High and Low Stimulus Elections

ANGUS CAMPBELL USED the terms high and low stimulus elections to explain fluctuations in voter turnout. Campbell and his researchers examined several elections and determined that there were people who would vote in any election. Several factors influenced the likelihood of the remainder of the voters participating in the election. The presence, or absence, of these factors determined if the election would be a high stimulus or low stimulus election. These factors were identified as the amount of coverage of the election by the media, the office in question, the issues being discussed, how attractive the candidate was or was not, and whether the race was close or not. These factors play on each voter and either motivate the person to take the time to vote, or convince the voter that the time and effort of voting is not worthwhile. These factors are used to not only explain the differences in voter turnout for elections for the same office in different years, but also why voter turnout is higher for national elections than for local elections.

The coverage that a national election (such as the election of the president of the United States) receives in the media tends to contribute to a higher turnout of the voting population than a local election that gets significantly less coverage. Media coverage is much more extensive, in terms of both the amount of coverage and [Page 302]the variety of types of media, for the presidential election. Voters also consider the office of the president more important than a local representative, and thus are more likely to turn out to vote. Voter turnout is not only driven by the issues, but also by the difference in the candidates' positions. If the voter perceives that there is little difference between the candidates, there is much less stimulation to actually vote.

The attractiveness of the candidate covers more than just their looks, but also includes their popularity. Voters are more likely to take the time to vote for a candidate who they like. The last factor is the competitiveness, or perceived competitiveness, of the election. If voters perceives that the election is close, then they feel that their votes will have more of an impact on the election and they are more likely to vote. Campbell believed that the presence of these stimuli would motivate the voters who would normally not take the time to vote, resulting in a high-stimulus election. When factors are not present, the turnout for the election tends to be lower, creating what Campbell calls a low-stimulus election.