Voting turnout rises when a person believes their participation correlates with like-minded peers

Evidence

Note that the consequences of voting included in the rational analysis are held constant across the two theories. In both, the “utility difference” between the two parties, the “probability” of casting a decisive vote, the costs of voting, and citizen’s duty are the same. But according to the party supporter’s theory, there is a correlation between political orientation and participation; that is, either the supporters of party A will vote in greater numbers than will the supporters of party B, or vice versa. In contrast, the nonaligned voter’s theory holds that political orientation is independent of participation because party supporters will turn out in equal numbers. Therefore, only subjects presented with the former theory could infer that their decision to vote or to abstain would be diagnostic of what their politically like-minded peers would decide. If being able to make this inference is conducive to voting, then a larger “turnout” should be found among subjects presented with the party supporter’s theory than among those presented with the non-aligned voter’s theory. In fact, when asked, “Would you vote if the theory were true and voting in Delta were costly,” significantly more subjects responded no under the party supporter’s theory (16%) than under the non-aligned voter’s theory (7%) (p<. by sign test). — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2519

Categorization

• DEFINE: Introduces the diagnosticity account of turnout: one votes not just for direct payoff but because one’s choice is diagnostic of what like-minded peers will do.
• XREF: Connects to expressive-voting theory and to the paradox of voting debates (Downs, Riker) — the puzzle of why anyone votes when the pivotal-probability payoff is tiny. — connects to: Deliberation among like-minded peers pushes groups to more extreme positions. — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects…, 437
• SEED: Angle: ‘turnout as a coordination reflex’ — how the belief that one’s participation forecasts group participation can explain spikes in turnout beyond any instrumental calculus.