Boosting voter turnout could be as simple as making individuals see voting as part of who they are rather than as something they do. For the 2008 presidential election, the turnout rate was about 96 percent among registered voters who first filled out a survey asking “How important is it to you to be a voter?” compared with about 82 percent for those who were asked “How important is it to you to vote?” The study, led by Christopher Bryan of Stanford University, was recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. “We offered people the prospect of claiming a desirable identity,” Bryan says. “That’s a very powerful thing.”

6 Comments

1. 1. Griffmaster_01 08:53 AM 1/10/12

   We can debate about how legitimate or effective your vote really is - but the people who don't even take the time to vote at all have no right to complain when other people vote for decisions they disagree with. No one else is going to represent you for you!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. David N'Gog in reply to Griffmaster_01 11:00 AM 1/10/12

   
   It would be nice if everyone voted... especially if they made an informed decision.
   
   However, I think it can be deleterious if people vote for the sake of voting without taking time to understand the person they are voting for.
   
   The more uninformed voters there are- the more people will vote for the handsome guy- or the guy with a catchy name. I'd rather people DON'T vote if they don't know the policies for the guy they are voting for.
   
   
   Personally I think it is more important to improve voter knowledge than voter turnout; although improving both would be great at the same time would be better still.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. e_caroline 10:14 AM 1/15/12

   We can pretty much disregard the ravings of the therapy community of this issue.
   
   Any so-called solution that begins "all you gotta do is...." and then trails off... is the prattling of a defacto simpleton.
   
   This is the usual simplistic posturing of a pseudo-scientific community that is no more based in real scientific research than is creationism.
   
   We see people who, sadly. took the "short bus" to the easy side of the campus (as all of us who attended 'real college' know ) rambling on with goofy ideas that betrays their bafflement more than enlightening others.
   
   No.... we can disregard these politically motivated rantings as just some more noise out of partisans who would like to portray their uninformed speculation as "proven facts".
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. JeffStarkweather 11:04 AM 1/15/12

   Voter Turnout Is Tied to Sense of Identity
   A certain turn of phrase brings out people's best civic selves. I opened my e-mail newsletter and I tried to read this article. I am mail subscriber and have an on-line account, but I cannot read this without paying for it. I cannot find a way to plug in my account name and password in order to read the article this is showing on this page from my newsletter. The newsletter is worthless if I cannot actually open the articles without paying for them when I am a subscriber. Jeff Starkweather, 590 Old Goldston Rd. Pittsboro, 27312, 919-417-0969

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. Michael M 03:36 PM 1/15/12

   SA is a magazine, part of the Nature Publishing Group of Mac Millan, Inc.
   Nature, one of the two most respected scientific journals, is part of this group.
   Peer review, employee and publishing costs, among other necessities, require that this for-profit group charge for their strongly reviewed information in a market culture, as is the human world's.
   
   Thus complaining over a synopsis clearly labeled as being from the magazine, is inappropriate. If one is a subscriber, it is in the print journal.
   
   Also inappropriate are the ravings of an above commentor responding to the synopsis. The failure here is, yes, that of the site monitors not editing uninformed comments which make no sense in light of that strong peer review I've mentioned.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Swanilli 05:19 PM 1/15/12

   Optional voting has long struck me as a peculiar and anomalous aspect of Americans' attitude to democracy.
   
   In a country that does not give its citizens the option to pay or not pay taxes, forces them to fight in the armed forces (at times); requires them to drive on the right side of the road (surely an arbitrary choice) and so on, the option of whether or not to vote for the people who force these decisions on citizens, makes no sense in a democracy.
   
   Voting is the obligation of all citizens in a democracy, not something there should be a choice over.
   
   Optional voting, coupled with "first past the post" elections, sees people elected in America who are preferred by under 20% of the citizens.
   
   That, clearly, is not democracy.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this