Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Voter turnout

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Voter turnout[edit]

Self nom. An important subject, but one where there isn't much agreement about what is going on. It has been through peer review, and the concerns raised there have been addressed. - SimonP 01:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I think this a good article. I did a little copy-editing, but hit two sentences I thought needed non-trivial fixes:
  1. This sentence should be either explained, or links to the explanation should be clearer: "Even game theory analyses have found that the equilibrium number of voters in any large election is zero." In particular, I don't understand what is meant by the "equilibrium number of voters".
  2. This sentence needs a not-entirely-trivial rewritie for grammar: "Western Americans have often complained that since the election has already been decided in the east of the country that turnout is depressed on the Pacific coast." (Bonus for statistics demonstrating this.)
Fix those and you'll have my support; nice work. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fixed those two sentences, though it will take some time to see if any statistics are available. - SimonP 03:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've edited two-thirds of it, and will almost certainly support it. The reference for the basic formula at the top is unclear. Is it Riker and Ordeshoot? Please see my inline comments throughout. Tony 05:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC) PS What about some photos of some of the situations you refer to. Mugabe in victory celebrations?[reply]
  • Support. Quite comprehensive and easy to read. Johnleemk | Talk 16:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although you should make clear what Putnam book you are using in the references. (I assume it's Bowling Alone but it isn't specifically stated.) Christopher Parham (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, of the big efficacy, Gerrymandering sort. This is as clearly written and well researched work of Political Science as I've ever read, and I've read A LOT. It hits all the important points and factors-rational choice theory, game theory, negative campaigning, GOTV, and, of course, that very famous study (in US Poli Sci circles at least) by G. Bingham Powell. Another outstanding survey article Simon!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The section on 'Institutional factors' is long and involved. At the top, please consider a summarising the list of factors that may increase turnout. Then your readers will be armed with a synoptic view of the big picture as they navigate the subsequent details. Here's a draft:

Institutional factors that may increase voter turnout.

  • Legal compulsion to vote, and enforcement of that compulsion.
  • A high degree of 'salience' (the perceived effect of an individual vote), which may arise from:
    • strong relative power of the legislature in question;
    • the possibility or likelihood that a significant change of government, and policy, may result from an election; and
    • the accurate reflection of the people's will in the composition of the legislature.
  • The convenience of voting, including:
    • accessible polling facilities; and
    • simple voting procedures, including easy registration and one-off votes.
  • Low levels of voter fatigue, arising from not-too-frequent elections).

Tony 04:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I've added an introductory paragraph to that section. I've also made the changes suggested by the comments you left. - SimonP 14:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. This should be the benchmark for references in future FACs. Well-written, well-sourced, and comprehensive. Great work! PacknCanes | say something! 14:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tony 14:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Model article. Jkelly 23:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Looks good to me. ZeWrestler Talk 05:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Simply great! Vb 09:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The SimonP featured article mill churns out another masterpiece. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - very good! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  1. Riker and Ordeshook Please prefix their names with their occupation. Similarly, the same with Francis Fukuyama. India's polling is not only due to the terrain, it is also due to the lack of security manpower available. And to clarify another point, voting in India is split into phases rather than days. That is, the days are not necessarily consecutive. There's also hardly anything on voting in the world's largest liberal democracy. If you need any specifics on Indian elections, I can help out. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:35, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Voter_turnout&oldid=1138475080"