Does Early Voting Really Improve Voter Turnout?The View from the Academy
Paul Gronke, DirectorEva Galanes-Rosenbaum, Research
DirectorEarly Voting Information Center
July 16, 2007
Prepared for the National Association of Secretary of States’
Summer Meeting, Portland OR
Who am I?
Professor of Political Science at Reed College and Director of the Early Voting Information Center
Primary fields of research are voting behavior, public opinion, survey administration and statistics
Recent projects: Carter/Baker Commission report on Voting by Mail 2006 Carnegie Corporation project on 2004 Election Day
Survey 2007 EAC Contract on 2006 Election Administration
Survey Where you can find out more about me:
Email: [email protected] Web: http://earlyvoting.net, http://www.reed.edu/~gronke Blog: http://electionupdates.caltech.edu
Agenda for today
Theories of voting and the early voter Voting as A Cost/Benefit decision: Because EV
decreases cost, turnout should increase Voting as Consumption: Because voting is a marginal
decision, EV should have small effects (positive and negative) on turnout
Voting and the Social Context: If states make it easier for parties, candidates, and other organizations to identify early voters, turnout should increase
Empirical studies of turnout and early voting How scholars and policymakers can work
together
Figure One: Non-Precinct Place Voting Rates in 2004
Major share of delegates at stake in early voting
6 states cast ballots before Iowa Caucus
12 states cast ballots before New Hampshire
Thanks to:
State of the World: Early Voting is coming and you
can’t stop it
Source: Fitzgerald 2005
Voting as a Cost-Benefit Decision
Why should anyone vote at all?Scholars often conceptualize voting as a
cost-benefit calculation:Vote if: C < pB
The probability that a citizen’s vote will make a difference (p) multiplied by the perceived benefit from voting (pB) must be greater than the cost of voting (C) in order for a citizen to vote.
Prediction: rational citizens should not vote and in equilibrium, turnout should be zero
How to increase turnout if you believe the Cost-
Benefit ModelThe p (probability that one vote will make a
difference) is virtually nil; thus…Efforts to increase turnout work on B or C
B: most GOTV efforts for candidates and policy campaigns work here, trying to make potential voters feel that the benefit gained from voting is large (or that the cost of not turning out will be severe)
C: a few campaigns, and most civil servants operate here, trying to lower the costs of voting by making polls easier to access, making information accessible, etc.
Early Voting may increase turnout by lowering the costs of voting.
Voting as consumption
Many political scientists modify the classic cost-benefit model of turnout:
Vote if: C < pB + DD has been variously described as civic duty
or value of democracy.“Consumption” because you enjoy the benefit
whether or not your candidate wins. You “consume” voting.
Prediction: turnout should equilibrate at some level greater than zero, and vary according to the consumptive value of the election.
How to increase turnout if you believe the
consumption model Manipulate D:
Encourage a sense of civic duty Describe voting as a way to express your voice (“Rock the
Vote”), not to win or lose for policy purposes Structure voting so as to encourage community activity and
civic rituals Early voting:
Should have no impact, because small changes on the cost side won’t translate into big changes on the turnout side
Should have a negative impact because it destroys old civic rituals
Should have a positive impact because it creates a new civic ritual (“voting at the kitchen table”).
Regardless, any effects are likely to be small.
Voting and the Social Context
Criticism of “homo economicus”. What about “homo societus”—humans embedded in a social context?
Institutions play a role by getting people out to vote
Institutions play a role by teaching skills and providing “resources” needed to help navigate political waters
Evidence: Mobilization can overcome
barriers to voting Citizens with greater social
connections vote more frequently
• Church attendance• Members of civic
organizations• Volunteerism
The Impact of Party Mobilization on Turnout
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
< 8th Grade 9-11 Grade High School > HS Junior College College Degree Advanced Degree
Years of Education
Per
cent
Vot
ing
(200
4)
Was not contacted by a political party
Was contacted by a political party
How to increase turnout if you believe in
mobilizationEncourage the health of American civic life
Fund political parties and not just candidate organizations
Encourage volunteerism and civic engagement; no more “bowling alone”
Early voting: May have a positive impact if states and jurisdictions
make permanent absentee lists and early voting returnseasily and cheaply available (statewide?)
• Allows civic organizations to target mobilization efforts• Promotes cost efficiency among candidates and party
organizations• May level the campaign playing field and lower campaign
spending
VBM and Turnout: Empirical Evidence
Academic verdict on VBM’s effect: Small increase in turnout
• EVIC estimates are that voting by mail has increased turnout in Presidential elections approximately 5%
• One California estimated a decrease of 2.6%
VBM does not expand the electorate• Tends to draw in regular voters, does not attract new
voters
What we don’t know yet: Changing landscape of voting by mail Concerns about “novelty effect” and other “special
circumstances” Effects likely vary in higher and lower profile
contests
Other Modes and Turnout
Liberalized absentee voting: EVIC compared primary types of non-precinct place voting
since 1960, in Federal elections, and found no impact (other than VBM)
Other studies have found consistently positive but small (less than 3%) and often statistically insignificant
In Person Early Voting and Voting Centers No measurable impact on turnout Early voting allows parties to “harvest core voters”
What we don’t know yet Based primarily on studies in Texas and Colorado Widespread party mobilization efforts directed at early
voters
Who votes early? The Early Electorate
“Resource Rich” voters (better educated, higher income)
Committed voters (voters with strong ideological leanings and partisan ties, older voters?)
Voters who are inconvenienced by traditional precinct place voting (e.g. voters facing longer commutes, older voters?)
Early voting does not expand the electorate and reinforces existing biases in American politics
Early voting methods increase voter turnout on average (across many different types of elections), primarily by making it easier for current voters to continue to participate, rather than by mobilizing nonvoters into the electorate.
Very consistent with the theoretical expectations
Looking to the future
Electoral reforms that make voting more convenient but may exacerbate pre-existing biases Retention is easy to fix. Likely voters1 who don’t
participate already are those who respond best to lower physical costs—they’re already engaged, wealthy, educated, or habitual voters
Expanding the electorate is hard.
Turning unlikely voters into likely voters involves much more than administrative changes
1. Likely voters are those who share characteristics with habitual voters: older, wealthier, politically and socially engaged, educated, etc. The expectation that a member of these groups will turn out to vote is higher than for others.
How EV research can help you:
Study EV as a way to improve election administration Give poll workers extra time to learn in a hands-on environment Allow many problems to be caught and dealt with before the huge
crowds of Election Day Give voters the option of returning later if something isn’t working
or if access is a problem
Study EV as a way to increase turnout and expand the electorate Experimental studies of different methods of voter outreach and
voter assistance Different methods for different citizens
Study EV across jurisdictions to establish best practices
How you can help research
Tracking the number of early votes in an election is a source of considerable frustration States such as Texas, Oregon, Florida make data readily
available, in real-time and permanently Other states don’t make these numbers available easily
• Often can’t produce the data when directly solicited• Many don’t track EV at the state level (must go to each county)• Inconsistent definitions
Quick collection and analysis of national EV rates is currently impossible
Take full advantage of statewide voter registration systems and link to voter history files
