In other words: The turnout gap between those who are pro-socially motivated and those who are more self-interested widens as the number of eligible voters increases (and the chance of casting the decisive vote shrinks). [7/7]

📊 FINDINGS:

1) For non-donors, we see a clear drop in turnout the larger municipality they move to ✅
2) The turnout of pro-social individuals (donors) is far less affected by the size of their municipality 📉 [6/7]

We use data on charitable donations🎁 to proxy pro-social motivations, and analyze what happens to individuals' turnout when they move between municipalities of different sizes 🚚 [5/7]

In local elections in small Norwegian municipalities, a handful of votes can often tip mandates. In large cities, the probability of being decisive is negligible. This variation is key. [4/7]

Using admin data from Norway, we perform the first test of the hypothesis that the turnout **gap** between more/less pro-social voters widens with electorate size [3/7]

This 'paradox of voting' has long puzzled social scientists 🤯

Key theories propose that pro-social motives (like altruism or a sense of civic duty) gets people to participate even when the chance of influencing the election is small [2/7]