Do Term Limits Bring More Voters to the Polls? A Surprising Answer from Costa Rica

Does limiting how many times a mayor can run actually motivate more people to vote? Or does it discourage voters? A recent study from the Faculty of Arts at Charles University has taken a close look at this puzzling question through a natural experiment in Costa Rica and found some surprising answers.

In 2022, Costa Rica introduced new rules banning mayors from serving more than two consecutive terms. This dramatic reform, enacted shortly after a major corruption scandal involving several long-term mayors, created the perfect setting for a natural experiment. It allowed researchers to compare municipalities affected by the new term limits with those that were not, giving fresh insights into how these limits influence voter turnout.

Before the study, researchers debated what to expect. Some argued term limits would boost turnout because open-seat elections – where incumbents are not allowed to run – mean more new candidates and increased excitement around local politics. Others suggested the opposite: incumbent mayors might drive turnout higher by rewarding loyal voters with clientelist perks and favors.

To test these competing theories, political scientist Karel Kouba from the Faculty of Arts, Charles University, carefully analyzed the voter turnout data from Costa Rica’s February 2024 municipal elections. He used a transparent research method known as “pre-registration,” deciding on how he’d test the theory before seeing any election results – a step that greatly strengthens his findings’ credibility.

What did the results show? Surprisingly, neither theory fully matched reality. Overall, turnout across municipalities with newly term-limited mayors increased by only a small margin – just around one percentage point – an effect that was too modest to be statistically meaningful.

Yet, there was still something interesting happening beneath the surface. “While the overall change was modest, term limits significantly shook things up in larger cities,” explains lead researcher Karel Kouba. “We found clearer evidence of renewed electoral competition in bigger municipalities. The races became tighter and more exciting, and voters seemed to respond to that.”

In fact, in Costa Rica’s largest municipalities, such as the capital San José, term limits boosted turnout by around 4 percentage points. These communities saw many fresh faces entering races previously dominated by long-serving incumbents, leading to closer and more dynamic elections.

Shaking up competition, if not always turnout. One unmistakable impact of term limits, the research shows, was their power to increase electoral competition. When incumbents were no longer allowed to run, elections became dramatically closer and more contested, reducing victory margins by nearly 17 percentage points on average.

“Even if term limits weren’t a miracle cure for voter apathy, they certainly reinvigorated local democracy by creating more competitive races,” Kouba emphasizes. “It challenges the assumption that competition alone automatically translates to significantly higher voter turnout. Clearly, the connection between competition and turnout is more complicated.”

This research underscores how changes in electoral rules – often seen as quick solutions – can have nuanced effects. Term limits in Costa Rica did not universally increase voter turnout, but they reshaped local democracy, making it more vibrant and competitive in key places.

Text is based on the research article: 

Kouba, K. (2024). Understanding the effect of term limits on voter turnout: Evidence from a quasi-experiment in Costa Rica based on a registered report. Research & Politics, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/20531680241266899 (Original work published 2024).