnic minorities’ political preferences had become more diverse, but recent political polarisation has entirely cancelled out the effects of this trend.

Naturally, the PvdA is happy with the election results, but there is nervousness as well. First of all, voting behaviour seems to become increasingly unpredictable. Some of the voters that were mobilised in 2002 by the right-wing populist Fortuyn, stayed at home in 2006. It is difficult to predict whether minorities who voted in March to express their discontent with the social climate, will turn out again in the 2007 provincial and national elections.

While the support from minorities is thus uncertain, the PvdA is also concerned that it may estrange some of its white supporters. Quite predictably, opponents try to portray the party as the Partij van de Allochtonen (Ethnic Minorities’ Party).

In any case, what the March elections do make clear is that who votes and who does not can have a considerable impact on the outcome of the elections. This raises the question whether it is possible to influence turnout.

In the Netherlands, campaigns to raise turnout have until recently remained largely limited to quite symbolic publicity campaigns, which no one in their right mind would expect to yield substantial results. In the USA, things are different. Political parties, community organisations and trade unions run very sophisticated turnout campaigns.

Through their capacity to mobilise voters, local trade union departments and community organisations such as ACORN build a position of power, which they use to negotiate deals regarding employment, living wages and affordable houses. The Republicans, for their part, work with conservative churches, Chambers of Commerce and gun clubs to mobilise voters. What all these efforts have in common, is that they are effective because of their grassroots approach and the deployment of large numbers of volunteers (FNV 2005a, b).

If it is really possible to mobilise voters, then this may be an interesting way to exert political influence. Especially so, since various studies have shown that turnout affects the social quality of government policies.

Does it matter who votes

It is a well-known phenomenon that turnout in elections is uneven. Turnout tends to be low among categories including people with low incomes, young people, the low-educated, the unemployed, ethnic minorities, residents of disadvantaged neighbourhoods in the large cities, people who are no members of organisations and people who are not interested in politics (Dekker 2002).

It would seem logical that politicians’ decisions would be affected by who votes, since they have to keep in mind which groups may affect their re-election. Nevertheless, researchers have long found it difficult to find evidence for such a correlation. Therefore, they tended to assume that, even though voters may be very different from non-voters in many respects, their political preferences would be more or less the same.

This does not sound very convincing, and more and more research shows that it is indeed incorrect. It does matter who votes. First, turnout affects who gets voted. Much more important, however, is that turnout affects policy outcomes. When turnout is low, the well-off tend to be the ones who do vote. Under such circumstances, politicians do not have much of an incentive to look after the interests of the lower classes. When turnout is higher (or more even), it becomes more difficult for them to disregard the interests of these groups.

Various studies have found a correlation between turnout and national governments’ policies. For example, high turnout was found to correlate with lower poverty levels, after controlling for economic and demographic influences. This correlation can be explained entirely by the fact that countries with a higher turnout tend to have more generous welfare state provisions (Brady 2003).

In the USA, the correlation between turnout and policy has also been studied at the local level. In states where the turnout discrepancy between lower and higher classes is larger, social assistance (welfare) policies are tougher (Avery and Peffley 2005). For example, these states are more likely to have stricter social assistance time limits (in the USA, a person can receive social assistance for at most five years during his or her entire life, but states can further shorten this period).

Local governments with high turnout put more emphasis on redistributive policies. They spend more on services that are important for the lower classes, such as social assistance and public housing. They spend less on other services, have somewhat higher taxes and are somewhat more likely to run budget deficits (Hajnal and Trounstine 2005b).

All in all, there are strong indications that turnout and who votes affect government policies. Where turnout is low, governments tend to be small and to spend little on social policies.

Turnout and the electoral system

Turnout is affected by characteristics of the electoral system. In the USA for example, complicated registration procedures have a negative effect on turnout among blacks and the low-educated. Also, many residents are not allowed to vote because they have been in jail, or because they have not yet succeeded in obtaining citizenship – partly as a result of long waiting times. In New York, there are neighbourhoods where less than a quarter of the residents are entitled to vote. Countries such as the Netherlands, where immigrants at least get to vote at the local level after five years of legal residence, are looked upon with envy (González 2005, Holmgren 2005).

Countries with a first-past-the-post system, such as the UK and the USA, tend to have lower turnouts. In such systems, voters can easily get the feeling that their vote does not make much of a difference (Swift 2002, Macedo a.o. 2005: 52-3, 59). Systems that very frequently ask citizens to vote also tend to have lower turnout. For example, turnout in Swiss referenda is quite low (on average 42%); it are mainly the higher educated who vote here.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[1]<!--[endif]-->

Characteristics of the electoral system may thus have an impact on turnout, while the level of turnout can have important consequences for the social quality of government policies. This suggests that the democratic renewal agenda of Dutch minister Pechtold would deserve a critical examination. All the more so, because Pechtold has criticized efforts to increase turnout among disadvantaged groups. Making such efforts, the government would ‘expose itself to accusations of manipulation of the elections’, the minister feels.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[2]<!--[endif]-->

Pechtold’s renewal agenda includes a plan to spread local elections over multiple dates, so that municipalities would no longer vote on the same day. This measure is intended to stop national issues dominating the local elections.

No one will deny that voting behaviour in local elections is influenced by national issues. However, this phenomenon must not be exaggerated. Even after suffering losses in the elections of last March, local political parties remain quite powerful. The suggestion that local elections are dominated by national politics is thus exaggerated.

Spreading the elections will cause elections to get far less attention, with lower turnout as a result. In the Netherlands, local elections are sometimes held on divergent dates due to municipal mergers. In such elections, turnout may easily be as much as twenty percentage points below normal.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[3]<!--[endif]-->

Examples from abroad suggest that holding elections on one day, rather than spreading them over multiple days, may boost turnout. In Sweden, national, regional and local elections are held on the same day. Here, turnout in municipal elections is almost eighty percent, as opposed to less than sixty percent in the Netherlands. In the USA, studies found that holding local elections on the same day as national elections may increase turnout by as much as 36 percentage points (Benito 2005, Hajnal and Trounstine 2005b, Macedo a.o. 2005: 88).

Voter mobilisation

Previous to the Dutch municipal elections of last March, quite a few initiatives have been taken to encourage people to vote. The cities of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and The Hague have run quite extensive mobilisation campaigns. Organisations including local trade union departments, and especially ethnic minorities’ organisations, had their own activities. For example, organisations affiliated to the National Minorities Council (LOM) had 120 local meetings planned.

The impact of these initiatives varied.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[4]<!--[endif]--> In Amsterdam for example, the Osdorp district had the largest budget for voter mobilisation, but turnout increased only slightly here. De Baarsjes district, which had assigned an active role to community organisations, did manage to increase turnout substantially.

In the Zeeburg district as well, many more people voted than in 2002. This is remarkable, because the district council had voted against a budget for voter mobilisation. Sources within the PvdA suggest that its ‘permanent campaign’ may have had a positive effect on turnout. Every first Saturday of the month, party activists had a stand on the busy Javastraat to talk to citizens.

These examples suggest that in the Netherlands, effective voter mobilisation is very much a matter of trial and error and a bit of luck. In the USA, things are different. Extensive academic research has been done to assess the effectiveness of voter mobilisation (Green en Gerber 2004; see also Krueger 2004, Green a.o. 2003, Michelson 2004, Addonizio a.o. 2005, Wolfinger a.o. 2005, FNV 2005b). On the basis of such studies, it is possible to estimate how cost effective different approaches are, and what effort is needed to raise turnout by a given percentage.

The American research shows that turnout can be raised by ten percentage points or more, but this does require intensive and well-targeted campaigns. One of the most important lessons is that voter mobilisation will be more effective when people are approached in a personal way. They must get the feeling that they are personally being invited to vote. Methods to do this include going door to door (‘canvassing’) and talking to people at the supermarket. The effect can be improved by asking a commitment from the potential voter (‘can I count on you to vote’). Organising festivities at the time of the elections can also have a considerable impact on turnout.

Especially for young people and the low-educated, it is important to receive proper information on voting procedures and the location of the polling station. Such information can be mailed, or handed out during canvassing. A more intensive approach is to let people practice on the voting machine. Other methods, such as using professional call-centres, direct mail, television ads and internet campaigns have so far had very limited effects at best.

Of course, one should be careful when applying specific findings of American research to other contexts, for example because the electoral system is very different. However, it seems plausible that more general lessons, such as the importance of a personal approach, apply elsewhere as well. Experiences in Rotterdam suggest that this is indeed the case (Galesloot 2004: 29-32).

Strategic use of voter mobilisation

Above, it was shown that turnout affects the social quality of government policies. The fact that quite a bit is known about effective ways to increase turnout, raises the question why political parties and organisations such as trade unions do not more actively try to encourage residents of disadvantaged neighbourhoods to vote. A possible explanation is that it may not always be in the interest of those in the positions of power to mobilise new groups (Piven and Cloward 2000).

After the elections of last March, there was a debate on the consequences of the high turnout among ethnic minorities. According to a leader of the Milli Görüs organisation, Haci Karacaer, this high turnout was felt as an ‘attack on established political interests’.<!--[if !supportFootnotes]-->[5]<!--[endif]--> An example that suggests that Karacaer has a point is the debate among the following of the PvdA in the Amsterdam Southeast district, where minority votes helped the PvdA obtain an absolute majority. Critics said that the candidates for the position of alderman – experienced politicians, most of them white – did not constitute a proper representation of the voters.

Such debates are not limited to political parties. In the USA, it was shown that local trade union leaders sometimes frustrate innovations in trade unionism, despite the fact that such innovations were necessary to organise new groups of workers. New groups of members might demand a new type of leaders, which could undermine the position of current leaders. This is thought to be the reason why these leaders opposed innovations that might have brought new groups into the trade union movement (Voss and Sherman 2000).

Neither political parties nor trade unions can afford such short-sightedness. Too much is at stake. Political parties in the Netherlands would do well to critically assess Pechtold’s democratic renewal plans. Further, in their campaign plans for the 2007 elections, they can put more emphasis on methods that increase turnout, such as canvassing.

The trade union movement can form local coalitions with social work, schools, and community organisations, in order to mobilise volunteers to encourage residents of disadvantaged neighbourhoods to vote. Both in the trade union movement and in political parties, such an approach would probably require local activists to change.

References

Addonizio, Elizabeth, Donald Green and James Glaser
2005. Putting the Party Back into Politics: Results of a Pilot Experiment Designed to Increase Voter Turnout through Music, Food, and Entertainment. Working Paper, Yale University.

Avery, James M. and Mark Peffley
2005. Voter Registration Requirements, Voter Turnout, and Welfare Eligibility Policy: Class Bias Matters. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 5(1): 47-67.

Benito, Miguel
2005. Active Civic Participation of Immigrants in Sweden. Working Paper, Universität Oldenburg.

Brady, David
2003. The Politics of Poverty: Left Political Institutions, the Welfare State, and Poverty. Social Forces 82(2): 557-88.

Dekker, Paul, Jeroen Boelhouwer, Peter de Greef and Judith van Male
2002. Niet-stemmers: Een onderzoek naar achtergronden en motieven in enquêtes, interviews en focusgroepen. The Hague: SCP.

Federatie Nederlandse Vakbeweging
2005a. De vakbeweging van de toekomst: Lessen uit het buitenland. Amsterdam: FNV.
2005b. Voter mobilisation: What works and why is it important.

Galesloot, Hansje
2004. De wereld in huis: Allochtonen in Amsterdamse raden en besturen. Amsterdam: IPP.

González, Carolina
2005. Voting by Moxie. City Limits Monthly September / October.

Green, Donald P. and Alan S. Gerber
2004. Get Out the Vote! How to Increase Voter Turnout. Washington: Brookings Institution.

Green, Donald P., Alan S. Gerber and David W. Nickerson
2003. Getting Out the Vote in Local Elections: Results from Six Door-to-Door Canvassing Experiments. Journal of Politics 65(4): 1083-96.

Hajnal, Zoltan and Jessica Trounstine
2005a. Where Turnout Matters: The Consequences of Uneven Turnout in City Politics. Journal of Politics 67(2): 515-35.
2005b. Turnout Matters: Voter Turnout and City Spending Priorities. Submitted for publication.

Holmgren, Emma
2005. Poll Position: Groups Push for Voting Rights. City Limits Weekly 502, 19 September.

Krueger, Alan B.
2004. What’s the Most Cost-Effective Way to Encourage People to Turn Out to Vote? New York Times, 14 oktober.

Macedo, Stephen a.o.
2005. Democracy at Risk: How Political Choices Undermine Citizen Participation, and What We Can Do About It. Washington: Brookings Institution.

Michelson, Melissa R.
2004. Mobilizing the Latino Vote. Circle Working Paper 10.

Piven, Frances Fox and Richard A. Cloward
2000. Why Americans Still Don’t Vote and Why Politicians Want It That Way. Boston: Beacon Press.

Swift, Richard
2002. The No-Nonsense Guide to Democracy. Londen: Verso.

Voss, Kim and Rachel Sherman
2000. Breaking the Iron Law of Oligarchy: Union Revitalization in the American Labor Movement. American Journal of Sociology 106(2): 303-49.

Wolfinger, Raymond E., Benjamin Highton and Megan Mullin
2005. How Postregistration Laws Affect the Turnout of Citizens Registered to Vote. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 5(1): 1-23.