The 2017 presidential election faces a cloud of abstentionists
Presidential elections have remained, to this day, a highly mobilizing event. They are the only elections truly capable of bringing citizens out in droves, drawing back to the polls a portion of those who abstained from other elections.
Celine Braconnier, University of Cergy-Pontoise and Jean-Yves Dormagen, University of Montpellier
Thus, in twenty years, abstention in legislative elections has doubled, with each new election setting a new historic record. Taking into account those who are not registered to vote, significantly less than one in two citizens now take part in choosing their representative. Furthermore, less than one in three citizens participate in European, regional, and departmental elections. And municipal elections, despite the continued popularity of mayors in opinion polls, are not immune to this decline in participation: turnout has fallen by 15 points in 15 years, even if the stronger resistance of small towns masks the extent of disaffection in large cities.
In this context, the presidential election, which demonstrates its ability to continue to attract more than 8 out of 10 registered voters, is truly exceptional. Admittedly, on two occasions under the Ve Republic, abstention was unusually high, at around 30%: in the second round of 1969, which took place without a left-wing candidate (31% abstention). And in the first round of 2002 (28% abstention), which was portrayed in the media as a duel that would inevitably lead to a second round between the outgoing president and prime minister, Jacques Chirac and Lionel Jospin. But since April 21, the abstention rate has always been relatively low: 20.3% for the second round in 2002, 16% for both rounds in 2007, and around 20% for both rounds in 2012.
Electoral intermittency and social determinants
Analyses conducted, notably by INSEE, based on cross-referencing voter registration lists and sociodemographic data, provide two important insights into the factors shaping contemporary abstention.
On the one hand, longitudinal approaches show that consistent abstention affects no more than 10% of registered voters during an election cycle that includes a presidential election. In fact, it is intermittent voting that is the norm, rather than a definitive break with the voting process. The same citizens who are increasingly abstaining from midterm elections have nevertheless continued, until now, to participate massively in presidential elections.
On the other hand, studies show that the traditional social determinants of abstention remain very strong: it is always the same socio-demographic groups that record the highest abstention rates—the youngest, the least educated, the most economically vulnerable, and the most isolated—with the understanding that the electoral inequalities thus highlighted vary with the level of abstention. They are very pronounced when abstention is high—for example, in municipal and legislative elections—and more attenuated when abstention is low—for example, in presidential elections.
These two characteristics of abstention should help to identify the issues at stake in the 2017 presidential election, using the indicators currently available to us to outline the range of possibilities.
More non-registered voters
Data published by INSEE on voter registration in 2016 supports the hypothesis that the election did not generate much enthusiasm in its early stages: voluntary registration figures are down compared to the previous presidential election, and even more so compared to 2007. the "dropout rate" for non-registration was only 12.4% in 2017, compared to 15.6% in 2012 and, even more significantly, 18.7% in 2007.
This lower turnout for registration primarily affects vulnerable and isolated populations: the exit rate was only 11% among single-parent families in 2017, compared to 15% in 2012 and 21% in 2007. It concerned only 11% of blue-collar workers, compared to 14% and 17% in the two previous presidential elections. Senior executives, meanwhile, are still twice as likely as blue-collar workers to follow this path of political integration. But like other categories, they registered less for this presidential election: 28% of non-registered voters turned out this year, compared to 33% in 2012 and 2007.
Not only is the proportion of non-registered voters higher for this presidential election than in previous elections, but the rate of re-registration after moving has also decreased, meaning that the proportion of incorrectly registered voters is likely to be even higher. In addition to the 6 million unregistered voters who will not be able to exercise their electoral rights this year, there are probably around 7 million people who are registered in a municipality other than the one in which they reside. It has recently been established that they abstain three times more than those registered near their homes: 28% abstained consistently in the four rounds of voting in 2012 (presidential and legislative) among those who were incorrectly registered, compared with less than 10% among those who were correctly registered.
The hypothesis of abstention as punishment
Once the possible extent of non-voting attributable to the registration procedure has been assessed, how can we account for the surplus revealed by a number of polls conducted between February and April 2017, which fuel the hypothesis of a historically high level of abstention, similar to that recorded in 1969 and 2002 (around 30%) and which would in any case represent an increase of at least 10 points compared to the norm for a presidential election?
Most commentators put forward the theory of a shift in behavior: some voters who had previously voted would choose not to go to the polls in this presidential election, thereby practicing a form of "punitive abstention" that calls into question the political offering and, more broadly, our political system.
Before assessing the realism of this hypothesis, it is worth remembering that the record abstention figures reported in the media owe much, on the one hand, to the particular circumstances in which the surveys were conducted and, on the other hand, to the criteria used to define the category of "abstainers." This explains why they vary so much: from 24% to 40% abstention depending on the timing and the polling organization!
Fragility of declarations of intent to participate
It is certainly risky to predict the level of participation in such an election. The nature of a presidential campaign is such that it can build in intensity right up to election day—notably due to the mechanisms that encourage participation within families, groups of friends, and among colleagues, but also due to the candidates' campaign strategies and tactics and the media's increasing dramatization of the issues at stake.
This is all the more true given that polls, and this is the second point, are not particularly well suited to measuring abstention. Samples always include far too many voters, and declarations of intent to participate are even more fragile than declarations of voting intentions. Experience shows that simply asking potential voters whether they will vote is not enough to measure the level of abstention to come.
Moreover, those who "abstain" in polls are not citizens who declare themselves as such, but—more often than not—the aggregate of those who say they are not sure they will vote at the time they are interviewed.
In other words, it is difficult to predict the abstention rate for next Sunday. Will it reach 20%, 25%, 30%, 35% or even higher? We won't know until election day.
The risk of an explosion of electoral inequality
On the other hand, it is already possible to anticipate what the sociological effects of high abstention would be. This is because the likelihood of citizens ultimately turning out to vote varies greatly and depends not only on the electoral offer, but also on their age, level of education, professional environment, economic status, and household composition.
In 2012, unskilled workers abstained twice as much as skilled workers, and workers as a whole abstained twice as much as senior managers. Those with the lowest level of education abstained three times more than those with the highest level of education. Voter turnout among 18-25 year olds was 10 points lower than among 50-64 year olds. And as abstention rates rise, these gaps widen considerably. Two months later, in the legislative elections, the gap in voter turnout between 18-25 year olds and 50-64 year olds reached 30 points.
As a result, if abstention approaches or even exceeds 30% in the first round of the presidential election, the inequalities in voter turnout, which are usually reduced for this election, would undoubtedly return to a level equivalent to that seen in the midterm elections.
The impact of business and left-right polarization
On the political front, it is clear that the 2017 presidential election is not helping voters to make up their minds. The level of uncertainty among the potential electorate of the main candidates with just one week to go before the election is unprecedented in its scale, and obviously fuels the hypothesis that confused citizens may not turn out to vote because they cannot find a candidate who represents their views or even a stable reference point on which to base their choice.
The prominence of scandals questioning the integrity of certain official candidates probably only reinforces the already widespread feeling that the political world is inward-looking, unconcerned with the difficulties that ordinary citizens face on a daily basis, and exempt from compliance with common rules. By fueling a toxic climate, these scandals undoubtedly increase the risk of abstention, but not necessarily primarily or solely among the electorate of the figures most frequently implicated.
The over-representation of young retirees in his electorate—an age group that votes (almost) systematically—certainly protects François Fillon from a real risk of abstention (but not from the risk of losing some of his potential voters to Marine Le Pen, Emmanuel Macron, or blank ballots). On the other hand, the suspicions that affect all candidates for elected office – "they're all the same, the others just haven't been caught yet" – could well hinder the mobilization of the least captive voters, i.e., primarily young people – regardless of their electoral orientation – from the most popular categories and those with the fewest qualifications.
Let us also not forget that the higher turnout recorded so far for the presidential election is largely due to the mobilization of citizens who are furthest removed from institutional politics and who may vote out of a sense of duty, habit, social pressure, or conformism, but are not necessarily motivated by strong convictions or a keen interest in politics and the issues at stake. For many of them, the left-right divide in particular still functions as a framework for a minimal understanding of the candidates. Blurring these reference points, by making voting more complex and costly, can also discourage participation.
The myth of passionate abstainers
Are these political factors really enough to make abstention a new form of expression that conveys "messages," as we have been hearing for several weeks on the airwaves, social media, and television? Obviously not. Indifference, disenchantment, and skepticism have for several years now been key ingredients in the political attitudes of many citizens, the vast majority of whom have nevertheless continued to vote, at least in presidential elections. Disillusioned voters do not turn into passionate abstainers during midterm elections.
Abstentionists are, in fact, a particularly heterogeneous group, comprising both highly politicized citizens and individuals who are completely indifferent to politics. Nevertheless, if abstention were to increase significantly next Sunday, it would probably continue to be fueled mainly by the least politicized segments of the population—young people, workers, those without degrees, etc.—who could be swayed by the particular context of this election to engage in a kind of electoral exit.
To see only the "political" dimension of abstention and interpret it as a form of expression equivalent to voting would be to overlook this fundamental observation: our democratic order is based on growing inequalities in politicization and political participation, which are no less worrying than the social or economic inequalities that they help to perpetuate.
Céline Braconnier and Jean-Yves Dormagen co-authored La démocratie de l’abstention (Folio Actuel).
Celine Braconnier and Jean-Yves Dormagen are Professors at the Faculty of Law and Political Science of theUniversity of Montpellier
The original version of this article was published on The Conversation.