Predicting Voter Turnout in the 2008 Presidential Election: Assessing the Impact of Battleground Status and Early Voting Opportunities

by Jenna McCullochFaculty Mentor: Dr. Kiki Caruson

Department of Government and International Affairs

Research Expectations

Newark, OH. November 3, 2008. Chris Hondros/Getty Images

Research Overview

Primary Hypotheses

Competitive states, where poll results show the election to be a toss up, are expected to have higher voter turnout rates. In competitive states, the uncertainty of the election outcome generates greater interest in voting.

States that allow for early voting are expected to have higher voter turnout rates. Longer voting periods offer potential voters more opportunities to exercise the right to vote.

Secondary Hypotheses

As the overall amount of candidate advertising spending in a state increases, voter turnout should increase as well. Today, television is the primary outlet for political information. The more familiar voters become with the candidates, the more likely they will be to vote.

As the number of campaign visits to a state by the presidential candidates increase, voter turnout should also increase. Greater exposure to candidates encourages participation in elections.

Education is an important factor in predicting election turnout. States with a higher percentage of college educated residents should have relatively higher turnout rates.

Age is also an important predictor in turnout. Middle-aged voters who are highly invested in the system are more likely to vote than young voters. States with a larger percentage of voters 45 years of age or older should have relatively higher turnout rates.

Income is another key factor in explaining turnout. As an individual’s income increases, he or she is more likely to vote. States with a higher percentage of residents earning more than $50,000 in annual income are likely to have higher turnout rates.

Minimally Competitive (26)

Moderately Competitive (14)

Highly Competitive (10)

Key: Competitiveness N

Figure I: Competitive States in the 2008 Presidential Election

Data Sources: CNN “Early Voting: Every day is Election Day,” 2008; Declare Yourself “Early Voting,” 2008.

No early voting (19)

Less than three weeks (17)

Three weeks or more (14)

Key: Early voting period N

Figure II: States with Early Voting Periods in the 2008 Presidential Election

Data Analysis Results

State Turnout %

Minnesota 78.2

Wisconsin 72.5

Maine 71.4

New Hampshire 71.3

Iowa 69.9

Colorado 69.8

Michigan 68.9

Alaska 68.3

Missouri 68.1

Oregon 67.8

High Voter Turnout States

State Turnout %

Hawaii 50.5

West Virginia 50.6

Utah 53.3

Arkansas 53.4

Texas 54.7

Arizona 56.0

Oklahoma 56.7

Tennessee 57.3

New York 57.6

Kentucky 57.9

Low Voter Turnout States

Independent Variables b-coefficient standard errort score

Primary Explanatory Variables      

Early Voting* -1.869 0.765 2.443

Battleground Status* 1.933 0.900 2.147

Candidate Spending on Advertising 0.066 0.101 0.653

Candidate Visits 0.054 0.180 0.299

Control Variables      

Percent of the State’s Population 0.600 0.159 3.773

with a College Degree**      

Percent of the State’s Population 1.039 0.343 3.031

45 Years and Older**      

Income of the State’s Population 0.791 0.305 2.593

$50,000 to $75,000*      

Constant 2.684 10.969 0.245

R2 = 58.5%

Adjusted R2 = 51.6%

Statistical significance: * p<.05 **p<.01

Des Moines, IA. October 31, 2008. Jason Reed/Reuters

The U.S., which prides itself on its democratic values, has consistently held the lowest voter turnout rate of all established democracies except Switzerland.. The U.S. must find effective ways of increasing voter turnout in order to sustain its democracy. The purpose of this research is to determine what factors increase voter participation. Specifically, my research focuses on the impact of election competitiveness (battleground status) and access to early voting opportunities on voter turnout. The research uses aggregate level data from each of the fifty states to predict the impact of these variables on voter turnout in the 2008 presidential election.

The 2000 presidential election caused many voters to reevaluate the impact of a single vote—George W. Bush won the state of Florida by a mere 527 votes—and raised awareness about the importance of election competitiveness in affecting an individual’s perception of the importance of his or her vote. Theoretically, when elections are highly competitive, more voters should go to the polls because of the increased probability that one vote could affect the election outcome. The 2008 presidential election not only offered voters a highly competitive race, but increased opportunities for participation through state early voting policies; some states even permitted voting during the weekend. Political parties and the media placed tremendous emphasis on early voting in the 2008 presidential election. Indeed, conventional wisdom suggests that early voting opportunities should increase voter turnout. The results of this research confirm the importance of election competitiveness in generating turnout, but challenge the conventional wisdom regarding the effect of early voting on voter participation.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression Results

Data Source: Dr. Michael McDonald, United States Election Project at George Mason University, January 28, 2009.

This study utilizes Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression analysis and data collected by the author from the 2008 presidential election.

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable is voter turnout in a state. This variable is operationalized as the unofficial voting-eligible population (VEP) turnout rate for the 2008 presidential election as calculated by Dr. Michael McDonald of the United States Elections Project. The VEP is constructed by adjusting the voting-age population to account for non-citizens and ineligible felons.

Primary Independent Variables

The battleground/competitive states variable is operationalized based on the October 31, 2008 Electoral Vote Scorecard from The Cook Political Report, which uses poll data to rate states based on their electoral competitiveness. I utilized this data to ordinally categorize the states as follows: Minimally Competitive, Moderately Competitive, Highly Competitive.

The early voting variable is operationalized as the amount of time states mandate for no-excuse, in-person early voting in the 2008 presidential election. The variable is coded based on the individual state’s early voting period: No early voting, Less than three weeks, Three weeks or more.

Interestingly, the data results show that an increase in early voting opportunities does not necessarily increase voter turnout. Early voting does not necessary bring new voters to the polls, it simply makes it more convenient for existing voters to exercise their civic duty.

According to the data, as a state becomes more competitive and the outcome of the election more uncertain, voter turnout in that state does indeed increase. Election competitiveness appears to be an important motivator for voting.

The control variables: income, age, and college education are statistically significant in the regression model. These variables are important predictors of the likelihood of voting at the individual level—they remain important when assessing voter turnout at the aggregate level.

Neither candidate spending on advertising nor candidate visits were found to be statistically significant in predicting voter turnout at the state level.

Overall, turnout for the 2008 presidential election is estimated at 61.7%. With almost 40% of Americans not participating in the highly competitive 2008 election, it is clear that more must be done to combat the problem of low voter turnout.

Based on my research, I would argue that steps need to be taken by the U.S. government to motivate Americans to vote. One of the best ways to motivate individuals is to educate them from childhood about the benefits of voting. Only by instilling the symbolic and instrumental benefits of voting at a young age, will the U.S. be able to preserve its democratic process.

Coral Gables, FL. November 3, 2008. Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images

Getty Images

Conclusion

References

Data Source: The Cook Political Report “2008 Electoral Vote Scorecard,” 2008.

Geys, Benny. (2006). Explaining Voter Turnout: A Review of Aggregate-Level Research. Electoral Studies, 25, 637-663.

Harder, Joshua, & Jon A. Krosnick. (2008). Why Do People Vote? A Psychological Analysis of the Causes of Voter Turnout. Journal of Social Issues, 64 (3), 525-549.

Shachar, Ron, & Barry Nalebuff. (1999). Follow the Leader: Theory and Evidence on Political Participation. American Economic Review, 89 (3), 525-547.

Teixeira, Ruy A. (1992). The Disappearing American Voter. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

Wattenberg, Martin P. (2002). Where Have All the Voters Gone? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Note: this is a select list of the references that have had the most powerful impact on my research. A full list of references can be obtained upon request.

Methodology

Getty Images

Zazzle.com

AF

P/G

etty Images

AF

P/G

etty Images