Congressional District Results

There are demographic and political factors beyond turnout that matter for elections. Congressional districts are sufficiently small and homogeneous to permit an examination of turnout in the context of relevant political and demographic variables. That controlled analysis is presented here. For the two most recent decades, this chapter uses data sets that include relevant demographic and political variables for each of the congressional districts, including the ethnicity of the electorate, its age profile, and district income to account for the effect of socioeconomic status on the Democratic vote share. This contextual information presses the analysis one level further. An estimation of the relationship between turnout and Democratic vote is strengthened when other factors that are known to influence support for the Democrats are considered and included in the models.

American Voter Turnout

This chapter provides a brief history of voter turnout in the U.S. It documents growth from a small electorate to one that mobilized some 80 percent of eligible voters by the middle of the nineteenth century, and a decline to lower turnout through much of the twentieth and into the twenty-first century despite repeated extensions of the franchise and less restrictive registration and voting requirements. Variation in contemporary turnout is examined in some detail in order to clarify the individual-level relationships that lead to the conventional wisdom concerning a partisan bias to turnout. Differences in turnout and party dynamics with otherwise comparable countries are also assessed.

Some Final Data and Thoughts on the Link between Turnout and Vote Choice

Chapter 9 returns to the possibility that a single factor might be exerting an unseen effect on the relationship between turnout and partisan vote choice. More precisely, we return to the concept of partisanship and the idea that turnout affects vote choice, but only if one takes account of the majority party and the competitive balance in the state or district. The analysis finds sporadic and unsystematic support for the notion, but more evidence in support of short-term electoral forces associated with the candidate and the issues in the election. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of currents in American politics that might matter to upcoming elections.

If Turnout Isn’t Driving Election Swings, What Is?

The previous chapters focused on refuting the turnout bias thesis. This chapter presents a theoretically satisfying empirical account for what does explain the oscillations in partisan fortunes between elections, focusing on the linkage of high-turnout presidential elections and much lower turnout congressional midterms. The concern remains the contribution of turnout oscillation to the result. The analysis uses the concept of surge and decline, an idea formulated decades ago by Angus Campbell and elaborated upon by many since, but mostly lost due to the recent obsession with turnout differences between the parties. In so doing, we expand on the analysis in chapter 7 about the greater susceptibility of peripheral voters to information about extant circumstances and to institutional arrangements, which can affect the marginal costs of voting.

Turnout and Partisan Vote Choice

This chapter directly assesses the expectation that an increase in turnout from one election to the next produces a larger vote share for the Democratic candidate, while a decline in turnout reduces it. It offers straightforward data to analyze changes through time for presidential elections (overall and within states, from 1948 through 2016), Senate elections (overall, and for all one hundred seats from 1966 through 2016), gubernatorial elections (overall, and for all fifty states from 1966 through 2016), and congressional elections (overall, and for all 435 districts from 1972 through 2010). The focus is on aggregate patterns and relationships. The data indicate that partisan vote choice is not significantly correlated with turnout.

If Only Our People Had Turned Out!

This chapter outlines the turnout myth—that high turnout is a Democratic asset and a Republican liability—with some brief comparisons of elections from 2000 through 2018. The idea that increased turnout would help elect more Democrats is often proffered by media pundits, campaign practitioners, and professional politicians. However, the data clearly demonstrate how poorly the turnout and partisan outcomes of the elections match the notion of a turnout bias. This chapter presents some of the individual-level survey data that have been erroneously generalized into an argument about aggregated turnout pattern. It also outlines the path the argument and analysis takes in the succeeding chapters.

Why Is the Conventional Wisdom Wrong?

The chapter offers a well-understood voter orientation to explain why the facts do not fit the myth. Republicans generally vote at higher rates than Democrats due to predispositions that reflect socioeconomic factors. When overall turnout increases, the less participatory are showing up, but Democrats are not advantaged by higher turnout for two reasons. The first has to do with the magnitude of the turnout difference between Democrats and Republicans, and how that affects the vote between or (for a few elections) among the candidates. The second part of the answer reflects the greater susceptibility of peripheral voters to short-term, election-specific influences: when turnout increases the short-term forces can (and often do) move peripheral voters toward the Republicans.

Turnout and Partisan Vote Choice

This chapter explores the link between turnout and the vote across an extended series of elections within states and electoral districts. The strength of this design is that it conforms exactly to the ordinary language that analysts and commentators use to assert a connection between turnout and vote outcome. The proponents of a turnout bias argue that increased turnout in a forthcoming election should increase the Democrat’s share of the vote compared to the previous election, while a turnout drop will erode that share. We use straightforward data for an analysis of changes through time for presidential elections from 1948 through 2016, for each Senate seat from 1966 through 2016, for each state’s gubernatorial contests from 1966 through 2016, and for all 435 congressional districts from 1972 through 2010. The analysis does not find support for the bias thesis but observes a virtually random relationship, with turnout in many states and districts helping the Republicans as often as it assists the Democrats.

A Theoretical Exploration of Turnout and Voting

This chapter addresses the fundamental question of why people vote in elections. What affects their calculus? How much do these motivations create the unequal turnout rates observed among different social and political groups? The review informs the book’s initial report of how the decision to vote might (or might not) be related to partisan vote choice. Popular commentary in the media and academic literature, some of which has a reformist orientation, is assessed to provide a balanced portrait of what is known about the turnout bias. Particular attention is paid to political science research on the subject of turnout bias, including both normative and empirical works that yield little consensus.