Predicting Voter Turnout in the 2008 Presidential Election

Predicting Voter Turnout in the 2008 Presidential Election: Assessing the Impact of Battleground Status and Early Voting Opportunities by Jenna McCulloch Faculty Mentor: Dr. Kiki Caruson Department of Government and International Affairs Research Expectations Newark, OH. November 3, 2008. Chris Hondros/Getty Images Research Overview ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Minimally Competitive (26) Moderately Competitive (14) Highly Competitive (10) Key: Competitiveness N Figure I: Competitive States in the 2008 Presidential Election Data Sources: CNN “Early Voting: Every day is Election Day,” 2008; Declare Yourself “Early Voting,” 2008. No early voting (19) Less than three weeks (17) Three weeks or more (14) Key: Early voting period N Figure II: States with Early Voting Periods in the 2008 Presidential Election Data Analysis Results Des Moines, IA. October 31, 2008. Jason Reed/Reuters The U.S., which prides itself on its democratic values, has consistently held the lowest voter turnout rate of all established democracies except Switzerland.. The U.S. must find effective ways of increasing voter turnout in order to sustain its democracy. The purpose of this research is to determine what factors increase voter participation. Specifically, my research focuses on the impact of election competitiveness (battleground status) and access to early voting opportunities on voter turnout. The research uses aggregate level data from each of the fifty states to predict the impact of these variables on voter turnout in the 2008 presidential election. The 2000 presidential election caused many voters to reevaluate the impact of a single vote—George W. Bush won the state of Florida by a mere 527 votes—and raised awareness about the importance of election competitiveness in affecting an individual’s perception of the importance of his or her vote. Theoretically, when elections are highly competitive, more voters should go to the polls because of the increased probability that one vote could affect the election outcome. The 2008 presidential election not only offered voters a highly competitive race, but increased opportunities for participation through state early voting policies; some states even permitted voting during the weekend. Political parties and the media placed tremendous emphasis on early voting in the 2008 presidential election. Indeed, conventional wisdom suggests that early voting opportunities should increase voter turnout. The results of this research confirm the importance of election competitiveness in generating turnout, but challenge the conventional wisdom regarding the effect of early voting on voter participation. Ordinary Least Squares Regression Results Data Source: Dr. Michael McDonald, United States Election Project at George Mason University, January 28, 2009. This study utilizes Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression analysis and data collected by the author from the 2008 presidential election. Dependent Variable The dependent variable is voter turnout in a state. This variable is operationalized as the unofficial voting-eligible population (VEP) turnout rate for the 2008 presidential election as calculated by Dr. Michael McDonald of the United States Elections Project . The VEP is constructed by adjusting the voting-age population to account for non-citizens and ineligible felons. Primary Independent Variables The battleground/competitive states variable is operationalized based on the October 31, 2008 Electoral Vote Scorecard from The Cook Political Report , which uses poll data to rate states based on their electoral competitiveness. I utilized this data to ordinally categorize the states as follows: Minimally Competitive, Moderately Competitive, Highly Competitive. The early voting variable is operationalized as the amount of time states mandate for no-excuse, in-person early voting in the 2008 presidential election. The variable is coded based on the individual state’s early voting period: No early voting, Less than three weeks, Three weeks or more. ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Coral Gables, FL. November 3, 2008. Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images Getty Images Conclusion References Data Source: The Cook Political Report “2008 Electoral Vote Scorecard,” 2008. Geys, Benny. (2006). Explaining Voter Turnout: A Review of Aggregate-Level Research. Electoral Studies , 25, 637-663. Harder, Joshua, & Jon A. Krosnick. (2008). Why Do People Vote? A Psychological Analysis of the Causes of Voter Turnout. Journal of Social Issues , 64 (3), 525-549. Shachar, Ron, & Barry Nalebuff. (1999). Follow the Leader: Theory and Evidence on Political Participation. American Economic Review , 89 (3), 525- 547. Teixeira, Ruy A. (1992). The Disappearing American Voter . Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. Wattenberg, Martin P. (2002). Where Have All the Voters Gone? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Note: this is a select list of the references that have had the most powerful impact on my research. A full list of references can be obtained upon request. Methodology Getty Images Zazzle.com AFP/Getty Images AFP/Getty Images 67.8 Oregon 68.1 Missouri 68.3 Alaska 68.9 Michigan 69.8 Colorado 69.9 Iowa 71.3 New Hampshire 71.4 Maine 72.5 Wisconsin 78.2 Minnesota Turnout % State High Voter Turnout States 57.9 Kentucky 57.6 New York 57.3 Tennessee 56.7 Oklahoma 56.0 Arizona 54.7 Texas 53.4 Arkansas 53.3 Utah 50.6 West Virginia 50.5 Hawaii Turnout % State Low Voter Turnout States 0.245 10.969 2.684 Constant $50,000 to $75,000* 2.593 0.305 0.791 Income of the State’s Population 45 Years and Older** 3.031 0.343 1.039 Percent of the State’s Population with a College Degree** 3.773 0.159 0.600 Percent of the State’s Population Control Variables 0.299 0.180 0.054 Candidate Visits 0.653 0.101 0.066 Candidate Spending on Advertising 2.147 0.900 1.933 Battleground Status* 2.443 0.765 -1.869 Early Voting* Primary Explanatory Variables t score standard error b-coefficient Independent Variables Statistical significance : * p <.05 ** p <.01 Adjusted R 2 = 51.6% R 2 = 58.5%

Predicting Voter Turnout in the 2008 Presidential Election

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to Predicting Voter Turnout in the 2008 Presidential Election

Similar to Predicting Voter Turnout in the 2008 Presidential Election (14)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (10)

Predicting Voter Turnout in the 2008 Presidential Election