Does Early Voting Really Improve
Voter Turnout?
The View from the Academy
Paul Gronke, Director
Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum, Research Director
Early Voting Information Center
July 16, 2007
Prepared for the National Association of Secretary of States’
Summer Meeting, Portland OR
Who am I?
 Professor of Political Science at Reed College and Director of
the Early Voting Information Center
 Primary fields of research are voting behavior, public opinion,
survey administration and statistics
 Recent projects:
 Carter/Baker Commission report on Voting by Mail
 2006 Carnegie Corporation project on 2004 Election Day Survey
 2007 EAC Contract on 2006 Election Administration Survey
 Where you can find out more about me:
 Email: earlyvoting@reed.edu
 Web: http://earlyvoting.net, http://www.reed.edu/~gronke
 Blog: http://electionupdates.caltech.edu
Agenda for today
Theories of voting and the early voter


Voting as A Cost/Benefit decision: Because EV decreases
cost, turnout should increase

Voting as Consumption: Because voting is a marginal decision,
EV should have small effects (positive and negative) on turnout

Voting and the Social Context: If states make it easier for
parties, candidates, and other organizations to identify early voters,
turnout should increase


Empirical studies of turnout and early voting
How scholars and policymakers can work together
State of the World: Early Voting
is coming and you can’t stop it
Figure One: Non-Precinct Place Voting Rates in 2004
6 states cast ballots before Iowa Caucus
12 states cast ballots before New Hampshire
Major share of delegates
at stake in early voting
Thanks to:
Source: Fitzgerald 2005
Voting as a
Cost-Benefit Decision
 Why should anyone vote at all?
 Scholars often conceptualize voting as a cost-benefit
calculation:
Vote if: C < pB
 The probability that a citizen’s vote will make a difference (p)
multiplied by the perceived benefit from voting (pB) must be
greater than the cost of voting (C) in order for a citizen to
vote.
 Prediction: rational citizens should not vote and in
equilibrium, turnout should be zero
How to increase turnout if you
believe the Cost-Benefit Model
 The p (probability that one vote will make a difference)
is virtually nil; thus…
 Efforts to increase turnout work on B or C
 B: most GOTV efforts for candidates and policy campaigns
work here, trying to make potential voters feel that the
benefit gained from voting is large (or that the cost of not
turning out will be severe)
 C: a few campaigns, and most civil servants operate here,
trying to lower the costs of voting by making polls easier to
access, making information accessible, etc.
 Early Voting may increase turnout by lowering the
costs of voting.
Voting as consumption
 Many political scientists modify the classic cost-benefit
model of turnout:
Vote if: C < pB + D
 D has been variously described as civic duty or value
of democracy.
 “Consumption” because you enjoy the benefit whether
or not your candidate wins. You “consume” voting.
 Prediction: turnout should equilibrate at some level
greater than zero, and vary according to the
consumptive value of the election.
How to increase turnout if you
believe the consumption model
 Manipulate D:
 Encourage a sense of civic duty
 Describe voting as a way to express your voice (“Rock the Vote”), not to
win or lose for policy purposes
 Structure voting so as to encourage community activity and civic rituals
 Early voting:
 Should have no impact, because small changes on the cost side won’t
translate into big changes on the turnout side
 Should have a negative impact because it destroys old civic rituals
 Should have a positive impact because it creates a new civic ritual
(“voting at the kitchen table”).
 Regardless, any effects are likely to be small.
Voting and the Social Context
 Evidence:
 Mobilization can overcome
barriers to voting
 Citizens with greater social
connections vote more frequently
• Church attendance
• Members of civic organizations
• Volunteerism
The Impact of Party Mobilization on Turnout
100%
90%
Was contacted by
a political party
80%
70%
Percent Voting (2004)
 Criticism of “homo economicus”.
What about “homo societus”—
humans embedded in a social
context?
 Institutions play a role by getting
people out to vote
 Institutions play a role by teaching
skills and providing “resources”
needed to help navigate political
waters
60%
Was not contacted
by a political party
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
< 8th Grade
9-11 Grade
High School
> HS
Years of Education
Junior College
College Degree
Advanced Degree
How to increase turnout if you
believe in mobilization
 Encourage the health of American civic life
 Fund political parties and not just candidate organizations
 Encourage volunteerism and civic engagement; no more
“bowling alone”
 Early voting:
 May have a positive impact if states and jurisdictions make
permanent absentee lists and early voting returns
easily and cheaply available (statewide?)
• Allows civic organizations to target mobilization efforts
• Promotes cost efficiency among candidates and party organizations
• May level the campaign playing field and lower campaign spending
VBM and Turnout:
Empirical Evidence
 Academic verdict on VBM’s effect:
 Small increase in turnout
• EVIC estimates are that voting by mail has increased turnout in Presidential
elections approximately 5%
• One California estimated a decrease of 2.6%
 VBM does not expand the electorate
• Tends to draw in regular voters, does not attract new voters
 What we don’t know yet:
 Changing landscape of voting by mail
 Concerns about “novelty effect” and other “special
circumstances”
 Effects likely vary in higher and lower profile contests
Other Modes and Turnout
 Liberalized absentee voting:
 EVIC compared primary types of non-precinct place voting since 1960,
in Federal elections, and found no impact (other than VBM)
 Other studies have found consistently positive but small (less than 3%)
and often statistically insignificant
 In Person Early Voting and Voting Centers
 No measurable impact on turnout
 Early voting allows parties to “harvest core voters”
 What we don’t know yet
 Based primarily on studies in Texas and Colorado
 Widespread party mobilization efforts directed at early voters
Who votes early?
The Early Electorate
 “Resource Rich” voters (better educated, higher income)
 Committed voters (voters with strong ideological leanings and
partisan ties, older voters?)
 Voters who are inconvenienced by traditional precinct place
voting (e.g. voters facing longer commutes, older voters?)
 Early voting does not expand the electorate and reinforces
existing biases in American politics
 Early voting methods increase voter turnout on average (across many
different types of elections), primarily by making it easier for current
voters to continue to participate, rather than by mobilizing nonvoters into
the electorate.
 Very consistent with the theoretical expectations
Looking to the future
 Electoral reforms that make voting more convenient but may
exacerbate pre-existing biases
 Retention is easy to fix. Likely voters1 who don’t participate already are
those who respond best to lower physical costs—they’re already engaged,
wealthy, educated, or habitual voters
 Expanding the electorate is hard.
 Turning unlikely voters into likely voters involves much more
than administrative changes
1.
Likely voters are those who share characteristics with habitual voters: older, wealthier, politically and socially
engaged, educated, etc. The expectation that a member of these groups will turn out to vote is higher than for
others.
How EV research can help you:
 Study EV as a way to improve election administration
 Give poll workers extra time to learn in a hands-on environment
 Allow many problems to be caught and dealt with before the huge crowds of
Election Day
 Give voters the option of returning later if something isn’t working or if access is
a problem
 Study EV as a way to increase turnout and expand the electorate
 Experimental studies of different methods of voter outreach and voter assistance
 Different methods for different citizens
 Study EV across jurisdictions to establish best practices
How you can help research
 Tracking the number of early votes in an election is a
source of considerable frustration
 States such as Texas, Oregon, Florida make data readily available, in realtime and permanently
 Other states don’t make these numbers available easily
• Often can’t produce the data when directly solicited
• Many don’t track EV at the state level (must go to each county)
• Inconsistent definitions
 Quick collection and analysis of national EV rates is
currently impossible
 Take full advantage of statewide voter registration
systems and link to voter history files