Voter Turnout and the National Election Studies

2000 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 389-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry C. Burden
Keyword(s):  
Voter Turnout ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
National Election ◽  
Election Study ◽  
Bivariate Statistics ◽  
Question Wording ◽  
Linear Fashion ◽  
National Election Study ◽  
House Election ◽  
Election Studies

Though the overreporting of voter turnout in the National Election Study (NES) is widely known, this article shows that the problem has become increasingly severe. The gap between NES and official estimates of presidential election turnout has more than doubled in a nearly linear fashion, from 11 points in 1952 to 24 points in 1996. This occurred because official voter turnout fell steadily from 1960 onward, while NES turnout did not. In contrast, the bias in House election turnout is always smaller and has increased only marginally. Using simple bivariate statistics, I find that worsening presidential turnout estimates are the result mostly of declining response rates rather than instrumentation, question wording changes, or other factors. As more peripheral voters have eluded interviewers in recent years, the sample became more saturated with self-reported voters, thus inflating reported turnout.

Internal and External Effects on the Accuracy of NES Turnout: Reply

2003 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-195 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry C. Burden
Keyword(s):  
Selection Bias ◽  
Voter Turnout ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
National Election ◽  
Election Study ◽  
External Effects ◽  
National Election Study ◽  
Voting Age ◽  
Panel Effects

In an earlier issue of this journal I brought attention to the fact that estimates of voter turnout in U.S. presidential elections from the National Election Study (NES) series have been increasingly biased. Although researchers had already noted that the NES overestimated turnout, I was concerned with the growing severity of the problem. While admitting that other factors were at work, my explanation centered on the representativeness of surveys, in particular that selection bias in the sample is correlated with the likelihood of voting (Burden 2000). Martinez (2003) and McDonald (2003) offer three possible additions to my argument. First, panel effects are responsible for particularly egregious discrepancies in a few presidential elections, particularly in the 1996 survey. Second, official turnout statistics that rely on the Voting Age Population (VAP) are themselves biased and lack perfect comparability with the NES. Third, the degree of misreporting might also depend on actual voter turnout.

Why Does the American National Election Study Overestimate Voter Turnout?

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Jackman ◽  
Bradley Spahn
Keyword(s):  
Voter Turnout ◽  
National Election ◽  
Nonresponse Bias ◽  
Election Study ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Percentage Points ◽  
National Election Study ◽  
American National Election Study ◽  
The Face ◽  
First Time

Surveys are a key tool for understanding political behavior, but they are subject to biases that render their estimates about the frequency of socially desirable behaviors inaccurate. For decades the American National Election Study (ANES) has overestimated voter turnout, though the causes of this persistent bias are poorly understood. The face-to-face component of the 2012 ANES produced a turnout estimate at least 13 points higher than the benchmark voting-eligible population turnout rate. We consider three explanations for this overestimate in the survey: nonresponse bias, over-reporting and the possibility that the ANES constitutes an inadvertent mobilization treatment. Analysis of turnout data supplied by voter file vendors allows the three phenomena to be measured for the first time in a single survey. We find that over-reporting is the largest contributor, responsible for six percentage points of the turnout overestimate, while nonresponse bias and mobilization account for an additional 4 and 3 percentage points, respectively.

Comment on “Voter Turnout and the National Election Studies”

2003 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael D. Martinez
Keyword(s):  
Cross Section ◽  
Voter Turnout ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
National Election ◽  
Political Analysis ◽  
Eligible Population ◽  
Voting Age ◽  
Panel Effects ◽  
Election Studies

A recent article by Barry Burden inPolitical Analysisalerts us to a steadily increasing gap during presidential election years between self-reported turnout in the NES (National Election Studies) and “official turnout” figures based on the voting-age population (VAP), and points to declining response rates as a culprit. Changing the baseline from the VAP to the VEP (voting-eligible population) significantly changes these conclusions, and point to panel effects as a culprit. The rise in the gap was not linear, but it does emerge rather suddenly in 1996. Gaps between NES self-reported turnout and VEP estimates are higher in presidential election years than in off-years, and self-reported turnout is higher among long-term panel participants than among cross-section respondents in multielection panels.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document