At every election, amidst the heated debates between opposing factions, abstentionism is always mentioned . While politicians generally tend not to mention the phenomenon often, journalists bring it up more frequently, especially during the days of electoral silence immediately preceding the vote, when it remains one of the few topics open to discussion. But what exactly is abstention? Is it really just the failure to cast a valid vote? Let's take a closer look at the many aspects that make up the complex debate surrounding the phenomenon of non-voting.
I do not vote and my vote is invalid
The study of electoral behavior has always paid far less attention to abstention than to so-called valid votes , simply because in most cases only the latter contribute to determining the outcome of a referendum. However, since the 90s, the significant strengthening of the phenomenon's numerical strength in almost all representative democracies has contributed to increasing attention on the investigation of non-voting, stimulating reflection and analysis (Muxel, 2003). Before even considering the causes of abstentionism, the first aspect to clarify is what constitutes the phenomenon itself, namely the difference between non-voting and invalid voting. Although there is no widely shared position in the literature capable of conceptually and terminologically clarifying how to consider one or the other, in more recent works the term " non-voting " is conventionally used to describe the act of not going to the polls, while " invalid voting " refers to so-called blank and invalid ballots.
The difference between the two terms, which may seem subtle at first glance, becomes significant when measuring abstentionism, that is, the actual number of abstentions, usually expressed as percentages. Generally, the extent of non-voting is calculated as the difference between the total number of eligible voters and the number of votes actually cast. Posing the question in these terms, however, raises not only the problem of defining those eligible to vote, but also how to evaluate blank and invalid ballots. Although it is clear that invalid votes can arise from material errors , numerous studies show that in most cases they instead express politically charged gestures, namely a refusal to choose (Gulisano, 2010). In this sense, the reasons underlying these particular electoral behaviors are comparable to those that motivate non-voting.
The reasons for abstention
Define what the motivations that push a voter not to cast a valid vote is not simple, first of all because, as we have seen, there is no clear and widely shared definition of what abstention is. Abstentionists do not constitute a compact bloc, nor sociologicamente, nor politically (Muxel, 2003). Not voting expresses both a lack of integration into society, be it a form of political protest Many electoral withdrawals do not reflect abstention due to indifference and social exclusion, but rather demonstrate an individualization of society, a distancing from politics, or even a form of critical and negative politicization that leads to a strategic use of the ballot paper (Missika, 1992). Numerous studies highlight how abstentionism continues to grow in Western democracies, despite the typical socioeconomic factors associated with it—such as rising educational levels and the expansion of the middle classes—being increasingly widespread among the population (Muxel, 2003).
One of the most salient and debated points in the analysis of non-voting concerns its interpretation. Many scholars – especially European ones – consider abstention a manifestation of malaise (Caciagli, Scaramozzino, 1983) and one of the main indicators of the crisis of representative democracy (Corbetta, Tuorto, 2004). This first conception is contrasted by the opinion of other scholars – especially American ones – who instead see abstentionism as a symptom of implicit satisfaction, of political stability and of weak political-social conflict, a sign therefore of success of the democratic regime (Hardin 1998; Parsons 1975; Lipset 1960; Morris Jones, 1954). A third interpretative model is finally represented by the rational choice theory according to which not voting can be the result of a utilitarian calculation of Costs e benefitsFrom this perspective, voting is an irrational behavior, since despite the costs (such as time, effort, and energy), there are no benefits, as a single vote has no impact on the outcome of the election, and the pleasure of fulfilling one's duty as a citizen is purely irrational. This is the well-known and much-discussed "voting paradox" according to which abstaining is therefore a rational political act (Downs, 1957).
Not voting in Italy
Italy has long been characterized by one of the highest voter turnout rates (Mannheimer and Sani, 2001; Corbetta and Schadee, 1982), partly due to compulsory voting, which was in force until 1993, although the penalty was largely symbolic and rarely enforced (Cuturi et al., 2000). Today, however, our country, with an average abstention rate of around 40% , is no longer an exception. The reasons for this are primarily to be found in the significant political transformations that have occurred in recent years, such as changes to the electoral system and the crisis and dismantling of the party system, which have contributed to the normalization of the participatory anomaly that characterized the first fifty years of the Republic's history. Over the last thirty years, voter turnout in Italy has steadily declined, affecting all types of elections throughout the country. Abstentionism has transformed from a marginal and physiological aspect to a politically relevant phenomenon driven by subjective motivations, thus designating non-voting as a general and medium- to long-term trend.
One of the most comprehensive investigations into the composition of abstentionism in Italy is that proposed by Mannheimer and Sani (2001). The analysis shows that forced abstentionists , that is, those who do not vote due to an objective impediment, represent approximately 20% of the total uncast votes. This type of abstention, defined as necessary, is found to be transversal to both social classes and age groups and is fairly stable over time, except for the progressive aging of the population. The percentage of abstentionism by choice , which concerns approximately 80% of non-voters, is much more variable and elastic. Among these, a preponderant portion – approximately 50% – is driven by detachment , that is, by a passive attitude and distancing from politics, which is psychologically marginalized. Therefore, there is no animus of aversion present, but rather of distance, disinterest and lack of involvement. A second, more residual segment—approximately 30%—is instead driven by protest sentiments , identifying an active reaction to express dissent and negative feelings toward the political system. This attitude can be interpreted as an explicitly denied consent and open hostility toward the political sphere, consistent with the rise in attitudes of distrust, anger, and disgust in recent decades. This segment also includes abstentionism driven by selective rejection , motivated by a negative perception of the positions taken by a specific political group, toward which punitive electoral actions are directed. These voters are tied to, or oriented toward, a political party and characterized by a high level of interest in political affairs. This particular type of modest abstention, however, is increasingly gaining ground in the press and in public debate, as it is often invoked instrumentally to fuel inter- and intra-party controversy.
Donatella Natta
