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 Infographi

c

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

Court denied that the 14th 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