Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-pcn4s Total loading time: 0.377 Render date: 2022-05-21T00:13:26.650Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Pivotality and Turnout: Evidence from a Field Experiment in the Aftermath of a Tied Election*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Abstract

Many citizens abstain from the political process, and the reasons for this abstention are of great interest and importance. Most scholars and pundits assume that greater electoral competition and the increased chance of pivotality will motivate citizens to participate. We test this hypothesis through a large-scale field experiment that exploits the rare opportunity of a tied election for major political office. Informing citizens that an upcoming election will be close has little mobilizing effect. Any effect that we do detect is concentrated among a small set of frequent voters. The evidence suggests that increased pivotality is not a solution to low turnout and the predominant models of turnout focusing on pivotality are of little practical use.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The European Political Science Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*Both authors contributed equally. Ryan Enos is Assistant Professor, Department of Government, Harvard University, 1737 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 (renos@gov.harvard.edu). Anthony Fowler is Assistant Professor, Harris School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago, 1155 East 60th St., Chicago, IL 60637 (anthony.fowler@uchicago.edu). We thank the Harvard Center for American Political Studies for generously helping to fund this research and the Harvard Institute for Quantitative Social Science for logistical support. We also thank Steve Ansolabehere, André Blais, Don Green, Seth Hill, Gabe Lenz, Tom Palfrey and Jim Snyder for helpful comments and advice; Catherine Choi for assistance with the literature review and article counts; Virginia Allen, Maddie Daoust, Lori Kelley, Jean Mulhall and Darlene Tully for providing data; and Ashley Anderson, Andrew Blinkinsop, Dena Yahya Enos, Sandra Fryhofer, Hollie Gilman, Mai Hassan, Michael Lai, Elena Llaudet, Eric Michel, Shahrzad Sabet, Samantha Singh, Kris-Stella Trump, Omar Wasow and Ariel White for placing phone calls for our field experiment. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2014.5

References

Aldrich, John H. 1976. ‘Some Problems in Testing Two Rational Models of Participation’. American Journal of Political Science 20(4):713733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, KevinNickerson, David W.. 2009. ‘Who is Mobilized to Vote? A Re-Analysis of 11 Field Experiments’. American Journal of Political Science 53(1):116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barzel, YoramSilberberg, Eugene. 1973. ‘Is the Act of Voting Rational?’. Public Choice 16(1):5158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennion, Elizabeth A. 2005. ‘Caught in the Ground Wars: Mobilizing Voters During a Competitive Congressional Campaign’. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Research 601:123141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, André, Young, RobertLapp, Miriam. 2000. ‘The Calculus of Voting: An Empirical Test’. European Journal of Political Research 37(2):181201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnham, Walter Dean. 1965. ‘The Chaining Shape of the American Political Universe’. American Political Science Review 24(1):5461.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W.Munger, Michael C.. 1989. ‘Closeness, Expenditures, and Turnout in the 1982 U.S. House Elections’. American Political Science Review 83(1):217231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1970. After the Revolution: Authority in a Good Society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dale, AllisonStrauss, Aaron. 2009. ‘Don't Forget to Vote: Text Message Reminders as a Mobilization Tool’. American Journal of Political Science 53(4):787804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper Press.Google Scholar
Duffy, JohnTavits, Margit. 2008. ‘Beliefs and Voting Decisions: A Test of the Pivotal Voter Model’. American Journal of Political Science 52(3):603618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, John A.Fiorina, Morris P.. 1974. ‘The Paradox of Not Voting: A Decision Theoretic Analysis’. American Political Science Review 68(2):525536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Anthony. 2013. ‘Electoral and Policy Consequences of Voter Turnout: Evidence from Compulsory Voting in Australia’. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 8(2):159182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Mark N. 2004. Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in Established Democracies since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, King, GaryBoscardin, W. John. 1998. ‘Estimating the Probability of Events That Have Never Occurred: When Is Your Vote Decisive?’ Journal of the American Statistical Association 93(441):19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S.Green, Donald P.. 2000. ‘The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment’. American Political Science Review 94(3):653663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Green, Donald P.Larimer, Christopher W.. 2008. ‘Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment’. American Political Science Review 102(1):3348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansford, Thomas G.Gomez, Brad T.. 2010. ‘Estimating the Electoral Effects of Voter Turnout’. American Political Science Review 104(2):268288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, Stanley , Jr., Ayres, Richard E.Bowen, William G.. 1967. ‘Registration and Voting: Putting First Things First’. American Political Science Review 61(2):359377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Key, V.O. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Levine, David K.Palfrey, Thomas R.. 2007. ‘The Paradox of Voter Participation? A Laboratory Study’. American Political Science Review 101(1):143158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, Michael P.Popkin, Samuel L.. 2001. ‘The Myth of the Vanishing Voter’. American Political Science Review 95(4):963974.Google Scholar
Michelson, Melissa R., Garcia Bedolla, LisaGreen, Donald P. 2008. New Experiments in Minority Voter Mobilization. Report to the James Irvine Foundation.Google Scholar
Mulligan, Casey B.Hunter, Charles G.. 2003. ‘The Empirical Frequency of a Pivotal Vote’. Public Choice 116(1/2):3154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, David W. 2006. ‘Volunteer Phone Calls Can Increase Turnout’. American Politics Research 34(3):271292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, David W.. 2007. ‘Quality Is Job One: Professional and Volunteer Voter Mobilization Calls’. American Journal of Political Science 51(2):269282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, William H.Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1968. ‘A Theory of the Calculus of Voting’. American Political Science Review 62(1):2542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Thomas. 1987. ‘Your Vote Counts on Account of the Way it is Counted: An Institutional Solution to the Paradox of Voting’. Public Choice 54(2):101121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, Peverill. 2007. ‘Measuring State Legislative Professionalism: The Squire Index Revisited’. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 7(2):211227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay LehmanBrady, Henry E.. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wattenberg, Martin P. 2002. Where Have All the Voters Gone? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Woods, Neal D.Baranowski, Michael. 2006. ‘Legislative Professionalism and Influence on State Agencies: The Effects of Resources and Careerism’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 31(4):585609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Enos & Fowler Datasets

Link
Supplementary material: File

Enos and Fowler Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Enos and Fowler Supplementary Material(File)
File 42 KB
24
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Pivotality and Turnout: Evidence from a Field Experiment in the Aftermath of a Tied Election*
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Pivotality and Turnout: Evidence from a Field Experiment in the Aftermath of a Tied Election*
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Pivotality and Turnout: Evidence from a Field Experiment in the Aftermath of a Tied Election*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *