Pundits and politicians often note the importance of voter turnout. They claim that who will win, whether or not power will change hands, and whether one party or another will gain a majority of seats all depend on who decides to vote. That turnout matters. Yet, as Zoltan L. Hajnal notes in the introduction to this important and powerful volume, political scientists generally do not believe that turnout matters. The preferences of voters are generally identical to the preferences of nonvoters, and thus election outcomes—both who wins and the policies that result—would not change if turnout changed.

Hajnal claims that the focus of most scholars on national elections and partisanship masks the bias of uneven turnout in local elections. At this level, lower turnout is associated with significant bias by race and class. Nationally, minorities are a small portion of the electorate, but minorities often comprise a substantial portion of local populations, making uneven turnout by race even more likely to cause biased election results. In this book, Hajnal proves quite clearly that uneven turnout by race at the local level results in significant bias in election results, with consequences not only for descriptive representation but also, perhaps more importantly, for substantive representation. In isolation, the individual data sets that he employs are often flawed (e.g., outdated or small samples), but as a whole the findings are remarkably consistent, leaving little doubt that his overall conclusions are correct. There is also a lovely flow to the chapters, in that questions raised are then immediately addressed, such as what might happen if more recent data were employed, or whether descriptive representation matters for substantive representation.

Hajnal begins by setting out three conditions under which turnout can matter: “First, turnout must be skewed…. Second, groups that vote less must have different preferences from those that vote more…. Third, and finally, the groups who vote less regularly must be large enough to have a say if they did vote” (p. 34). He presents strong evidence that these conditions generally hold in local elections, that increased turnout can significantly increase Latino political power, and that institutional structure impacts African American representation. In contrast, there is much less here that is encouraging in terms of increasing the political power of Asian Americans through either means. Even in California—the area of the mainland United States most likely to have large enough Asian American populations for turnout to matter—the effects of increased turnout and of changed institutional structures are minor.

In his discussion of city council elections, Hajnal focuses on the importance of institutional structures. Two findings stand out: First, moving to district elections rather than at-large elections is helpful for blacks, but not so for Latinos and Asian Americans, who are less residentially segregated; second, off-cycle elections depress African American representation. The latter finding is somewhat puzzling, as the mechanism through which it operates is unclear. What is it about moving to on-cycle elections that would change African American political power if not turnout? Yet, according to Hajnal, increased black turnout does not increase black representation. If it is not turnout that leads to increased black political power, then why would moving to on-cycle elections make a difference?

The discussion of substantive representation opens with a marvelous, succinct review of how local governments make public policy. There is a major contribution here in the full model that pits these various theories against each other head-to-head, while also testing the effects of turnout. The findings regarding redistributive spending are particularly strong, and a strong case is made about the power of minority turnout. There are also provocative findings here suggesting that redistributive spending is lower in cities with larger black populations, Hajnal notes, and I would agree: “Perhaps the best explanation for this is racial discrimination” (p. 123). He concludes that turnout matters substantially, a conclusion that mirrors the words of V. O. Key (Southern Politics in State and Nation, 1949, p. 527): “The blunt truth is that politicians and officials are under no compulsion to pay much heed to classes and groups of citizens that do not vote.” In a way, it is reassuring that findings that span more than half a century are so consistent; yet, it is also distressing to see such strong evidence that our political system continues to fail to serve all individuals equally, regardless of whether or not they are voters.

Hajnal then turns from criticism to potential solutions, offering a review of basic explanations for low voter turnout (individual resources, psychological engagement, mobilization, and institutions), as well as the potential that each could be changed so as to increase participation. He quickly dismisses the first three, turning to institutional change as the most promising avenue for powerful and realistic reform. It is true that it would be difficult to increase individual resources or improve individual political attitudes; the argument against using mobilization to achieve change is weaker.

Currently, political parties, candidates, and others spend considerable resources every election cycle trying to mobilize likely supporters, but these efforts tend not to be extended to those less likely to vote or to minority communities. Yet, voter mobilization efforts in these communities can be quite powerful (see Melissa R. Michelson, Lisa García Bedolla, and Margaret A. McConnell, “Heeding the Call: The Effect of Targeted Two-Round Phonebanks on Voter Turnout,” Journal of Politics 71 [October 2009]: 1549–63). One alleged concern is the cost of increasing turnout through mobilization efforts, a concern belied by recent scholarship (e.g., Alan S. Gerber, Donald P. Green, and Christopher W. Larimer, “Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Largescale Field Experiment,” American Political Science Review 102 [February 2008]: 33–48; Allison Dale and Aaron Strauss, “Don't Forget to Vote: Text Message Reminders as a Mobilization Tool,” American Journal of Political Science 53 [October 2009]: 787–804). Another deterrent to such efforts is the concern by political actors that these nonvoters will not vote for the “correct” candidate or party. The institutional changes that Hajnal promotes would increase turnout in these same “unreliable” communities. Thus, those same concerns that currently deter candidates and parties from making stronger efforts to mobilize nonvoters would likely deter them from making these institutional changes. He makes a powerful case that changing the timing of elections, and giving more decision-making power to the people, would increase turnout. It is much less clear whether those who currently hold that power would be as willing to do so as he believes.

In the closing chapter, Hajnal attempts to balance his enthusiasm for reforms that would expand the electorate with the usual straw man of the alleged disadvantages of increased participation (i.e., less informed voters). The true object of our concern is more appropriately understood as the unintended consequences that might result from these proposed reforms, as with the well-intentioned reforms of the Progressive era, but there is only passing mention of such possible negative consequences.

America's Uneven Democracy is a well-argued and thought-provoking volume that adds considerably to our understanding of why turnout matters in local politics. It also makes significant contributions to the study of urban politics and to racial/ethnic politics. It is sure to be widely read, enjoyed, and cited by a variety of scholars.