Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-x64cq Total loading time: 0.261 Render date: 2022-05-20T23:03:18.025Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Regular Voters, Marginal Voters and the Electoral Effects of Turnout

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2015

Abstract

How do marginal voters differ from regular voters? This article develops a method for comparing the partisan preferences of regular voters to those marginal voters whose turnout decisions are influenced by exogenous factors and applies it to two sources of variation in turnout in the United States—weather and election timing. In both cases, marginal voters are over 20 percentage points more supportive of the Democratic Party than regular voters—a significant divide. The findings suggest that the expansion or contraction of the electorate can have important consequences. Moreover, the findings suggest that election results do not always reflect the preferences of the citizenry, because the marginal citizens who may stay home have systematically different preferences than those who participate. Finally, the methods developed in the article may enable future researchers to compare regular and marginal voters on many different dimensions and in many different electoral settings.

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

Anthony Fowler is an Assistant Professor in the Harris School of Public Policy Studies at the University of Chicago, 1155 East 60th St., Room 165, Chicago, IL 60637 (anthony.fowler@uchicago.edu). Thanks to Jim Alt, Steve Ansolabehere, Dan Carpenter, Gloria Chao, Ryan Enos, Bernard Fraga, Andy Hall, Eitan Hersh, Gabe Lenz, Michael Martinez and Jim Snyder for helpful comments.

References

Angrist, Joshua, and Pischke, Jorn-Steffen. 2009. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Hersh, Eitan. 2011. ‘Who Really Votes?’ In Facing the Challenge of Democracy: Explorations in the Analysis of Public Opinion and Political Participation, edited by Paul M. Sniderman and Benjamin Highton, 267291. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anzia, Sarah. 2011. ‘Election Timing and the Electoral Influence of Interest Groups’. Journal of Politics 73(2):412427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anzia, Sarah. 2012. ‘The Election Timing Effect: Evidence from a Policy Intervention in Texas’. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 7(3):209248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, Adam. 2005. ‘The Perverse Consequences of Electoral Reform in the United States’. American Politics Research 33(4):471491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernhagen, Patrick, and Marsh, Michael. 2007. ‘The Partisan Effects of Low Turnout: Analyzing Vote Absention as a Missing Data Problem’. Electoral Studies 26(3):548560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, Christopher R., and Gersen, Jacob E.. 2011. ‘Election Timing and Public Policy’. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 6(2):103135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citrin, Jack, Schickler, Eric, and Sides, John. 2003. ‘What if Everyone Voted? Simulating the Impact of Increased Turnout in Senate Elections’. American Journal of Political Science 47(1):7590.Google Scholar
DeNardo, James. 1980. ‘Turnout and the Vote: The Joke’s on the Democrats’. American Political Science Review 80:12911304.Google Scholar
Enos, Ryan, Fowler, Anthony, and Vavreck, Lynn. 2014. ‘Increasing Inequality: The Effect of GOTV Mobilization on the Composition of the Electorate’. Journal of Politics 76(1):273288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert. 1995. ‘State Turnout and Presidential Voting: A Closer Look’. American Politics Quarterly 23:387396.Google Scholar
Fisher, Stephen D. 2007. ‘(Change in) Turnout and (Change in) the Left Share of the Vote’. Electoral Studies 26(3):598611.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
Fraga, Bernard, and Hersh, Eitan. 2011. ‘Voting Costs and Voter Turnout in Competitive Elections’. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 5(4):339356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomez, Brad, Hansford, Thomas, and Krause, George. 2007. ‘The Republicans Should Pray for Rain: Weather, Turnout, and Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections’. Journal of Politics 69:649663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, Own, Guillermo, and Collet, Christian. 1999. ‘Rethinking the Partisan Effects of Higher Turnout: So What’s the Question?Public Choice 99:357376.Google Scholar
Hansford, Thomas, and Gomez, Brad. 2010. ‘Estimating the Electoral Effects of Voter Turnout’. American Political Science Review 104(2):268288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Highton, Benjamin, and Wolfinger, Raymond. 2001. ‘The Political Implications of Higher Turnout’. British Journal of Political Science 31:179223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Seth. 2010. Changing Composition and Changing Allegiance in American Politics. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Herron, Michael. 1998. ‘The Presidential Election of 1988: Low Voter Turnout and the Defeat of Michael Dukakis’. Working Paper.Google Scholar
Knack, Stephen, and White, James. 1998. ‘Did States’ Motor Voter Programs Help the Democrats?American Politics Research 26(3):344365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1997. ‘Unequal Participation: Democracy’s Unresolved Dilemma’. American Political Science Review 91(1):114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackerras, Malcolm, and McAllister, Ian. 1999. ‘Compulsory Voting, Party Stability and Electoral Advantage in Australia’. Electoral Studies 18(2):217233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez, Michael, and Gill, Jeff. 2005. ‘The Effects of Turnout on Partisan Outcomes in U.S. Presidential Elections 1960–2000’. Journal of Politics 67(4):12481274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez, Michael, and Hill, David. 2007. ‘Was the Joke on the Democrats Again? Turnout and Partisan Choice in the 2004 U.S. Election’. American Review of Politics 28:8195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllister, Ian, and Mughan, Anthony. 1986. ‘Differential Party Advantage in British General Elections, 1964–83’. Electoral Studies 5(2):143152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, Michael, and Popkin, Samuel. 2001. ‘The Myth of the Vanishing Voter’. American Political Science Review 95(4):963974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, Daniel. 1974. ‘Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior’. In Frontiers in Econometrics, edited by P. Zarembka, 105142. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, Jack H. 1988. ‘Voter Turnout in New Zealand General Elections, 1928–1988’. Political Science 40:1638.Google Scholar
Nagel, Jack H., and McNulty, John E.. 1996. ‘Partisan Effects of Voter Turnout in Senatorial and Gubernatorial Elections’. American Political Science Review 90(4):780793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacek, Alexander, and Radcliff, Benjamin. 1995. ‘Turnout and the Vote for Left-of-Centre Parties: A Cross-National Analysis’. British Journal of Political Science 25(1):137143.Google Scholar
Pettersen, Per Arnt, and Rose, Lawrence E.. 2007. ‘The Dog that Didn’t Bark: Would Increased Electoral Turnout Make a Difference?Electoral Studies 26(3):574588.Google Scholar
Radcliff, Benjamin. 1994. ‘Turnout and the Democratic Vote’. American Politics Quarterly 9:259276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, Todd, and Aida, Masahiko. 2013. ‘Vote Self-Prediction Hardly Predicts Who Will Vote, and Is (Misleadingly) Unbiased’. American Politics Research 42(3):503528.Google Scholar
Rubenson, Daniel, Blais, Andre, Fournier, Patrick, Gidengil, Elisabeth, and Nevitte, Neil. 2007. ‘Does Low Turnout Matter? Evidence from the 2000 Canadian Federal Election’. Electoral Studies 26(3):589597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sled, Sarah. 2008. It’s In the Mail: The Effect of Vote By Mail Balloting on Voter Turnout and Policy Outcomes in U.S. Elections. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Stein, Robert. 1998. ‘Early Voting’. Public Opinion Quarterly 62(1):5769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Eijk, Cees, and van Egmond, Marcel. 2007. ‘Political Effects of Low Turnout in National and European Elections’. Electoral Studies 26(3):561573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay, and Brady, Henry. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wolfinger, Raymond, and Rosenstone, Steven. 1980. Who Votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
27
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.

Regular Voters, Marginal Voters and the Electoral Effects of Turnout
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.

Regular Voters, Marginal Voters and the Electoral Effects of Turnout
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.

Regular Voters, Marginal Voters and the Electoral Effects of Turnout
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? *