Voter Turnout and Voting
Behavior
GOVT 2305
Previously we discussed
democracy, elections and the right
to vote in the United States.
But having the right to vote is one
thing. Choosing to exercise it is
another, and how people choose to
exercise it is still another.
In this section we look at those two
issues.
First, the decision to vote: which we refer
to as voter turnout. Click here for another
description of voter turnout.
Second, the decision who to vote for:
which we refer to as voter behavior.
Before we go too further, lets
discuss The Paradox of Voting.
It is simply not rational for people to vote, if one
expects their vote to determine the outcome an
election. This is especially true for presidential
races. We are probably all familiar with people
who say their vote doesn’t count, and they are
right. And this is a fundamental problem for a
democratic republic.
As we already know, a stable
republic must rest on a rational
population, but if voting is an
irrational act, there is little reason
to expect that a republic can be
maintained.
This is a fundamental dilemma in
democratic republics.
Keep this in the back of your mind as we go
forward. Despite the fact that a participatory
public has been judged essential to the
preservation of a republic, the act of voting is a
bit irrational.
There’s very little chance that one vote will change the
outcome of any election. So why do it? People do
though, so we will try to determine why. And when
they do, people tend to find shortcut methods for
figuring out who to vote for. We will look through these
and also how the public has voted in recent years.
But this line of reasoning only
works if one thinks that voting is
only about determining who wins.
Voting can also be a reflection of a group’s
strength. It may demonstrate the ability of a
group to hold elected representatives
accountable if they pass laws they oppose. But
these threats only work if they are backed up.
This makes voting rational after all.
Political strength depends on who
votes, specifically which groups tend
to vote, and vote in all elections,
including primary elections.
This helps explain why certain policies
tend to be prioritized more than
others.
For example: It’s much easier to cut
spending on education than Social Security.
Why?
Because older folks votes at far higher rates than
younger folks, this includes primary elections which
tend to be low turnout. In 2012 general election
turnout for those over 65 was 73%, for those 18-24 it
was 41%. This means that the older population has a
better ability to punish officeholders that vote against
their interests than the younger population.
The concept of primarying - or getting primaried
– is based on this ability. A small active cohesive
group promises to run opponents to incumbents
in primaries if they do not vote in line with that
group’s interests.
Here are related stories:
- Conservative Group Gets Jump On 'Primarying' Republicans In 2014
- Gun Owners of America Is 'Primarying' the NRA From the Right
- Pro-Legalization Congressional Candidate Primarying a Democrat in El Paso
And . . .
Primary My Congressman!
Office holders take this into
consideration when they vote.
Can the affected group hurt me
electorally?
This suddenly makes voting – as a
group anyway – very rational.
Here’s a recent example as of this writing:
Despite the fact that 90% of the population
stated support for universal background checks
for gun purchases, it was defeated. The reason
was that gun rights supporters have
demonstrated over time that they are very
active electorally and vote as blocs. They can
successfully punish officeholders, and have done
so in the past. Current officeholders know this
and act accordingly.
So understanding voter turnout helps us
understand which groups in the US have
political power and which do not.
Think of turnout as muscle.
Remember that democracy can be better
understood not as rule by the people, but
by rule of the participants – the electorate.
Let’s look at the first question:
Who Votes?
And then at disparities that exist
within the US population regarding
who votes.
First, some specifics on voter
turnout.
Simply stated, voter turnout refers
to the percentage of the
population that votes. There two
ways to look at this figure, VAP and
VEP.
VAP: Voting Age Population
VEP: Voting Eligible Population
Another way to look at turnout as
a percentage of those who have
registered to vote.
Some argue that the key to
increasing voter turnout is to make
ti easier for people to register to
vote.
Next: Why does voting turnout
matter?
Because it is assumed to reflect the health
of our democratic republic. The more
people vote, the stronger the republic, the
less they vote, the weaker the republic.
Here’s a look at voter turnout over
American history.
But then again, this is a debatable
point. Do people vote because
they feel disconnected, or because
they are generally satisfied?
Click here for an informal list of the
different factors which are argued
to lead people to vote. These are
listed on the next slide:
- A key issue is at stake
- Barriers to voting were low
- People were mobilized
- A personal contact asked them to
- One is from a politically inclined family
- People are educated
- They believe their vote counts
Let’s think about this after looking
at the following graph, which
shows turnout for eligible voters
over time
Keep in mind as you look at this graph that
suffrage expanded over the course of
American history, as did laws related to
elections. This reflects different stages of
American political history.
1788 – 1824: Era of elite politics.
1828 – 1900: Era of machine
politics
1900 – present: Progressive Era
and its aftermath.
Note that turnout for presidential elections is
different – generally higher - than turnout for
midterm elections.
It should also be pointed out that turnout for
national elections tends to be higher than
turnout for state elections, and turnout for state
elections tends to be higher than that of local
elections.
And turnout in general elections tends to be
higher than turnout in primary elections.
Note: It is significant to note which
elections tend to be low turnout.
This means that smaller groups are able to
determine results in low turnout elections, most
importantly primaries where turnout is
sometimes in the single digits. This is especially
true when that group is cohesive, passionate
and works as single group rather than single
discreet individuals.
The Tea Party for example.
What they lack in numbers they
make up in cohesion and action.
Turnout tends to vary from state to
state. Click here for a chart with
turnout figures for each state for the
2012 election.
Texas is towards the bottom of the
pack: 49.7%. Try to figure out why.
Think demographics.
And turnout also varies within the
population. Differences exist
between various groups based on
income, education, race and age.
Here’s a graph which outlines a
variety of differences in turnout.
From Daily
Infographic
And a few others which focus on
specific differences in turnout.
Let’s start with race:
From
The Pew
Research
Center.
In 2012 – for the first time – Black
turnout surpassed White turnout
66.2% to 64.1%.
Question: Will this persist after the
Obama presidency is over?
The continued low participation rates of
Latinos and Asians bothers the leaders of
those two communities.
The projected growth of the Latino
community suggests that that group is
poised to exert considerable political
muscle, but only if it begins to turnout in
large numbers. As of 2012 they are 17.2%
of the population, but only comprised
about 12% of the 2012 electorate.
From the Pew
Research
Hispanic
Center
And now age . . .
. . . And a combination of age and
education . . .
Generally voter participation
increases with age and education.
This tells us something about
which groups are politically strong
and why. Social Security has
stronger support in Congress than
college grants and loans for the
obvious – self interested – reason.
Here’s a look at the nature of
turnout right now:
The US Census Bureau has
comprehensive info about voting
and registration here.
For an analysis of the 2012
turnout, click here. And for a full
report from the Census Bureau,
click here.
A few tables from the article
From Pew Research Center: Who Votes,
Who Doesn't, and Why
Turnout around the world
How does voter turnout in the
United States compare with
turnout in democracies around the
world?
Not well. We rank second to last
according to the Organization for
Economic Co-operation and
Development.
There are reasons the US ranks so
low. We don’t really make it easy
for people to vote.
We also tend to place very high
burdens on voters. We have many
elections with many candidates. This
places tremendous requirements on
voters. Not all countries do.
A general point: Most other democracies are
parliamentary, which means that all the voter has to do
is vote for a party. The party then assigns seats to party
members. In the US – as we know – people vote
separately for candidates for specific offices. Since
many different positions are up for election, voters
have to become informed on each of the candidates
instead of just the party.
In addition, national and state elections are held every
two years, including primary elections. And local
elections are often held on odd numbered years. The
point is that we have elections all the time, and not
everyone wants to vote in all of them.
There are arguments that parliamentary systems
also encourage turnout because since they allow
for multiple competitive parties, people have a
better opportunity to vote for their top choice.
Remember that in our two party system, the
vote for the Democrat or Republican may seem
like a compromise to the libertarian or
environmentalist. They might not bother to vote
at all.
Can voter turnout be increased?
How?
Do we make it too difficult to vote?
Many argue that we do.
One area of controversy regarding turnout
is about voter registration. Do we make it
too difficult to register to vote?
Before we answer this remember the purpose and history of
voter registration. It was one of the progressive reforms of the
early 20th Century designed to weaken party machines. The
other being the primary election, the anonymous ballot and civil
service reform. When someone registered to vote their vote was
tied into a specific location and their participation could be
monitored. Instead of roaming from polling place to polling
place, one was eligible to vote in one place and once it was
recorded that you did, you were done.
You might want to read The Right
to Vote: The Contested History of
Democracy in the United States.
Let’s end this section by exploring
a cynical thought.
Not everyone wants turnout to be
high. High turnout does not benefit
all candidates or parties. Some
might be hurt by high voter
turnout.
Voter registration – along with the
other measured designed to check
voting – had some merit.
These were intended to break
apart political machines, like
Tammany Hall.
This did clean up the political
process, ballots were much more
difficult to stuff.
But this then meant that political parties
had less incentive to organize people to go
to the polls. Altogether these reforms
decreased turnout. We saw this in the
previous slides that showed turnout dating
back to the dawn of the republic.
But some argue that the intent of voter
registration from the beginning was to
suppress the vote.
Not all candidates and parties benefit from enhanced
turnout. The rule of thumb is that Republican and
conservative candidates benefit from low turnout and
Democrats and liberal candidates benefit from high
turnout. The groups that tend to vote at high rates tend
to vote Republican, those that vote at low rates tend to
vote Democrat. This leads to the obvious conflict over
laws related to turnout.
So here’s your conflict:
Tighter registration laws are
supported by those afraid of voter
fraud, looser registration laws are
supported by those afraid of voter
suppression.
A quick look at voter registration
rules.
Registration laws are primarily the responsibility of
state and local governments, this includes running the
elections, printing ballots and other detail. This can
lead to conflict because some states – like Texas - are
more inclined to limit than expand participation. When
the national government tries to use its power to
expand participation, states like Texas claim that it has
violated a state’s right to decide for itself how to
conduct elections.
Specific detail regarding residency etc. . . can be found
in state laws and city ordinances.
For a look at each state’s
registration laws click here.
In Texas, voter registration is
implemented by each county’s tax
assessor and overseen by the
Texas’ Secretary of State.
We cover the nuts and bolts of this
in GOVT 2306.
Controversy: Should registration to
the vote be federally run? Or
should it remain with the states?
For some history, click here.
The constitutional right of states to
control who got to vote was
asserted in Minor v Happersett, an
1875 case where the Supreme
th
Court denied that the 14
Amendment’s Privilege and
Immunities Clause included the
right to vote.
Many states – including Texas - used
their power over access to the polls to
prevent some populations form voting
at all.
A series of court decisions during the
middle years of the 20th Century
whittled away at this power. For
example: Smith v Allwright.
The white primary, along with
citizenship and literacy tests, poll
taxes and other rules were
designed to selectively suppress
the vote.
Voter registration as well.
Congress got involved in the 1960s and
passed laws enhancing access to the
polls. The two most important laws
were the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Note that these granted the national
government power over the states.
Title I of the Civil Rights Act barred
“unequal application of voter registration
requirements.”
Among other things, the Voting Rights Act
creates an administrative procedure –
preclearance – that allows the national
government to intervene if a state passes
voting laws that minimize minority
strength.
The further need for pre-clearance
continues to be a subject of
debate.
More recently, the National Voter
Registration Act - AKA: The Motor
Voter Act – “required state
governments to allow for
registration when a qualifying
voter applied for or renewed their
driver's license or applied for social
services.”
The national government
mandated that states make it
easier for citizens to vote.
The bill met with fierce resistance.
Did the Motor Voter Bill work?
Question: Do state’s continue to try
to restrict access by the poor and
minorities to the poll?
The Brennan Center report
Current controversy:
Voter ID laws: Should people be
required to provide state issued
photo evidence that they are in
fact the person whose name is on
the registration list?
Also
Same Day Registration
Click here for state differences in
state voter identification
requirements.
Next section:
Voting Behavior
Voting behavior focuses on how people in
fact make decisions in elections. There are
two specific decisions we will look at. The
first is the decision to vote itself. The
second is who to vote for.
In recent decades, data has been collected
to address these questions. We will review
some of what has been discovered.
Click here to look through blog
posts I’ve compiled tagged “voting
behavior.”
And in order to introduce the
general concept. Here’s a flowchart
which will determine whether you
will vote Democrat or Republican.
OK, that’s a bit tongue in cheek,
but this chart reports what type of
candidates voters are most likely to
support, or not.
Why do people make these
decisions?
A quick comment on mental
shortcuts – what fancy people call
heuristics.
Generally, we don’t care to spend an awful lot of
time, so we have a tendency to use shortcuts to
determine who to support and why. We do this
for all sorts of things, and is a topic we discuss
more when we look into public opinion and
what leads individuals to form opinions as they .
Perhaps its lazy, but it’s a common
tendency.
It may not reflect how we want people to
behave but it’s a good assessment about
how they behave. It may also be a
consequence of the amount of information
the US electoral system requires voter to
accumulate in order to make informed
votes.
Proponents of political parties argue that
one of their benefits is that they simplify
the voting decision for people in a way that
still allows for an informed vote.
This assumes that the party can offer a
slate of candidates committed to a specific
set of policies, which is a dispute we wade
into when we cover political parties in a
separate set of slides.
The general point is that people
tend to use shortcuts to decide
who to vote for, and we
understand voter behavior better if
we know what these shorts cuts
are.
For a better explanation, I’ll defer
to the description of voting
behavior provided made by the
ICPSR (cause they are smarter than
me).
They point argue that long term
and short term consideration enter
into voting decisions.
The long term factors are
party identification
and
general ideological orientations
They are relatively stable.
They can also influence what types of message
one is likely to accept or reject about the facts
related to elections.
These are long term because they
tap into attitudes that transcend a
specific electoral period. If one
identifies as a Republican, or a
liberal, they tend to do so for a
somewhat lengthy period.
Orientations can change of course, but not that often.
Historically, party identification has
been the dominant influence on
voting behavior, but this was when
party identification was very high.
More people call themselves
independent than Republican or
Democrat. This makes party
identification less likely to
determine vote choice.
The short term factors are:
- orientations on specific issues
of public policy
- general evaluations of
the government performance
- evaluations of the personal
characteristics of the candidates
These factors are peculiar to a
specific election, and can vary.
This is a subject of dispute however because some
argued that evaluations of policy, governmental
performance and candidates can vary depending on
the messages one gets from partisan and ideological
sources. For example, the evaluations one might have
about a candidate can vary depending on what a strong
party identifier is told about that candidate by the
party.
So the theory is that people have relatively
stable identifications with a political party, as
well as a relatively stable ideological
identification as well, these condition their
voting decisions, but that decision can be
impacted by the nature of the times, attitudes
about government performance and the
characteristics of the specific candidates running
at a given moment in time.
Here’s a look at the nature of party
identification and ideological
identification over recent years.
From the
Pew
Research
Center.
Note the rise of independent
voters – those who deny affiliation
with either the Democratic or
Republican Parties. Some argue
that these people - swing voters –
tip elections one way or the other.
Campaign spend lot’s of money
identifying who these voters are
and what it takes to get their votes.
They also spend money ensuring
that those who identify with their
party do in fact vote.
These are called get out the vote
drives, or GOTV.
From the Gallup Poll
Notice that ideology is relatively
steady. But here’s a twist, just because
one identifies as a conservative or
liberal it does not follow that they then
adopt positions on all issues that a
liberal or conservative would adopt.
Here is a look at ideological
identification by party.
Again, while these factors can be steady, their
influence on vote choice is moderated by three
factors mentioned before. This helps explain
why – sometimes – a party identifier might
support a candidate from a different party.
The issues that dominate attention during a
specific electoral cycle might lead one to vote
for the candidate of the other party, or that
characteristics of one candidate might be more
appealing than that of one’s own party’s
nominee.
People do not change their party
identification, but they might vote
for the candidate of the other
party for a specific election.
Sometime this is due to the nature
of the times.
Generally (but not always) Republican
candidates do better during times of external
threats – war for example. Those candidates
might receive votes from moderate Democrats.
This happened for George W. Bush in 2004.
Generally (but not always) Democratic
candidates do better during times of economic
hardship. Those candidates might receive votes
from moderate Republicans. This happened for
Barack Obama in 2008.
For recent detail, from the Atlantic:
The Types of People Who
Voted for Obama
Some researchers argue that presidential
elections results are relatively easy to
predict if one simply looks at a variety of
factors related to the economy, especially
disposable income. If people feel they are
doing well economically, they vote for the
incumbent, or the candidate who is the
nominee of the incumbent’s party.
Candidate Characteristics
With the rise of modern media
communications, especially
television, researchers have noted
an increased tendency of people to
be swayed by the specific
characteristics of a candidate apart
from their party affiliation.
A good recent example was Ronald
Reagan
The Reagan Democrats
Political historians argue that the
introduction of television changed
how parties conducted their
conventions and selected
candidates.
Visual appeal became more
important.
Fun Fact: Since the dawn of
television, the candidate with the
most hair has tended to win every
election.
See: The Living Room Candidate
A Final Point:
Voter Projections
A large amount of data is collected
about both voter turnout and
behavior. These are analyzed and
reanalyzed regularly, which has led
to a relatively accurate picture of
what motivates people to vote and
who to vote for.
This enters into electoral strategy.
Candidates, parties and polling firms
all develop statistical models to
determine who is likely to vote based
on demographic characteristics.
Here’s a graph showing the Gallup
Poll’s projections for who is likely to
vote prior to each of the three most
recent presidential elections.
Candidates and parties do this to fine tune
their get out the vote drives. These are
efforts they use to ensure that their
supporters make it to the polls.
For Democrats this can be especially tricky
since their supporters – especially Latinos tend to be from groups that are less likely
to vote than others.
The goal of these researchers is to
make campaigning less a guessing
game than a work of analytics.
To wrap all this up: here are some
random graphs with info about
voter behavior.
Follow the links for info.
From Boston.com
Population Density Matters
Race continues to matter