Voter Turnout Myths

In a great article in the Washington Post, Professor Michael McDonald tells us about five voter turnout myths that every political junkie should know. Here is the truth behind the CW:
  • 1. Voter turnout isn't lower than in previous decades:
    Turnout rates among those eligible to vote have averaged 55.3 percent in presidential elections and 39.4 percent in midterm elections for the past three decades. There has been variation, of course, with turnout as low as 51.7 percent in 1996 and rebounding to 60.3 percent by 2004. Turnout in the most recent election, in fact, is on a par with the low-60 percent turnout rates of the 1950s and '60s.
  • 2. Citizens of other countries don't vote more regularly than Americans do:
    Americans are asked to vote more often -- in national, state, local and primary contests -- than the citizens of any other country. They can be forgiven for missing one or two elections, can't they? Even then, over the course of several elections, Americans have more chances to participate and their turnout may be higher than that in countries where people vote only once every five years.
  • 3. Negative ads don't reduce voter turnout.
    Negative TV advertising increased in the mid-1980s, but turnout hasn't gone down correspondingly. The negative Swift boat campaign against Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) apparently did little to depress turnout in the 2004 presidential race.

    Some academic studies have found that negative advertising increases turnout. And that's not so surprising: A particularly nasty ad grabs people's attention and gets them talking. People participate when they're interested.
  • 4. Republican GOTV does not give them a decisive advantage:
    Studies of a campaign's personal contact with voters through phone calls, door-to-door solicitation and the like find that it does have some positive effect on turnout. But people vote for many reasons other than meeting a campaign worker, such as the issues, the closeness of the election and the candidates' likeability. Further, these studies focus on get-out-the-vote drives in low-turnout elections, when contacts from other campaigns and outside groups are minimal. We don't know what the effects of mobilization drives are in highly competitive races in which people are bombarded by media stories, television ads and direct mail.

    Republican get-out-the-vote efforts could make a difference in close elections if Democrats simply sat on the sidelines. But this year Democrats have vowed to match the GOP mobilization voter for voter. So it'll take more than just knowing whether a prospective voter owns a Volvo or a BMW for Republicans to eke out victory in a competitive race.
  • 5. Increased voter registration does not necessarily mean increased voter turnout, but Election Day registration probably does:
    Sizable increases in turnout can be seen in states with Election Day registration, which allows people to register when they vote. This may be related to the fact that lots of people don't make up their minds to vote until Election Day, rather than months in advance when they get a license.
Form the perspective of trying to win campaigns, the negative ad myth is the most interesting one to me. It certainly puts more context behind the modern Republican political machine, in that going nuclear on Democrats is actually an essential part of their GOTV. In fact, I bet it was going nuclear on John Kerry via Swift Boating and other tactics that allowed Republican turnout in 2004 to surpass Democratic turnout. Given this, in isolation, I'd bet that the Republican 72-hour program and the Amway-stuff probably wasn't superior to our GOTV operations by much, if at all. What was clearly superior was their messaging to drive up base turnout, with going nuclear on gay marriage and equally nuclear on John Kerry serving as essential factors. This could also explain why Democrats appear more mobilized in 2006 than Republicans. We can go nuclear on Bush to the base, but they can't pull off going nuclear on "generic Democrat," which is essentially who we are to about 50% of the electorate right now (notice the utter ineffectiveness of their attacks on Nancy Pelosi). Thus, our newfound ability to appeal to the base through progressive media and the general midterm opposition edge of the Generic Advantage might be even bigger factors in this election than I at first thought. If Democrats turn out at higher rats than Republicans those two factors will be as key as our GOTV operations. P.S. If Election Day was a national holiday every year, and same day voter registration was available, I'd be open to the idea of fining people who are eligible to vote but choose not to do so. But only under those two conditions.



Display:


Re: Voter Turnout Myths (none / 0)

I'm still mulling the Arizona plan to give one lucky voter a million dollars.  It seems like a good idea, but there's something very off-putting about it.

Also Chris- what about making voter registration mandatory?  I know a frightening number of people who don't register because that's how they get you for jury duty, but what if you have to register just like guys have to register with the selective service and other such things?


by Lucas O'Connor on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 01:24:31 PM EST

Re: Voter Turnout Myths (none / 0)

Actually, the list for jury duty is take from several places, including the DMV - more often than not you're asked to serve b/c of your driver's license/state id card


by spicybite on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 03:32:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voter Turnout Myths (none / 0)

Didn't know that, but it sure doesn't surprise me that people would base such a silly conclusion on sketchy information.


by Lucas O'Connor on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 04:42:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There is Election Day registration in... (3.00 / 1)

...Idaho, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Congress should mandate Election Day registration nationally.
by Eric Jaffa on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 01:25:07 PM EST

Re: There is Election Day registration in... (none / 0)

I agree.  Either that, or voter registration should be abolished--ND doesn't have it.

See my longer post below.


Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject
by Sandwich Repairman on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 03:50:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voter Turnout Myths (3.00 / 1)

I'd bet that the Republican 72-hour program and the Amway-stuff probably wasn't superior to our GOTV operations by much, if at all. What was clearly superior was their messaging to drive up base turnout, with going nuclear on gay marriage and equally nuclear on John Kerry serving as essential factors

I'm starting to focus on the one area where the GOP does much more than Democrats: robo-calls. The GOP robo-calls with negative messaging to an extent far beyond the Democrats, and with far more emotionally-charged messages, as well. You notice in all the hype about the GOP turn-out, they never mention robo-calls (not a surprise) ... but they have ramped up that activity considerably.

Frankly, I think this is an area that is getting far too little attention ...


by BriVT on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 01:26:03 PM EST

Re: Voter Turnout Myths (none / 0)

The research I've seen says robo calls don't do squat. I've bought them and I've come to believe this.


Can It Happen Here?
by janinsanfran on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 10:35:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voter Turnout Myths (none / 0)

Just going through my old comments ... if you see this, thanks for the link! I've been looking around for some studies on this ...


by BriVT on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 12:15:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voter Turnout Myths (none / 0)

Their GOTV is overrated.  From 2000 to 2004, Dems did better in the key states where all the GOTV effort was than in they did in the rest of the country.


by The Animal on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 01:29:59 PM EST

I disagree (none / 0)

I was a precinct captain for Kerry both before the Iowa caucuses and during the 2004 campaign.

I was repeatedly given lists of registered Ds in my precinct and asked to make sure the Kerry supporters voted. All of our GOTV was focused on banking early votes for Kerry and nagging other registered Ds to vote. We wasted a lot of time contacting people who were going to vote anyway and who got annoyed about being asked repeatedly to vote by absentee ballot.

I had no persuasion script for undecideds. I was never told to contact independents in my precinct.

My friend who lives in the precinct did GOTV for ACT. Since we couldn't coordinate, we contacted the same D households. She also was given no persuasion script--if she door-knocked and the person was undecided, she was supposed to move on. The whole effort was focused on people who had already decided they were for Kerry.

The GOP turnout machine was better because they didn't restrict themselves to registered Rs who had already decided to vote for Bush.

INcidentally, we did increase Kerry's vote in Iowa--he got about 735,000 votes, compared to about 650,000 cast for Gore in 2000 when he won the state. But the Republicans outhustled us, and Bush won the state by 12,000 votes out of 1.5 million cast.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 01:59:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I live in Iowa too (none / 0)

and agree with your criticisms of the GOTV efforts.  But look at the data.  Nationally, there was a 3 point swing towards Bush from 2000 to 2004.  In Iowa, it was a 1 point swing.


by The Animal on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 05:57:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I explain the psychology of it here (none / 0)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/30 /102834/32

The GOP GOTV operation is twofold. It not only identifies and contacts potential GOP voters, it also spends a lot of money firing them up with attacks on and demonization of the Democrats.


by Hesiod Theogeny on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 01:33:21 PM EST

Re: Voter Turnout Myths (3.00 / 1)

RE: The negative advertising

I did a study for a class about 4 years ago and found that while it was mostly a zero-sum game with negative ads, when there WAS an effect, negative ads motivated the supporters of the person being attacked. It was very much an attitude of "How dare they unfairly slander our guy! I'll show them!"

Still it was at most 3-4 points so barely a statistical blip.


by MNPundit on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 01:34:43 PM EST

Re: Voter Turnout Myths (none / 0)

The entire GOTV campaign is a lot of hype. They make it seem like the GOP is dragging people to the poles. This year is clearly different.  People are going to vote on emotion and the desire for change. Also the negative ads only in my opinion motivate the base. Blacks in Tennesse after seeing the two stupid ads  should be more motivated then ever to turn out.


by nzubechukwu on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 01:42:21 PM EST

Re: Voter Turnout Myths (none / 0)

Even then, over the course of several elections, Americans have more chances to participate and their turnout may be higher than that in countries where people vote only once every five years.

Which countries are those, though? The UK has elections at least every two years. And including primaries is cheating a bit, because the vast majority of primaries have only nominal opposition.

I'll grant that Americans in general can vote for more positions than Europeans. But I'll also suggest that a few of those positions -- secretary of state, or any position involving oversight of elections -- shouldn't be decided by voters in the first place.

After decades of trailing turnout in the United Kingdom, U.S. turnout in 2004 was on a par with recent British elections, in which turnout was 59.4 percent in 2001 and 61.4 percent in 2005.

Oh, that's cheating too with the cutoff: the turnout in those years was lower because there was really no prospect of Labour being defeated by a weak opposition. The turnout in 1997 was 71%, and that was the lowest since 1935. Expect the next one, post-Blair, to be up in the 70s, while 2008 won't come close.

Anyway, those wiggles aside, my approach to improve turnout would be proactive registration. That is, creating mechanisms to automatically register people when they establish residence with the criteria that make them eligible. Background checks are already permitted to strike felons off the roll in states where the prohibition exists -- a prohibition I despise -- so why not put people on the roll and send their voting cards automatically?


by etagloh on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 01:52:04 PM EST

Re: Voter Turnout Myths (none / 0)

There are elections every year, even if people don't care about the local stuff.


by Lucas O'Connor on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 02:17:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voter Turnout Myths (none / 0)

Off topic, but significant, IMHO-

"Bloggers are leading the conversation," said David Bohrman, CNN's Washington bureau chief. "You could argue that most of the political dialogue in this country is happening online, so if you don't incorporate that into your coverage, you're missing a major element."

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/new s/cl-et-news30oct30,1,4936146.story?coll =la-headlines-entnews&ctrack=1&c set=true


by global yokel on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 02:16:44 PM EST

Re: Voter Turnout Myths (none / 0)

Thanks for the Do More Than Vote link! It's the best.


by votingvoter on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 03:32:28 PM EST

Re: Voter Turnout Myths (3.00 / 0)

This is pretty poorly argued. Most of the things said here depend on using the single data point of the 2004 presidential election to try to refute longer-running trends-- and one could very easily argue 2004 was not an average election. For example, his response to Myth #1 leans pretty hard on the high turnout in 2004. If 2004 was the first election in decades to live up to voter turnout levels of the 1960s, this has no bearing on the problem that turnout in the elections in between those two has been lower. Not all elections will be as dramatic as 2004 was, or even 1992.

Similarly, his response to Myth #3-- in which he tries to refute the idea negative ads hurt turnout by pointing to that one single instance of effective negative campaigning in 2004-- is just laughable; among other things he is attacking a straw man here, since the argument he's supposed to be trying to refute is that while negative ads may whip up emotions in the short term, they turn people off to the political process in the long term. His point might have been stronger if he'd concentrated on the "some academic studies" supposedly suggesting negative ads increase turnout, but he doesn't tell us what these studies were or how to find out more about them.

Myth #2 he doesn't even try to refute-- he just admits it's true, but offers a lame excuse for why it's true. Well, okay, but it's still true.

And Myth #4... I'm not sure why that qualifies as a "myth" exactly, since the way he stated the myth ("The Republican 72-hour campaign will win the election"), I don't think anyone sincerely believes that it's true except Karl Rove. "Myth" implies that it's something widely believed and accepted. It probably is widely accepted that, as you put it, Republicans have a better GOTV engine than Democrats; but if this is a "myth" neither he nor you do anything to dispel it. His only meaningful response to the idea of a better Republican GOTV engine existing is "well, Democrats are trying harder this time than they did last time". Okay, and?

Part #5 is the only coherent or well-supported part of the article.

This article isn't so much mythbusting as making random assertions.


by Silent sound on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 05:10:03 PM EST

Re: Voter Turnout Myths (none / 0)

"5. Increased voter registration does not necessarily mean increased voter turnout, but Election Day registration probably does: Sizable increases in turnout can be seen in states with Election Day registration, which allows people to register when they vote. This may be related to the fact that lots of people don't make up their minds to vote until Election Day, rather than months in advance when they get a license." This may or may not be the relevant way to frame voter registration. What VR does, unquestionably, is allow voters who want to vote actually vote. If you aren't registered you aren't casting a ballot no matter what. VR may not increase the turnout in an election (which is the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot), but it DOES increase the total number of voters casting ballots. VR isn't so much a turnout vehicle as it is a vehicle for increasing the electorate. To the extent that progressives can register core progressive constituencies, then they have expanded the electorate in a progressive direction. Getting those people to vote, even if it is just 50% turnout means that there is an overal increase in the number of progressive voters in an election. Also on this: "Studies of a campaign's personal contact with voters through phone calls, door-to-door solicitation and the like find that it does have some positive effect on turnout. But people vote for many reasons other than meeting a campaign worker, such as the issues, the closeness of the election and the candidates' likeability. Further, these studies focus on get-out-the-vote drives in low-turnout elections, when contacts from other campaigns and outside groups are minimal. We don't know what the effects of mobilization drives are in highly competitive races in which people are bombarded by media stories, television ads and direct mail." Atually, there was a series of GOTV studies done on the 2005 NJ Gov. race and while they should not be considered the definitive GOTV answers, they DO show that teh face-to-face contacts people get are still a significant factor in turnout even with TV and direct mail from numerous sources. The most important thing is a face-to-face contact on the Monday before Election Day. There are, of course, more detials involved in this and I've simplifeid somewhat, but the results are statistically signigicant. I don't blame the professor for not knowing this since the study was done privately and the results are still confidential.
by nathanhj on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 05:29:03 PM EST

Re: Voter Turnout Myths (none / 0)

Here's how this was supposed to look: "5. Increased voter registration does not necessarily mean increased voter turnout, but Election Day registration probably does: Sizable increases in turnout can be seen in states with Election Day registration, which allows people to register when they vote. This may be related to the fact that lots of people don't make up their minds to vote until Election Day, rather than months in advance when they get a license." This may or may not be the relevant way to frame voter registration. What VR does, unquestionably, is allow voters who want to vote actually vote. If you aren't registered you aren't casting a ballot no matter what. VR may not increase the turnout in an election (which is the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot), but it DOES increase the total number of voters casting ballots. VR isn't so much a turnout vehicle as it is a vehicle for increasing the electorate. To the extent that progressives can register core progressive constituencies, then they have expanded the electorate in a progressive direction. Getting those people to vote, even if it is just 50% turnout means that there is an overal increase in the number of progressive voters in an election. Also on this: "Studies of a campaign's personal contact with voters through phone calls, door-to-door solicitation and the like find that it does have some positive effect on turnout. But people vote for many reasons other than meeting a campaign worker, such as the issues, the closeness of the election and the candidates' likeability. Further, these studies focus on get-out-the-vote drives in low-turnout elections, when contacts from other campaigns and outside groups are minimal. We don't know what the effects of mobilization drives are in highly competitive races in which people are bombarded by media stories, television ads and direct mail." Atually, there was a series of GOTV studies done on the 2005 NJ Gov. race and while they should not be considered the definitive GOTV answers, they DO show that teh face-to-face contacts people get are still a significant factor in turnout even with TV and direct mail from numerous sources. The most important thing is a face-to-face contact on the Monday before Election Day. There are, of course, more detials involved in this and I've simplifeid somewhat, but the results are statistically signigicant. I don't blame the professor for not knowing this since the study was done privately and the results are still confidential.
by nathanhj on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 05:35:41 PM EST

Mandatory voting is unconstitutional (none / 0)

Purposely not voting is a form of free speech. You can't force people to vote for people they don't support (and millions of Americans do not support ANY party).


by OfficeOfLife on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 06:25:05 PM EST

Re: Voter Turnout Myths (none / 0)

Well, if the 72 hour campaign is a myth, why are we so desperate to emulate it?

That reminds me of what they say about judicial verdicts. Even if you can't decipher it, look at the dissents. That will clear things up in a hurry. It's also the way I figure out the wordy ballot measures. I check the argument for and against in the sample ballot. When one side spreads fear that the measure, if passed, will benefit trial lawyers and raise taxes, they've already handicapped the issue for me. Pass it. Next.

Look, this is a classic case of reinforcement and selective acceptance. The netroots has an ongoing desperation to embrace negative campaigning and pretend Republican GOTV is overstated. So when there are tidbits to support that, those are the ones highlighted. Next.

My dad volunteered for GOTV in a major South Florida precinct in 2004, about two weeks before election day. Zero experience. A week later he was canvass leader, head of the entire operation. The guy who had the position quit in disgust because it was so disorganized, with inferior computers and outdated lists. My dad said he would walk up to homes and occasionaly the current residents would literally laugh at him when he asked their name, since that person wasn't even the prior resident. The Democratic lists were so flawed they weren't catching the current generation. This was in one of the two pivotal states. I'm confident it is far superior now but two friends of mine who work Republican GOTV told me they started months earlier than normal this year with even more advanced techniques. Not that I can get more specifics out of them. Possibly it's a bluff but I can verify those two guys are not showing up at our weekly pickup basketball game, supposedly to work GOTV.

Democrats still don't have enough of a continuous application of GOTV. It's like the old days when NFL teams ended the season in December then basically didn't work out or show up until the following July.


by Gary Kilbride on Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 09:05:44 PM EST

If the Dem lists are updated now (none / 0)

I doubt it matters much at all if we only "touch" drop-off voters 3 times but the GOP touches theirs 6 times with super-specfic issue messaging. The difference between now and 2004 is that we will reach far more of the target voters than were actually reached back then.

I've always wondered about that. ACT claims they "contacted X million voters". How many of those "voters" were unreachable names on a list?


by OfficeOfLife on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 01:25:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voter Turnout Myths (none / 0)

Last month I posted my comprehensive plan to increase voter turnout here.

Silent sound makes a lot of good points.  The 60% turnout in 2004 was anomalous; the US hadn't seen it that high since 1968--before 18 year olds were given the vote.  Turnout was 51% in 2000, 49% in 1996 (lowest since 1924), 55% in 1992 (Perot spike), and about 52% in 1988.  While the US was setting a 40 year high for voter turnout with its 40% in 2004, Canada hit a record low of 61% the month before.  This January it was back up to 65%.  In a territorial eleciton in Yukon earlier this month, turnout was down to 72%.  Turnout in European countries is typically in the 70s and 80s.

Yes, I'm sympathetic to the arguments that Americans have too many elections and elect too many offices.  I've suggested that both of those be reduced.  Ohio REALLY doesn't need to be electing County Coroners--is that really a partisan/ideological position to begin with??  The Jacksonian tradition went a little too far in some cases.  And there are too many possible election dates in each place every year.  Missouri has 4-5 dates per year available for various elections.  I think the feds should limit the states to 2-3 per year.  Fewer election dates would be easier to keep track of and more likely to motivate people to vote.

Jury duty pools are taken from different places in different states.  It's not linked to voter registration everywhere (given the unfortunate perceptions of jury duty, I don't think they should be linked at all).  In DC, there's such a shortage of eligible jurors, in part because so many residents are ineligible, that the city had to pass a law promising people they wouldn't have to serve more often than once every 2 years.

I don't like the AZ lottery proposal because it entices people to vote for the wrong reason.  Do we want uninformed people voting just for a chance to win $1M?  That's not how democracy is supposed to work.

Same-day registration SHOULD be available everywhere.  In 2002, as the Senate was considering McCain-Feingold and the Help America Vote Act, Sen. Wellstone introduced a bill which would have required every state to implement same-day registration.

I agree that Election Day should be a federal holiday--for philosophical reasons as much as practical ones.  An interim step might be something Canada has done: up here, it's not an official holiday, but employers are obligated to give all employees 3 consecutive hours to vote.  If you normally work 9-6, you can come in at 12 or leave at 3.  So at least people are given mandatory adequate time off work to vote.

I also think campaign finance and election reform play into this.  Clean elections with almost totally public financing, contributions limited to $100 per person and prohibited from any entity but individuals, free airtime on TV and radio (which takes nothing more than enforcing the Communications Act of 1934 would all help the overall environment--rebuild confidence in the overall political system which would lure more people to vote.  Another interesting incentive Canada does: even if a party wins no seats in Parliament, they get $1.75 in the next election for every vote they get in this one.  So that wipes out the "wasted vote" idea.  Even if a minor party candidate in your riding doesn't win, your vote means they get more public funding.  That might be something for the US to consider.  Also, political donations are tax-deductible (though deductions are regressive so I might prefer a capped, fully refundable credit).

I recently ran across some good data on who doesn't vote, and why.  It's posted here.

Of particular note: According to the analysis, nonvoters tend to be young, less well educated and less well-off. Unregistered respondents explained their status by telling pollsters they haven't had time to register (19 percent), recently moved (17 percent), didn't care about politics (14 percent) or didn't have faith in the system (12 percent). Those who stayed home in 2004 said they weren't old enough (16 percent), weren't registered (15 percent) or were unhappy with the choices before them (12 percent).


Give to Redistricting Project candidates for Democratic maps 2011-2021! http://www.actblue.com/page/redistrictin gproject
by Sandwich Repairman on Tue Oct 31, 2006 at 03:38:31 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.