Adapting to Electoral Changes: Insights from a Systematic Review on Electoral Abstention Dynamics

Abstract

Electoral abstention has emerged as a critical challenge to democratic legitimacy, with rising rates observed globally. For example, in Portugal, the turnout declined from 91.5% in 1975 to 51.4% in 2022. This systematic review synthesizes multidisciplinary literature to identify key determinants of voter nonparticipation and their interactions, aiming to inform adaptive strategies to enhance civic engagement amid social, organizational, and technological changes. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched five databases (Academic Search Complete, MEDLINE, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) from 2000 to August 2025 using terms such as “electoral abstention” and “non-voting.” Inclusion criteria prioritized quantitative empirical studies in peer-reviewed journals in English, Portuguese, Spanish, or French, yielding 23 high-quality studies (assessed via MMAT, with scores ≥ 60%) from 13 countries, predominantly the USA and France. Results reveal abstention as a multidimensional phenomenon driven by three interconnected categories: individual factors (e.g., health issues like smoking and mental health trajectories, institutional distrust); institutional factors (e.g., electoral reforms such as biometric registration reducing abstention by up to 50% in local contexts, but with mixed outcomes in voluntary voting systems); and contextual factors (e.g., economic inequalities and urbanization correlating with lower turnout, exacerbated by events like COVID-19). This review underscores the need for integrated public policies addressing these factors to boost participation, particularly among youth and marginalized groups. By framing abstention as an adaptive response to contemporary challenges, this work contributes to the political psychology and democratic reform literature, advocating interdisciplinary approaches to resilient electoral systems.

1. Introduction

Competitive elections are a fundamental feature of representative democracy. By linking citizens to decision-makers, elections enable voters to hold their representatives accountable [1]. However, electoral abstention rates have risen sharply worldwide, signaling a significant disengagement from the democratic process. This trend has profound implications for the legitimacy and functioning of democracies. Electoral participation and abstention are two sides of the same coin, reflecting citizens’ perceptions of and engagement with political systems [2]. Democratic stability relies on a balance between active citizen participation and the passivity of others. The issue is not ensuring universal participation but rather safeguarding the opportunity to engage [3]. Portugal offers a compelling case for studying electoral participation. Following exceptionally high voter turnout in its inaugural democratic elections—an achievement that surprised even seasoned scholars of democratization [4]—the subsequent decades saw a sharp decline in voter engagement [5]. As detailed on the [6], abstention rates in parliamentary elections rose from 8.5% in 1975 to 48.6% in 2022, marking an increase of 40.1 percentage points over 47 years. Additionally, only about 20% of respondents report abstaining, revealing a notable gap between self-reported and actual abstention rates [7]. Similarly, Norway and Portugal stand out for having high levels of abstention [8]. In the United Kingdom in 2005, only 37% of registered young people exercised their right to vote [9]. In Switzerland, the average voter turnout was only 32% in the 63 elections held over the last 25 years [10]. In the Republic of Ireland in 1996, according to the CENSUS, abstention reached 65.92% in the 1997 elections, reflecting a worrying lack of civic engagement [11]. As in Chile, voter abstention has become a significant problem in Spain. For example, in the municipal elections of May 2011, the abstention rate was 33.8%, as reported on the website of the Spanish Ministry of the Interior [12]. In the general elections in November of the same year, the abstention rate was 31.1%, despite a study by the Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas published in October indicating that 83.6% of those interviewed intended to vote [13]. However, the highest abstention rate is observed during the process of choosing representatives for the European Parliament. In the most recent elections held on 25 May 2014, 56.2% of eligible voters chose not to participate [14]. This leads us to the worrying conclusion that it is no longer the majority of the people who are speaking out, but the majority of the minority [10], a potential symptom of wider problems and a threat to the legitimacy of democracy [15]. These patterns of electoral disengagement highlight the urgency of understanding the factors that contribute to abstention across various democratic contexts. Such insights are crucial for fostering more active and informed citizen participation.

1.1. Investigations Already Carried out into the Causes of Electoral Abstention

Although most studies have focused on the analysis of voting behavior, to the detriment of abstention behavior, some work in this area has already been developed, with a view to characterizing the different types of abstention/abstentionism, e.g., [16,17]. Electoral Abstention has been linked to several factors, such as low social trust and less concern for health policies [11,18]. A significant and positive association has been identified between distrust in institutions and the propensity to abstain [19,20,21]. Individuals subject to greater economic disparities are less likely to participate in voting [22,23,24]. Other reasons include disappointment with the political system or a lack of clear candidate preference [14]. Abstentionism and null voting are considered (ineffective) forms of electoral participation, as indicated by [25]. When the political divide between left and right becomes less evident, the costs of understanding political debates increase, leading to greater electoral abstention [26]. The public declaration of the intention to vote or not has a concrete effect on voting behavior [10]. In addition, social belonging mitigates electoral abstention [27]. Abstention is interpreted as a significant change in attitude, marked by the context of political disaffection, serving as a punitive means or an expression of discontent with the political class [28]. It has also been observed that voters with a lower level of education or who are younger tend to participate less actively in the electoral process [29]. However, the results relating to gender have yielded a variety of conclusions: women tend to abstain from voting more often, e.g., [10,30], whereas there are no significant gender differences in electoral participation, e.g., [14]. However, the influence of age as a determining factor in electoral abstention is consistent across the available literature, with some authors claiming that this effect is more significant among young people under 30, e.g., [31,32,33]. Low electoral participation among young people is currently a central concern in many democratic countries [17]. These diverse elements provide a comprehensive view of the factors that influence electoral abstention and highlight the complexity underlying this phenomenon.

1.2. Electoral Abstention in Portugal

Social class and educational level are among the most frequently analyzed factors in empirical studies of electoral participation [5]. In Portugal, however, the results of these investigations reveal an intriguing and sometimes contradictory complexity. The existing literature suggests that, unlike other democracies, the relationship between the level of education and the propensity to vote is not clearly delineated [34,35]. As far as social class is concerned, ref. [30] highlights a significant increase in the electoral participation gap between the more affluent and less privileged social strata. Service workers are more likely to abstain, while managers and socio-cultural agents are substantially more inclined to actively participate in the electoral process. This socio-economic disparity in electoral participation raises pertinent questions about the fairness of exercising the right to vote. Contrary to some expectations, research conducted by [36,37] does not identify significant gender disparities in electoral participation in Portugal. Ref. [38] argues that contemporary Portuguese society is characterized by a “distance to power” syndrome, manifested in dissatisfaction with the electoral offer and limited identification with political parties. The trajectory of electoral participation in Portugal resembles, in many respects, that observed in third-wave democracies: founding elections marked by high participation have given way to a progressively alienated electorate. Against this backdrop, there is a pressing need for collaborative efforts between public, academic, and private actors to produce new data [5].

Research Objectives

A systematic review is a widely recognized method for synthesizing literature, offering a structured approach to analyze existing knowledge [39]. This study aims to systematically review the literature on electoral abstention, consolidate current findings, identify research gaps, and advance understanding of this complex phenomenon. By doing so, it seeks to inform future research and interventions aimed at enhancing democratic participation. This systematic review examines electoral abstention as a manifestation of adaptation to contemporary societal changes, including social inequalities, electoral system reforms, and technological innovations such as biometric registration. By highlighting how individuals and institutions respond to challenges such as economic disparities and pandemics (e.g., COVID-19), this work aligns with the Special Issue’s focus on social, organizational, and technological responses to emerging issues, offering insights into how to enhance democratic participation in times of flux.

2. Materials and Methods

This systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [40]. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023434003) and is publicly available online [41].

2.1. Research Strategy and Study Identification

Before starting the systematic review, a panel of experts was formed to establish selection and rejection criteria and the variables to be analyzed. Using the iterative process of definition, clarification, and refinement proposed by [42], a protocol was drafted and published in PROSPERO under the ID CRD4202343400 [41]. The protocol is also publicly available at https://abstencao-eleitoral.webnode.pt/protocolo-prospero/ (accessed on 21 June 2023). This protocol details the search strategy, the electronic databases to be consulted, the start date of the work, the internet browser used, the search languages, the search method, the terms used, the time range, and the inclusion and rejection criteria. We adopted the PICO structure (Population, Intervention or exposure, Comparison intervention or exposure, Outcome), following the approach recommended for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, as exemplified by [43]. The search was carried out through the title (TI) using the central word “abstention”, combined individually with the logical operator “AND” and the following terms: “abstainers”, “abstaining from voting”, “electoral abstention”, “not to vote”, “not voting”, and “non-voting” (see Figure 1). This research is exploratory and descriptive.

Figure 1. Keywords and combinations using the logical operator “AND”.

The keyword search was conducted using the Title (TI) criterion, covering the period from January 2000 to August 2025 (chronological parameter). The choice of such a broad time interval aims to cover as many articles as possible on the relatively recent topic of Electoral Abstention. We used the Brave web browser and Windows. Five electronic databases were used for the comprehensive search: Academic Search Complete (ASC), MedLine (ML), Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection (PBSC), PsycINFO (PINF), and Web of Science (WS). The diversity of these data sources aims to ensure a comprehensive and representative collection of articles on Electoral Abstention.

2.2. Eligibility Criteria/Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The criteria for the inclusion of articles in this systematic review were as follows: (a) the studies should be based on original empirical research; (b) the publication should take place in peer-reviewed journals; (c) the articles should address research on electoral abstention and non-voting behavior; (d) quantitative empirical studies were prioritized. On the other hand, the following were excluded: (a) articles and theoretical studies; (b) opinion pieces; (c) studies published in book chapters; (d) articles in languages other than English, Portuguese, Spanish, or French (see Table 1). The rigorous application of these criteria resulted in the selection of 60 articles for analysis in the systematic review.

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to select participants.

Inclusion Criteria	Exclusion Criteria
studies on electoral abstention and non-voting behavior	clinical trials
quantitative empirical studies	scoping
studies published in a peer-reviewed journal	literature
studies written in English, Portuguese, Spanish, or French	mapping and systematic reviews
studies published between 2000 and 2025 (August)	single case studies
	book
	book chapters
	dissertations
	letters
	commentaries
	expert opinions
	non-original studies

2.3. Quality of Measurements

Quality assessment employs specialized tools that promote transparency and replicability in systematic literature reviews (SLRs), thereby ensuring the overall transparency of the review process. In the present work, the methodological quality of the included studies was assessed and documented using criteria from the MIXED METHODS APPRAISAL TOOL—MMAT [44]. The MMAT [44] was selected as the primary quality assessment tool due to its suitability for systematic reviews, enabling consistent and comparable application across the entire corpus of included studies. To apply MMAT, the researcher initially addressed two screening questions for each included study; if the response was “No” or “Can’t tell” to one or both questions, further methodological appraisal was considered neither feasible nor appropriate. Subsequently, the appropriate study category was selected, and the methods described in the study were critically analyzed. The MMAT encompasses five types of studies, with each type evaluated using five specific criteria, rated as “Yes” (1 point), “No” (0 points), or “Can’t tell” (0 points), resulting in an overall assessment score ranging from 0 to 5 points [44].

The MMAT does not define cut-off values, so the researchers characterized the studies. We used the same criteria as in other systematic reviews, such as [45], in which the final score was presented as a percentage: 0 = 0%, 1 = 20%, 2 = 40%, 3 = 60%, 4 = 80%, and 5 = 100%. The criteria for selecting the included studies were: (1) low-quality studies were those with a score below 50%; (2) medium-quality studies had a score between 50% and 80%; and (3) high-quality studies had a score equal to or greater than 80% [45].

Only six studies scored 60% and all the others scored 80%.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

As shown in Figure 2, we identified 60 articles. The Academic Search Complete (ASC) database contributed nine articles, MedLine (ML) provided four articles, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection (PBSC) identified 7, PsycINFO (PINF) presented 20 articles, and Web of Science (WS) provided 20 articles. However, we observed the duplication of 11 papers, resulting in the analysis of 49 articles. In an initial analysis of titles and abstracts, we excluded 11 articles. We then assessed the full texts of the remaining 38 articles. After this initial exploration, 15 studies were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria, resulting in an analysis corpus of 23 studies in this systematic review (see Figure 2 for details).

Figure 2. Flowchart of systematic review.

3.2. Data Extraction

We established a set of descriptive variables to characterize each of the 23 studies considered eligible for the review (see Table 2, Summary of Included Studies). These variables include information on the authors, year of publication, main objective, conclusions, sample size, language of publication, country of origin of the study, and quality assessment (see Appendix A—Table A1: Detailed Characteristics of Included Studies).

Table 2. Summary of Included Studies.

Authors (Year)	Objective	Key Findings	Country
[8]	Effects of institutional incentives on abstention	Incentives affect privileged voters more; varied impact	Western Europe
[46]	Candidate strategies and voter alienation	Split votes motivate alienation; effect on turnout	USA
[47]	Psychological reasons for voting versus abstention	Personal relevance increases turnout; voter illusion explained	USA
[10]	University student voting interventions	Interventions increased the turnout of students	France
[23]	Economic inequality and voter turnout	Higher inequality correlates with lower turnout	USA
[48]	French electoral reform and the abstention rate	Reform reduced abstention locally, but with mixed results	France
[24]	Urbanization and differential abstention	Higher abstention in urbanized areas	Spain
[25]	Effectiveness of abstention and invalid votes	Abstention and null votes are ineffective; consider reforms	Mexico
[28]	Latent causes of abstention in European elections	Abstention linked to political disaffection	Spain
[19]	Institutional quality and political trust	Distrust is linked to higher abstention	Europe
[14]	Youth political participation and electoral abstention	Traditional voting down; unconventional participation up	Chile, Spain
[21]	Electoral abstention in the border municipality: institutional distrust	Distrust and government evaluation relate to higher abstention	Mexico
[26]	Ideology and political disengagement	Blurred ideologies increase abstention costs	France
[18]	Investigate smoking and political abstention; trust as mediator	Smokers are less likely to vote; trust mediates abstention	USA
[22]	Vote-buying impact	Vote buying reduces accountability; variable effects	Turkey
[49]	Impact of voluntary voting and automatic registration	Reform reduced turnout by 5% but decreased age bias by 39%	Chile
[46]	COVID-19 and the conservative vote increase	The pandemic increased conservative support; its electoral impact	France
[27]	Populism and social belonging	Belonging reduces abstention; mixed influence on populism	Europe
[50]	Biometric updating and local turnout changes	Update reduced abstention; increased education spending	Brazil
[51]	Geographic effects of the economic crisis on abstention	Economic shocks caused differentiated abstention spikes	Greece
[52]	Mental health trajectories and voting	Childhood mental health issues predict lower voting	UK
[53]	Effect of election frequency on abstention	Frequent elections increase the acceptability of abstention	Czechia, France, Poland, Slovakia

Table 2. Summary of Included Studies.

Authors (Year)	Objective	Key Findings	Country
[8]	Effects of institutional incentives on abstention	Incentives affect privileged voters more; varied impact	Western Europe
[46]	Candidate strategies and voter alienation	Split votes motivate alienation; effect on turnout	USA
[47]	Psychological reasons for voting versus abstention	Personal relevance increases turnout; voter illusion explained	USA
[10]	University student voting interventions	Interventions increased the turnout of students	France
[23]	Economic inequality and voter turnout	Higher inequality correlates with lower turnout	USA
[48]	French electoral reform and the abstention rate	Reform reduced abstention locally, but with mixed results	France
[24]	Urbanization and differential abstention	Higher abstention in urbanized areas	Spain
[25]	Effectiveness of abstention and invalid votes	Abstention and null votes are ineffective; consider reforms	Mexico
[28]	Latent causes of abstention in European elections	Abstention linked to political disaffection	Spain
[19]	Institutional quality and political trust	Distrust is linked to higher abstention	Europe
[14]	Youth political participation and electoral abstention	Traditional voting down; unconventional participation up	Chile, Spain
[21]	Electoral abstention in the border municipality: institutional distrust	Distrust and government evaluation relate to higher abstention	Mexico
[26]	Ideology and political disengagement	Blurred ideologies increase abstention costs	France
[18]	Investigate smoking and political abstention; trust as mediator	Smokers are less likely to vote; trust mediates abstention	USA
[22]	Vote-buying impact	Vote buying reduces accountability; variable effects	Turkey
[49]	Impact of voluntary voting and automatic registration	Reform reduced turnout by 5% but decreased age bias by 39%	Chile
[46]	COVID-19 and the conservative vote increase	The pandemic increased conservative support; its electoral impact	France
[27]	Populism and social belonging	Belonging reduces abstention; mixed influence on populism	Europe
[50]	Biometric updating and local turnout changes	Update reduced abstention; increased education spending	Brazil
[51]	Geographic effects of the economic crisis on abstention	Economic shocks caused differentiated abstention spikes	Greece
[52]	Mental health trajectories and voting	Childhood mental health issues predict lower voting	UK
[53]	Effect of election frequency on abstention	Frequent elections increase the acceptability of abstention	Czechia, France, Poland, Slovakia

The majority of papers were published in the United States (n = 4) and France (n = 4) (see Table 3). Regarding language, despite the geographical diversity of publications, most articles were written in English (n = 15) (see Table 3). The earliest paper was published in 2001, and we observed an increase in publications from 2016 onwards, demonstrating the growing relevance of this topic (Figure 3).

Table 3. Countries of the publications (n = 11).

Study from (Nations)	n
United States of America	4
Mexico	2
Spain	3
Chile	1
Brazil	1
France	4
Ireland	1
Turkey	1
Italy	1
British	1
Greece	1
European Countries	3
Total = 13 Countries	Total of Papers = 23

Figure 3. Publication per year: from 2000 to 2025.

Although the final corpus includes 23 studies from 13 countries, there is a geographical (4 studies from the US and 4 from France) and linguistic (18 in English) concentration, reflecting the limitations of the databases consulted (ASC, Medline, PBSC, PsycINFO, and Web of Science). This distribution, while capturing trends in Western democratic contexts, may limit generalization to underrepresented regions such as Asia or Africa [54]. However, the increase in publications since 2016 (Figure 3) indicates the growing relevance of the topic, with adequate synthesis to identify multidisciplinary patterns.

Figure 4 presents a neural network analysis developed to synthesize the content of the 23 studies reviewed. The network was constructed using topic modeling techniques, representing thematic clusters derived from the key terms and concepts identified in the studies. The edges indicate the strength of co-occurrence or thematic similarity, measured by similarity metrics. The visualization was performed using VOSviewer software v1.6.20. The interpretation focuses on identifying central themes (e.g., social belonging) and their interconnections, and on elucidating the multidimensional factors underlying electoral abstention.

Figure 4. Neural network representation of the contents of the articles under analysis.

This systematic review illustrates the multifaceted nature of electoral abstention (Figure 4). The results are organized into three categories to clarify the relationships between the articles: individual, institutional, and contextual factors (Table 4).

Table 4. Categorized Synthesis of Key Factors Influencing Electoral Abstention.

Category	Key Factors	Key Studies (Examples)	Key Relationships
Individual Factors	Health (e.g., smoking, impact of COVID-19); Trust (e.g., distrust of institutions)	[11,21,46]	Low confidence and health problems reduce voting likelihood, while personal attitudes such as political discontent can lead to abstention as a form of protest.
Institutional Factors	Electoral systems (e.g., voluntary voting, automatic registration, biometric updates)	[48,49,50]	Reforms such as biometric registration in Brazil reduce abstention in local elections, but effects vary; institutional mistrust amplifies abstention in systems perceived as ineffective.
Contextual Factors	Economic inequality; Urbanization	[22,23,24]	Economic inequalities and urbanization correlate with lower turnout, especially in areas with high income disparities, where abstention reflects social alienation.

Table 4. Categorized Synthesis of Key Factors Influencing Electoral Abstention.

Category	Key Factors	Key Studies (Examples)	Key Relationships
Individual Factors	Health (e.g., smoking, impact of COVID-19); Trust (e.g., distrust of institutions)	[11,21,46]	Low confidence and health problems reduce voting likelihood, while personal attitudes such as political discontent can lead to abstention as a form of protest.
Institutional Factors	Electoral systems (e.g., voluntary voting, automatic registration, biometric updates)	[48,49,50]	Reforms such as biometric registration in Brazil reduce abstention in local elections, but effects vary; institutional mistrust amplifies abstention in systems perceived as ineffective.
Contextual Factors	Economic inequality; Urbanization	[22,23,24]	Economic inequalities and urbanization correlate with lower turnout, especially in areas with high income disparities, where abstention reflects social alienation.

3.3. Individual Factors

Factors such as health and trust emerged as significant themes. Studies highlight associations between behaviors such as smoking and a lower likelihood of voting, due to low social trust or dissatisfaction with health services. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted electoral behavior, leading to greater support for conservative parties. These patterns underscore the need for research on the intersection between public health and political participation through voting. Recent studies reinforce this perspective, with [52] demonstrating that children’s mental health impacts intergenerational patterns of abstention, and [53] identifying electoral fatigue as a mediating mechanism of individual disengagement in contexts of political instability.

3.4. Institutional Factors

Reforms in electoral systems impact voter turnout. Articles on automatic voter registration, voluntary voting, and technological updates (e.g., biometrics in Brazil) show mixed results. While some reforms reduce local voter abstention, others reveal inconsistent effects, highlighting the need for context-sensitive strategies. Additionally, ref. [51] analyzes how post-economic crisis institutional reforms in Greece exacerbate inequalities in voting accessibility.

3.5. Contextual Factors

Factors such as economic inequality and psychosocial dynamics play pivotal roles. Economic disparities, especially in states with high income inequality, and psychosocial variables such as sense of belonging and urbanization, shape abstention behavior, with urbanized areas exhibiting higher rates of differential abstention. For example, ref. [51] links the Greek economic crisis to increases in abstention among vulnerable populations.

4. Discussion

This systematic review sheds light on a wide array of factors associated with electoral abstention, illustrating the multifaceted nature of this phenomenon (Figure 4). The findings reveal intersections between health, incentives, trust in institutions, system reforms, and contextual factors, emphasizing the complexity of non-voting behavior and its broader implications. Health-related factors emerged as a significant theme, with studies highlighting associations between behaviors such as smoking and a lower likelihood of voting. These patterns may be partially attributed to diminished social trust or dissatisfaction with health services, as evidenced by the relationship between voting for left-wing parties and negative evaluations of healthcare. Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic was identified as a contextual disruptor, with potential implications for voter behavior, including increased support for conservative parties. These findings underline the need for further research into the interplay between public health and political participation. Incentive-driven electoral participation was also explored, revealing that while incentives do not drastically alter abstention rates, they foster reciprocity and bolster turnout among disadvantaged voter groups that traditionally exhibit lower participation rates. This suggests that targeted policies could mitigate abstention among specific demographics, potentially narrowing participation gaps. Trust in democratic institutions surfaced as a critical determinant of voter engagement. A lack of institutional trust was consistently linked to higher abstention rates, with voters perceiving abstention or casting null votes as mechanisms to express dissatisfaction with government performance and party representation. However, the simultaneous rise in unconventional political activities, especially among youth, indicates a shift in engagement modalities. The work of Sola-Morales and Hernández-Santaolalla [14] underscores this transition, showing that young individuals, while disenchanted with traditional voting, remain civically active through alternative channels. Electoral system reforms and their impact on participation were another key area of inquiry. Articles addressing automatic voter registration, voluntary voting, and technological updates, such as biometric registration in Brazil, demonstrated mixed results. While some reforms reduced abstention in local elections, others revealed inconsistent effects, underscoring the need for context-sensitive electoral strategies. Finally, contextual factors like economic inequality and psychosocial dynamics also play pivotal roles—economic disparities, particularly in states with pronounced income inequality, correlated with reduced voter turnout. Moreover, psychosocial variables such as a sense of belonging and urbanization were found to shape abstention behavior, with urbanized areas exhibiting higher rates of differential abstention. These findings advocate for a multidisciplinary approach to understanding abstention, integrating economic, social, and political perspectives to account for its diverse drivers. Interestingly, the review noted a marked increase in scholarly attention to electoral abstention since 2016, highlighting its growing relevance in contemporary political discourse. This expanding body of literature underscores the urgency of addressing abstention through innovative research and policies that account for evolving patterns of political engagement, particularly among younger generations and students. In conclusion, this review demonstrates that electoral abstention is not a monolithic phenomenon but rather a complex interplay of individual, institutional, and contextual factors. The multifaceted drivers of abstention—spanning health, trust, and economic factors—call for an interdisciplinary lens that integrates sociology, psychology, political science, and technology studies. For instance, technological responses, such as biometric updates in Brazil, illustrate organizational adaptations to reduce abstention, while social responses, such as incentive programs, address inequalities in participation. This approach underscores the need for holistic strategies to foster civic engagement amid contemporary challenges. Future research must continue to explore these dynamics, with an emphasis on the changing landscape of political participation and its implications for democratic representation.

4.1. Practical Implications and Implementation

The results of this systematic review provide a concrete basis for implementing practical strategies to mitigate voter abstention, addressing the three main clusters of factors: individual, institutional, and contextual. These recommendations integrate empirical evidence from studies analyzed across 13 countries and promote multidisciplinary approaches to strengthen democratic participation, particularly in contexts such as Portugal, where abstention reached 48.6% in the 2022 legislative elections. The proposed interventions are based on cross-cutting patterns emerging from the studies analyzed, which highlight common barriers to electoral abstention, such as socioeconomic inequalities and mobility limitations observed in diverse contexts, including social support programs and urban inclusion initiatives in Brazil and Spain. The following recommendations are not exclusive to the countries used as examples (e.g., Portugal or Chile). Still, they are adaptable internationally, with contextual adjustments to maximize applicability in developing and/or consolidated democracies.

4.1.1. Interventions for Individual and Educational Factors

A key priority is to strengthen civic and political education in schools and universities by integrating compulsory modules on electoral behavior starting in secondary school (10th, 11th, and 12th grades), including practical activities such as mock elections and debates to address gaps in political literacy [55]. This approach combats youth disengagement and lack of knowledge, extending to elementary education to foster early political socialization and the intrinsic value of democratic participation [55]. Institutional trust can be enhanced by involving social action associations and other actors, such as health centers targeting vulnerable groups (e.g., smokers), by linking psychological well-being to the relevance of voting for the promotion of public health programs, and by aligning with [18] on smoking and social distrust. Such interventions, evaluated by pre- and post-implementation surveys, could measure increases in the propensity to vote among uncommitted youth and adults.

4.1.2. Reforms for Institutional Factors

Regarding institutional factors, such as electoral reforms, the adoption of technologies, such as electronic voting, can be adapted to European contexts through pilot tests in municipalities with high abstention rates, thereby eliminating logistical barriers such as transportation costs and bureaucracy. A detailed implementation pathway includes creating a national fund for electoral mobilization, combined with digital education for specific groups (e.g., individuals with reduced mobility, the elderly, and rural populations), to facilitate equitable access. Furthermore, the decoupling of legislative and presidential elections, suggested by [48] in the French context, could be tried in Portugal through legislation separating electoral calendars, supported by mobilization campaigns via SMS and government applications to mitigate the “electoral fatigue” identified by [53]. Key solutions include secure, transparent electronic voting systems inspired by the Estonian model; flexible options such as postal voting or extending the voting period to weekends (two or three days); and modernizing party communication through social media to attract younger generations.

4.1.3. Policies for Contextual Factors

As for contextual factors, such as economic inequalities and urbanization, integrated social inclusion policies should be prioritized to mitigate disparities that exacerbate abstention. In practical terms, the Portuguese government could expand the Social Integration Income to incorporate electoral incentives, such as transportation vouchers on election day in urban areas with high abstention rates, based on [24] in the Spanish context, with evaluation through longitudinal studies that measure correlations between reduced inequalities and increased turnout, aiming at an increase in participation among lower classes. These measures, monitored by indicators such as the Government Quality Index, would promote more equitable representation and reduce socioeconomic asymmetries in participation.

4.1.4. Multidisciplinary Collaboration and Evaluation

These strategies require collaboration between academics, governments, non-governmental organizations, and health institutions, with success metrics such as the Government Quality Index to track improvements in trust and participation. Continuous evaluation, through mixed panels and impact studies, would ensure the adaptability of interventions to local contexts, contributing to a more inclusive democracy.

4.2. Limitations and Prospects for Further Study

This systematic review is based on 23 studies selected from an initial pool of 60, which may seem limited for a global phenomenon such as electoral abstention. However, reviews in political science or social psychology often synthesize similar samples to achieve thematic saturation, especially when prioritizing high-quality empirical quantitative studies (see [54,56,57]). Nevertheless, we recognize limitations in generalization due to geographical concentration (4 studies from the US and four from France) and a linguistic bias (15 studies in English), which may underrepresent dynamics in non-Western or non-English-speaking contexts. However, we must emphasize that the “language of science” is English. The fact that 15 studies were written in English also stems from the condition that researchers publish in the most universal language possible to showcase their work. Cultural or institutional factors in emerging democracies, such as Latin America and Asia, may differ, affecting the global applicability of findings on institutional trust and electoral reforms. Future work should expand the range of research languages and include other regional databases to mitigate these biases and strengthen insights into social adaptations across diverse contexts.

Interestingly, electoral abstention has not been studied as volitional behavior so far. Electoral abstention can be considered a volitional behavior because many individuals deliberately choose not to vote based on their personal goals, beliefs, or expectations of the outcome. Using the model of goal-directed behavior (MGB; [58,59]) to study electoral abstention would be especially interesting because it would allow researchers to capture the complexity of voters’ motivations, intentions, and the interplay between emotional, cognitive, and habitual factors that shape abstention decisions. Instead of viewing abstention as a mere failure to vote, the MGB can frame it as a planned, intentional behavior influenced by personal goals, expected emotional outcomes, and perceived control, thereby revealing more nuanced patterns of non-voting and informing targeted interventions. Moreover, the MGB could capture the motivational dynamics underlying electoral abstention. Indeed, the MGB integrates attitudes, social norms, perceived behavioral control, and both desires and anticipated emotions to explain intention formation. Applying it to electoral abstention would highlight not just rational calculations but also emotional and social influences that push individuals to intentionally choose not to vote.

5. Conclusions

The present systematic review aimed to determine the key drivers of voters’ nonparticipation. Findings underscore that electoral abstention cannot be attributed to a single factor, but instead emerges from the interplay of different kinds of drivers, such as individual behaviors, institutional dynamics, and broader societal contexts. Intervention that targets only one type of driver will tend to produce limited or short-term effects. Moreover, there is a need to develop a behavioral decision-making process underlying electoral abstention and to identify its associated social psychological factors. Such a socio-psychological model should aim to explain and predict electoral abstention behavior. Globally, findings indicate that future interventions should combine multiple types of factors rather than being restricted to electoral administration alone.