<html><head><meta name="color-scheme" content="light dark"></head><body><pre style="word-wrap: break-word; white-space: pre-wrap;">\magnification=1200
\count0=0
\newcount\enf\enf=0
\newcount\test
\newcount\fotnum\fotnum=0
\newcount\ftnm\ftnm=0
\def\en#1{\advance\fotnum by1{${}^{\number\fotnum}$}{#1}\par}
\def\nt{\advance\ftnm by1${}^{\number\ftnm}$~}
\def\pnt{\advance\ftnm by1${}^{\number\ftnm}$~~}
\def\quote#1{{\par\vskip12pt\narrower\narrower\baselineskip=12pt
\noindent#1\par}}
\def\cb#1{\centerline{\bf#1}}
\nopagenumbers
\baselineskip=24pt
\raggedbottom
\headline{\test=\count0\advance\test by\enf
\ifnum\test&gt;1\rm Bowers, Christopher David\hfil Page \folio
\else\hfil\fi}
\footline{\ifnum\count0=1\hss\rm\folio\hss\fi}
{\baselineskip=12pt
\strut
\vfill
\cb{An Analysis of}
\cb{Some Determinants of Voter Turnout}
\vfill
\cb{Prepared for}
\cb{Dr. James L. Franke}
\cb{Professor of Political Science}
\cb{Texas A\&amp;M University}
\cb{College Station, Texas}
\vfill
\cb{Submitted by}
\cb{Chris Bowers}
\cb{Route 5~~Box 1338}
\cb{College Station, Texas~~77840}
\vfill
\cb{March 5, 1984}
\vfill\eject}
\strut\vskip1.1truein
During the past twenty years, one of the most important trends in
American politics has been the reduction in the percentage of the electorate
that votes.\pnt  In view of this change, this paper will focus upon the
modern determinants of turnout---in other words, the factors that influence
whether or not citizens vote.

Knowing what influences turnout is important to political scientists for
several reasons.  First, voter behavior is studied because voting communicates
the people's desires to government.\pnt These desires, in turn, collectively
decide the goals of society and thus reflect the priorities of the voters.\pnt
Thus, many important decisions are made by citizens and politicians based on
a prior vote.

Second, voter participation is viewed as a barometer of the health of the
American political system.\pnt  Studying voting behavior enables political
scientists to measure how much support the values and principles of American
society are given.\pnt  The determinants of voting behavior govern how many
citizens go to the polls.  For example, some political scientists believe
that the more citizens participate in the decision-making process, the more
democracy a nation has.\pnt  When people vote, they feel more a part of
society\nt and also show that they are satisfied with the government.\pnt
On the other hand, if no one voted, then democracy would cease to exist in
the United States.\pnt  In other words, the sign of a healthy democracy is
an active electorate.

Third, studying the determinants of voting behavior enables political
scientists to find out which groups of people have the most influence on
the nation's policies.\pnt  Since voting is an act of influence, it follows
that the more people of a certain group vote, the better represented they
will be.\pnt  By studying voting behavior, political scientists can see who
makes the decisions and for whom they are made.

Fourth, the study of the participation of the electorate lets political
scientists observe the process of how decisions are made.\pnt  For most
Americans, voting is the only way they participate in politics.\pnt
Therefore, voting is the chief way by which the means are chosen to direct
American policy-making.

The last reason for studying voting behavior is that it reveals much about
human sociology and psychology.\pnt  Voting behavior has been examined for
what it tells about the ``conditions of attitude change, the nature of
group identifications, the role of personality characteristics, the effects
of the mass communications media, and the ecological structures of our
cities.''\pnt  Because one of the main goals of the political scientist
should be to generalize about the political behavior of people, elections are
ideal laboratories because of the large amount of available, quantifiable,
and readily accessible information.

When the literature on the determinants of turnout is examined, it is
surprising to note that over thirty different explanations of voter
participation have been studied.  The factors supposedly governing turnout
can be split into several categories.  The determinants of voter participation
can be divided into the characteristics of the citizens themselves and the
characteristics of the political system.\pnt  Some of the characteristics of
the political system influencing electoral activity, such as the candidates,
campaign expenditures, and the issues, are known as the ``short-term
forces''\pnt and will not be examined in this paper because they vary with
each election.  Most of the ``long-term forces'' affecting voter turnout,
such as the legal barriers in some states preventing eligible citizens from
voting and the lack of meaningful party competition in the states, have
either been eliminated by federal law or are disappearing naturally.\pnt
Therefore, they will not be examined either.

The characteristics of individual citizens can be separated into two general
groups: The demographic variables, which include socioeconomic status, age,
sex, race, and location of permanent residence, and the attitudinal variables,
such as feelings about government responsiveness, perceived closeness of the
race, concern over election outcome, perceived personal effectiveness, and
the intensity with which citizens identify themselves with a political
party.\pnt  With so many factors possibly influencing the turnout of Americans
at the polls, it is likely that several factors will have some influence on
the percentage of the electorate that vote.  This paper will investigate
several of the most prominent theories on voter turnout and will argue that
socioeconomic status, the perception of external political efficacy (government
responsiveness), the perception of internal political efficacy (personal
effectiveness), and the intensity that citizens identify with a political party
are factors which influence the dependent variable, voter turnout.

The primary hypothesis to be examined is:
\quote{Among U.S. citizens in 1980, those with a high socioeconomic status
will tend to vote in that year's presidential election, while those with a
low socioeconomic status will tend to not vote in that election.}
\noindent Voter turnout is defined as the proportion of the U.S. voting 
population that
cast ballots in an election.\pnt  For the purposes of this discussion, the
election to be studied will be the 1980 presidential election.  The
independent variable of the primary hypothesis is socioeconomic status,
sometimes referred to as social status.  Income, education, and occupation
will be used as measures of socioeconomic status in this investigation,
as they are in many other studies.\pnt

The empirical evidence in support of this hypothesis is overwhelming.
Both Zipp et al. and Cassel and Hill cite many studies that support the
hypothesis, including studies done by Campbell et al. (1960) and Verba and
Nie (1962).\pnt  Zipp seems to indicate that the most comprehensive study
which demonstrates the validity of this hypothesis was done by Milbrath
and Goel (1977), but unfortunately the Texas A\&amp;M library does not
possess this work.\pnt  Investigations done by Cassel and Hill (1981),
Conway (1981), and Maddox (1979) also demonstrate socioeconomic status
is a good predictor of voter turnout, although at least Conway and
Cassel and Hill appeared to have used income, education, and age to define
socioeconomic status.\pnt  Additional support in a limited manner comes from
Reiter (1979), Cavanagh (1981) and Brody (1978).  These three all agree that
income and education are good measures of whether a person will vote.\pnt

Just as there are many supporters of the primary hypothesis, 
there are also many theoretical reasons why socioeconomic status is an
important factor.  The earliest source found was Lane (1959), who argued
that the social norms and roles of citizens with a low socioeconomic status
tend to encourage less active political behavior in contrast to the
norms and roles of those with a high social status.\pnt  Lane also points
out that lower status citizens do not have as many resources, such as time
and money, which are conducive to participation.\pnt  This last argument is
consistent with the theory first articulated by Anthony Downs.  Downs
analyzed voting from a rational decision-making perspective (similar to
economic analysis) and concluded that individuals act to maximize their
expected utility; in other words, citizens will vote only if the expected
benefits outweigh the expected costs.\pnt  Under this approach, voting
costs ``disenfranchise'' low-income citizens.\pnt

Other sources testify that many reasons related to income or education
also affect an individual's voting behavior.  Milbrath supports the income
factor:  high income
groups ``tend to be better educated, they are more likely to perceive
that they have a stake in politics, and they are more likely to interact
with persons active in politics.''\pnt
The number of years of formal education an individual has had also tends
to be associated with the probability that he will cast a ballot.  Campbell
et al. indicate that the more formal education a citizen has received, the more
likely he is to understand political events.  The more political events that
are understood, the more likely the events will interest him.\pnt  In a
broader sense, it is argued that ``education can enhance understanding of
the democratic process, inculcate values supportive of citizen participation,
and increase the citizen's capacity to acquire and process information about
the political system.''\pnt

What about the data opposing the formidable array of sources supporting the
primary hypothesis?  Well, not many political scientists were willing to
risk their reputation.  The Lone Ranger was Hadley, who argued that income
was not associated with voter turnout and education was only moderately
associated with turnout, but even this relationship was disappearing more each
year.\pnt  He bases his conclusion on an extensive survey of 2006 people
done by Market Opinion Research.\pnt  With this data he demonstrates that
there is only a difference of less than ten percent between voters and
non-voters at all economic levels.\pnt  He also shows that there is only a
moderate association between education and voting with the poll done by
Market Opinion Research.\pnt  Hadley also notes the large amount of evidence
that shows although education levels in America have risen, voter turnout
has declined.\pnt  He also mentions a University of Michigan study that
indicates participation in politics has declined the most rapidly among
those who have completed college.\pnt

Although Hadley is the only scholar who will oppose the primary hypothesis
directly, there are many other political scientists who oppose the primary
hypothesis indirectly when they advance their own explanations about the
determinants of voter turnout.  The search for the factors that influence
voter turnout continues because there is not one perfect predictor of
voter behavior; otherwise the debate would have ended long ago.  Instead,
it is likely that there are several factors that jointly affect voter
turnout.\pnt  Thus, although the evidence seems to indicate socioeconomic
status is the most important determinant of voter turnout, other factors must
also influence voter behavior.  Therefore, the first alternative hypothesis
to be investigated is:
\quote{Among U.S. citizens in 1980, those with a high sense of external
political efficacy will tend to vote in that year's presidential election,
while those with a low sense of external political efficacy will tend to
not vote in that election.}
For many years political scientists thought a voter's sense of political
efficacy could be defined by a combination of responses to four statements.
However, Converse (1972) and Balch (1974) argued the four questions measured
two different concepts:  a voter's sense of personal political effectiveness
(internal political efficacy) and a voter's beliefs about government
responsiveness (external political efficacy).\pnt  Subsequent analyses by
Abramson and Finifter (1981) and Craig (1979) also support this finding
strongly.\pnt  External political efficacy is measured by a two-item index
with scores being based on an agree/disagree/don't know trichotomy of
responses to the following statements:  ``I don't think public officials
care much what people like me think,'' and ``people like me don't have any
say about what the government does.''\pnt

Several scholars have conducted research on the first alternative hypothesis
and have concluded that it is sound.  Shaffer (1981) used the two-item index
and concluded that the higher one's sense of external political efficacy was,
the more likely he was to vote.\pnt  The Aldrich and Abramson study (1982) 
also supports the association between external political efficacy and turnout,
but to a lesser degree.\pnt  Both of these studies conclude that external
political efficacy is a highly significant determinant, but neither quantifies
the importance of external political efficacy because they are concerned with
measuring the decline in turnout in the last twenty years.  Other studies
using the ``traditional'' measurement of political efficacy done by Campbell
et al. (1980), Brody (1978), and Clotfelter and Prysby (1980) agree political
efficacy is associated with voter turnout.\pnt

There are several theoretical reasons why people who think they are politically
effective will be more likely to vote.  Individuals who perceive themselves
as being politically capable could feel psychologically inclined to vote,
whereas those who feel overcome by politics may cease voting.\pnt  Also,
``from a rational choice perspective, one would expect that beliefs
that the government is responsive would increase the subjective utility in
voting.''\pnt  Furthermore, feelings of external political efficacy are
related to support for democratic political norms that cherish
participation.\pnt

However, several scholars analyses do not support the first alternative
hypothesis.  Ashenfelter and Kelly (1975) conclude that the importance
of political efficacy as a variable is exaggerated, but they include one
internal political efficacy measure in their index.\pnt  Reiter (1979) finds
that political efficacy has no influence on voter turnout, but he doesn't
report how he measured political efficacy.\pnt  Hill and Cassel (1981) conclude
that the reduction of efficacy has had little effect on the decline in turnout,
yet they use the old four item index of political efficacy which has been
forsaken even by the University of Michigan researchers themselves.\pnt
Thus, although several studies conclude that political efficacy is not related
to voter turnout, their usefulness is limited because they did not use the
new index to measure external political efficacy.

The literature detailing the findings about internal political efficacy
is also nebulous because of the problems associated with defining the variable.
However, some researchers have employed the new definition of internal efficacy
and have found that internal political efficacy is also associated with
turnout.  Therefore, the second alternative hypothesis to be examined is:
\quote{Among U.S. citizens in 1980, those with a high sense of internal
political efficacy will tend to vote in that year's presidential election,
while those with a low sense of internal political efficacy will tend to
not vote in that election.}
Internal political efficacy is defined as a voter's sense of personal
political effectiveness.  It usually is measured by a two-item index with
scores being based on the agree/disagree/don't know trichotomy of responses
to the following statements:  ``Sometimes politics and government seem so
complicated that a person like me can't really understand what's going on,''
and ``voting is the only way (to change policies you disagree with).''\pnt

Two scholars have done research which supports the thrust of the hypothesis.
Hadley constructs an `impotency index' by using the familiar trichotomy of
responses to the two statements used for external political efficacy and the
`politics seems so complicated' statement.\pnt  With this format, Hadley finds
that the non-voters feel ten percent to thirty-one percent more impotent
depending on which statement they were responding to.\pnt  Hadley concludes
``most voters feel politically efficacious.  Most refrainers feel politically
impotent.''\pnt  A.~H.~Miller and W.~E.~Miller cite a Center for Political
Studies report which defines political efficacy as ``the feeling that one
can have an influence on governmental behavior.''\pnt  This report uses
two variables to measure efficacy, but doesn't specify which two.  It
finds that twenty-six percent more of the voters feel efficacious as
compared to non-voters.\pnt  Moreover, all the studies mentioned above
which used the traditional four-item index could be said to support to a
lesser extent the `internal efficacy' hypothesis as much as they support
the `external efficacy' hypothesis.

Of course, all the four-item index studies which negated the `external
efficacy' hypothesis disprove the `internal efficacy' hypothesis also to
an extent.  However, no one yet has concluded internal efficacy is not
related to turnout when using the standard two-item index.

The third alternative hypothesis that will be investigated is:
\quote{Among U.S. citizens in 1980, those with a high intensity of
partisan attitude will tend to vote in that year's presidential election,
while those with a low intensity of partisan attitude will tend to not vote
in that election.}
Asher defines party identification to be ``a psychological commitment
or attachment to a political party that normally predisposes one to
evaluate that party and its candidates in a favorable light.''\pnt
The intensity of partisan attitude is examined by Campbell et al. by
constructing six measures of partisan feeling.\pnt  They then investigated
the relation of voter turnout to the six partisan attitudes by fitting a
statistical model and using the methods of statistical discrimination and
multiple regression.\pnt

Many studies agree that intensity of party identification is strongly related
to voter participation.  Flannigan (1972) believes that partisan loyalty is the
most important factor influencing voter behavior.\pnt  Pomper states ``the
influence of partisanship on electoral behavior is widely accepted.''\pnt
Campbell et al. first demonstrated a strong theoretical link between the
two by arguing individuals vote because they want their preferences heard
as opposed to the non-voters who do not vote because they do not care and
also that strong feelings of partisan identification add to psychological involvement
in politics.\pnt  From a Downsian perspective, it is to be expected that
intense feelings of party identification would reduce information costs
and thus reduce voting costs.\pnt  Moreover, partisans would perceive a
greater benefit from the election of their candidates than someone who
had no intense feelings on the subject.\pnt  Many studies show that as
the intensity of partisan feelings decrease, so does voter turnout.\pnt
This finding indirectly supports the association.

Few disagree that the strength of partisan loyalties are related to voter
turnout.  Ashenfelter and Kelly (1981) are almost alone when they write
``strength of `partisanship' $\ldots$ had little or nothing to do with the
probability of voting.''\pnt  Only Cassel and Hill come close to supporting
Ashenfelter and Kelly when they conclude that weakening party identification
is only slightly related to decreasing voter turnout.\pnt

In summary, voting behavior is studied for many reasons.  Also, the
proportion of the electorate that turns out to vote in a presidential
election is a function of several factors acting simultaneously.  Socioeconomic
status is virtually unchallenged as a determinant of voter behavior.  External
political efficacy and intensity of partisan identification are also generally
believed by scholars to be factors that determine voter participation.  There
has been very little analysis of internal political efficacy, but the few
sources who discuss it seem to think it is also a determinant of electoral
activity.  This budding scholar must admit it will be exciting to `explore
strange, new determinants and go where no political scientist (well, few
anyway) has gone before.'
\vfill\eject
\enf=-1000
\baselineskip=12pt\parskip=12pt
\cb{Endnotes}
\bigskip
\en{Howard L. Reiter, ``Why is Turnout Down?'' {\it Public Opinion Quarterly},
43 (1979), p. 297.}
\en{Sidney Verba and Norman H. Nie, {\it Participation in America:  Political
Democracy and Social Equality} (New York: Harper and Row, 1972), p. 4.}
\en{Verba and Nie, p. 4.}
\en{Thomas E. Cavanagh, ``Changes in American Voter Turnout, 1964-1976,''
{\it Political Science Quarterly}, 96 (1981), p. 53.}
\en{Richard G. Niemi and Herbert Weisberg, {\it Controversies in American
Voting Behavior} (San Francisco: W.~H.~Freeman and Company, 1976), p. 2.}
\en{Verba and Nie, p. 1.}
\en{Niemi and Weisberg, p. 2.}
\en{Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba, {\it The Civic Culture:  Political
Attitude, and Democracy in Five Nations} (Princeton, N.J.:  Princeton
University Press, 1963), Chapter 9 as quoted in Verba and Nie, p. 5.}
\en{Anthony Downs, ``The Causes and Effects of Rational Abstention,'' in
{\it Controversies in American Voting Behavior}, ed. Richard G. Niemi and
Herbert Weisberg (San Francisco: W.~H.~Freeman and Company, 1976), p. 33.}
\en{William H. Flannigan, {\it Political Behavior and the American
Electorate} (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1968), pp. 1-2.}
\en{Flannigan, pp. 1-2.}
\en{Eugene Burdick and Arthur J. Brodbeck, {\it American Voting Behavior}
(New York: The Free Press, 1959), p. 139.}
\en{Angus Campbell et al., {\it The American Voter} (New
York: John Wiley \&amp; Sons, 1960), p. 90.}
\en{Campbell et al., p. 4.}
\en{Campbell et al., p. 4.}
\en{Herbert Asher, {\it Presidential Elections and American Politics}, rev.
ed., (Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1980), p. 48.}
\en{Asher, p. 34.}
\en{Asher, pp. 48-49.}
\en{Reiter, p. 298.}
\en{Cavanagh, p. 53.}
\en{John F. Zipp et al., ``Political Parties and Political Participation:
A Reexamination of the Standard Socioeconomic Model,'' {\it Social Forces},
60 (1982), p. 11.}
\en{Zipp et al., p. 1141; Carol A. Cassel and David B. Hill, ``Explanations
of Turnout Decline: A Multivariate Test,'' {\it American Politics Quarterly},
9 (1981), p. 182.}
\en{Zipp et al., p. 1141.}
\en{Cassel and Hill, p. 186; M. Margaret Conway, ``Political Participation
in Midterm Congressional Elections,'' {\it American Politics Quarterly}, 9
(1981), 240; Maddox as quoted in Stephen D. Shaffer, ``A Multivariate
Explanation of Decreasing Turnout in Presidential Elections, 1960-1976,''
{\it American Journal of Political Science}, 25 (1981), p. 69.}
\en{Reiter, p. 304-310; Cavanagh, p. 53,58; R.~A.~Brody, ``The Puzzle of
Political Participation in America,'' pp. 287-324 in {\it The New
American Political System} ed. A.~King (Washington, D.C.: AEI, 1978) in
Conway, p. 223, 228.}
\en{Robert Lane, {\it Political Life} (Glencoe, Illinois 1959), pp. 223-234.}
\en{Lane, pp. 233-234.}
\en{Anthony Downs, {\it An Economic Theory of Democracy} (New York: Harper
and Row, 1957), Chapter 9.}
\en{Downs, Chapter 9.}
\en{Lester W. Milbrath, {\it Political Participation} (Chicago: Rand-McNally,
1965), pp. 116-121.}
\en{Campbell, pp. 476-477.}
\en{Conway, p. 223.}
\en{Arthur T. Hadley, {\it The Empty Polling Booth} (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1978), p. 21-22.}
\en{Hadley, pp. 9-10.}
\en{Hadley, p. 22.}
\en{Hadley, p. 22.}
\en{Hadley, p. 22.}
\en{Hadley, p. 22.}
\en{Neimi and Weisberg, p. 29; Campbell et al., p. 13, 17.}
\en{Phillip E. Converse, ``Change in the American Electorate'' in {\it The
Human Meaning of Social Change} ed. Angus Campbell and Phillip E. Converse
(New York: Russel Sage, 1972) pp. 263-339 in Paul R. Abramson and John H.
Aldrich, ``The Decline of Electoral Participation in America,'' {\it
American Political Science Review}, 76 (1982), pp. 502-520; George I. Balch,
``Multiple Indicators in Survey Research: The Concept `Sense of Political
Efficacy','' {\it Political Methodology}, 1 (1974), pp. 1-43 in Abramson and
Aldrich, p. 504.}
\en{Paul R. Abramson and Ada Finifter, ``On the Meaning of Political Trust:
New Evidence from Items Introduced in 1978,'' {\it American Journal of
Political Science} 25 (1981), pp. 297-307 in Abramson and Aldrich, p. 504; Stephen
C. Craig, ``Efficacy, Trust, and Political Behavior: An Attempt to Resolve
a Lingering Conceptual Dilemma,'' {\it American Politics Quarterly} 7 (1979),
pp. 225-239 in Abramson and Aldrich, p. 504.}
\en{Abramson and Aldrich, p. 510.}
\en{Shaffer, pp. 92-93.}
\en{Abramson and Aldrich, pp. 511, 519-520.}
\en{Campbell et al., p. 105; Brody, pp. 287-324 in Cassel and Hill, p. 182;
J. Clotfelter and C.~L.~Prysby, {\it Political Choices: A Study of Elections
and Voters} (New York: Holt, Rinehart \&amp; Winston, 1980) in Cassel and Hill,
p. 182.}
\en{Abramson and Aldrich, p. 511.}
\en{Abramson and Aldrich, p. 511.}
\en{Abramson and Aldrich, p. 511.}
\en{Orley Ashenfelter and Stanley Kelly, ``Determinants of Participation
in Presidential Elections,'' {\it Journal of Law and Economics}, 18 (1975),
pp. 695-733 in Abramson and Aldrich, p. 511.}
\en{Reiter, pp. 296-310.}
\en{Hill and Cassel, p. 194.}
\en{Hadley, p. 167; Abramson, p. 504.}
\en{Hadley, p. 167.}
\en{Hadley, p. 35.}
\en{Hadley, p. 34.}
\en{Arthur H. Miller and Warren E. Miller, ``Issues, Candidates, and Partisan
Divisions in the 1972 American Presidential Election,'' {\it British Journal
of Political Science}, 5 (1975), pp. 393-434 in Niemi and Weisberg, p. 28.}
\en{Niemi and Weisberg, p. 28.}
\en{Asher, p. 34.}
\en{Campbell et al., p. 67.}
\en{Campbell et al., p. 72.}
\en{Flannigan, p. 37.}
\en{Gerald M. Pomper, {\it Voters' Choice} (New York: Dodd, Mead \&amp; Company,
1975), p. 18.}
\en{Campbell et al., p. 97.}
\en{Abramson and Aldrich, p. 505.}
\en{Abramson and Aldrich, p. 505.}
\en{Shaffer, p. 69.}
\en{Ashenfelter and Kelly, p. 717.}
\en{Cassel and Hill, p. 67.}
\vfill\eject
\cb{Bibliography}
\leftskip=\parindent
\parindent=-\parindent
Abramson, Paul R. and John H. Aldrich.  ``The Decline of Electoral
Participation in America.''  {\it American Political Science Review},
76 (1982), pp. 502-520.

Asher, Herbert.  {\it Presidential Elections and American Politics}, rev.
ed.  Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1980.

Campbell, Agnus et al.  {\it The American Voter}.  New York: John Wiley
\&amp; Sons, 1960.

Cassel, Carol A. and David B. Hill.  ``Explanations of Turnout Decline:
A Multivariate Test.''  {\it American Politics Quarterly}, 9 (1981), pp.
181-195.

Cavanagh, Thomas E.  ``Changes in American Voter Turnout, 1964-1976.''
{\it Political Science Quarterly}, 96 (1981), pp. 53-65.

Conway, M. Margaret.  ``Political Participation in Midterm Congressional
Elections.''  {\it American Politics Quarterly}, 9 (1981), pp. 221-244.

Downs, Anthony.  ``The Causes and Effects of Rational Abstention'' In
{\it Controversies in American Voting Behavior}.  Ed. Richard G. Niemi and
Herbert Weisberg.  San Francisco: W.~H.~Freeman and Company, 1976, pp. 32-33.

Flannigan, William H.  {\it Political Behavior and the American Electorate}.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1968.

Hadley, Arthur T.  {\it The Empty Polling Booth}.  Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1978.

Niemi, Richard G. and Herbert Weisberg.  {\it Controversies in American 
Voting Behavior}.  San Francisco: W.~H.~Freeman and Company, 1976, pp. 1-31.

Pomper, Gerald M.  {\it Voter's Choice}.  New York: Dodd, Mead \&amp; Company,
1975.

Reiter, Howard L.  ``Why is Turnout Down?''  {\it Public Opinion Quarterly},
43 (1979), pp. 297-311.

Verba, Sidney and Norman H. Nie. {\it Participation in America: Political
Democracy and Social Equality}.  New York: Harper and Row, 1972.

Zipp, John F. et al.  ``Political Parties and Political Participation: A
Reexamination of the Standard Socioeconomic Model.''  {\it Social Forces},
60 (1982), pp. 1140-1152.
\message{Done!: \number\ftnm \number\fotnum}
\bye
</pre></body></html>