Presidential Institutions and Electoral Participation in Concurrent Elections in Latin America
| DOI | 10.1177/0032321717723502 |
| Published date | 01 August 2018 |
| Author | Miguel Carreras |
| Date | 01 August 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321717723502
Political Studies
2018, Vol. 66(3) 541 –559
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0032321717723502
journals.sagepub.com/home/psx
Presidential Institutions and
Electoral Participation in
Concurrent Elections in
Latin America
Miguel Carreras
Abstract
Previous studies of voter turnout in Latin America have found weak and inconsistent evidence
for the link between political institutions and electoral participation. In this article, I use data from
an expanded dataset of voter turnout in Latin America (1980–2016) to show that institutions do
have an impact on citizens’ decisions on whether or not to participate in concurrent elections.
Whereas previous studies analyzed the effect of legislative institutions on voter turnout, this
article estimates a series of models that demonstrate the impact of presidential institutions and
the political context surrounding presidential elections on electoral participation. The findings
suggest that when first-order (presidential) and second-order (legislative) elections take place
concurrently, electoral participation is influenced primarily by presidential institutions (term
length, presidential powers, and electoral rules) and the electoral context in which the presidential
elections take place (effective number of presidential candidates).
Keywords
turnout, institutions, Latin America
Accepted: 17 April 2017
What is the impact of political institutions on voter turnout in Latin America? Previous
studies (Fornos et al., 2004; Kostadinova and Power, 2007; Pérez-Liñán, 2001) have
addressed this question by replicating a “classic” model (Jackman, 1987). This main-
stream model evaluates the impact of a series of legislative institutions—district
magnitude, the number of parties in the legislature, and unicameralism—on electoral
participation.
Department of Political Science, University of California–Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA
Corresponding author:
Miguel Carreras, Department of Political Science, University of California–Riverside, 900 University Avenue,
Riverside, CA 92521, USA.
Email: miguel.carreras@ucr.edu
723502PSX0010.1177/0032321717723502Political StudiesCarreras
research-article2017
Article
542 Political Studies 66(3)
These papers have overlooked a glaring reality: Latin American countries have presi-
dential systems of government. In presidential systems, the presidency is the dominant
branch of government. Therefore, presidential elections can be described as first-order
elections and legislative elections as second-order elections (Reif and Schmitt, 1980).
The key argument in this article is that in concurrent elections (i.e. when presidential and
legislative elections are held on the same day), first-order factors and first-order (i.e.
presidential) institutions should have a stronger impact on electoral participation than
second-order (i.e. legislative) institutions.
Previous research has neglected the fact that most elections in the region are not exclu-
sively presidential or legislative in nature. The majority of elections in Latin America are
concurrent—60% of national elections in the region between 1980 and 2016 were con-
current. Instead of proposing a model that explains turnout only in presidential or in leg-
islative elections, I focus on concurrent elections, which allows me to test competing
explanations regarding the impact of presidential and legislative institutions on electoral
participation in the same model.
Investigating the causes of electoral participation is crucial because low voter turnout
is often considered to be a problem for democracy. First, low electoral participation may
lead to the underrepresentation of certain social groups. Several studies have shown that
there is a class bias in turnout. Citizens with higher incomes, greater wealth, and better
education tend to vote more than less advantaged citizens. The class bias in electoral
participation increases when turnout decreases. Second, this class bias in voter turnout
leads to an unequal influence over the content of public policies. Incumbent politicians
pay less attention to citizens who do not vote (Lijphart, 1997). Moreover, low turnout
may be a sign of citizens’ disaffection with political institutions and the functioning of
democracy (Norris, 1999; Teixeira, 1992).
This article will proceed as follows. First, I will introduce the concepts of “first-
order” and “second-order” elections and present evidence, suggesting that presidential
elections are first-order elections in presidential systems. In light of this discussion, the
second section will critically review the previous literature studying the impact of polit-
ical institutions on voter turnout in Latin America. Then, I will present an alternative
theoretical framework, focusing on presidential institutions and the political context
surrounding presidential elections as determinants of electoral participation in concur-
rent elections in Latin America. From this discussion, I will derive a set of hypotheses
that will be tested in the empirical section using data from an original database on voter
turnout in Latin America. The final section concludes and suggests avenues for further
research.
First-order and Second-order Elections in Presidential
Systems
Previous studies demonstrate that not all elections are created equal. In particular, there is
a standard distinction between first- and second-order elections (Reif and Schmitt, 1980).
According to Reif (1997: 117):
all elections (except the one that fills the most important political office of the entire system and
therefore is the first-order election) are national second-order elections, irrespective of whether
they take place in the entire, or only in part of, the country.
To continue reading
Request your trial