Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Michael D. Martinez Department of Political Science University of Florida P.O. Box 117325 Gainesville, Florida 32611-7325 USA

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Michael D. Martinez Department of Political Science University of Florida P.O. Box 117325 Gainesville, Florida 32611-7325 USA"— Presentation transcript:

1 Michael D. Martinez Department of Political Science University of Florida P.O. Box Gainesville, Florida USA

2

3 VAP turnout = Total votes cast for President Voting Age Population VEP turnout = Total votes cast for President Voting Age Population – disenfrachised felons – noncitizens + overseas US citizens

4 Source: (McDonald and Popkin 2001, 966); (McDonald 2009)

5  Decline of Partisanship ◦ Abramson and Aldrich, APSR 1982; Shaffer, AJPS 1981 ◦ But see Cassel and Luskin APSR 1988, Teixiera 1992  Newspaper reading ◦ Teixiera, 1992  Decline in Mobilization ◦ Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993

6  Decline of Partisanship ◦ Abramson and Aldrich, APSR 1982; Shaffer, AJPS 1981 ◦ But see Cassel and Luskin APSR 1988, Teixiera 1992  Newspaper reading ◦ Teixiera, 1992  Decline in Mobilization ◦ Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993

7 Source: (McDonald and Popkin 2001, 966); (McDonald 2009)

8  Why has turnout increased in recent elections?  Do the same explanations that account for the decline in turnout also account for the recent increase?

9  Two necessary conditions ◦ Any factor that would be a partial cause of the increase in turnout  must be correlated with voter turnout  must have changed in the direction associated with greater voter turnout over the period of interest  Longitudinal Data that include measures of interest ◦ American National Election Studies  Cumulative file, , merged with ANES 2008

10  Survey “turnout” rates are higher than actual turnout rates ◦ “Overreporting”  Silver et al. APSR 1986; Karp and Brockington JOP 2005 ◦ Panel effects (attrition and conditioning)  Bartels Political Analysis 2000 ◦ Non-random sampling error  Brehm Phantom Respondents 1993  Burden Political Analysis 2000  Secondary weights to adjust for actual turnout rate

11  Weight = ANES Post-weight * (VEP est./ Survey est.) ◦ For reported voters in 2008  Weight = ANES Post-weight * (61.7 / 77.4) ◦ For reported nonvoters in 2008  Weight = ANES Post-weight * (38.3 / 22.6)

12  Secondary weights to adjust for actual turnout rate  Changes in question wording ◦ In some cases, recoding categories can approximate comparability  Church attendance ◦ In other cases, changes in question wording make comparisons over time suspect

13  Secondary weights to adjust for actual turnout rate  Changes in question wording  Imputation of missing data

14  Voting was getting easier in late ’60s and early ’70s ◦ Turnout Increased in the South (Stanley 1987) ◦ But not in the non-South  “[T]he demographic changes in the electorate, to the extent they relate to turnout, on balance would lead us to expect higher rather than lower rates of participation.” (Brody 1978, 299)  Turnout decline persisted from 1960 to 1988 in the face of continuing changes in demography that should have been correlated with higher turnout. ◦ (Rosenstone and Hansen 1993; Teixeira 1992)

15 Education 0-8 grades11.4%9.0%6.0%4.9%5.4%3.2% 9-12 grades50.1% 49.5%47.8%44.3%44.9% Some College21.2%21.5%25.6%27.2%28.3%28.1% College17.3%19.4%18.9%20.1%22.1%23.9% Home ownership Yes, own61.3%61.8%64.6%65.3%64.9%63.8% Employment Status Employed64.9%61.7%69.3%64.6%64.9%65.5% Homemaker10.5%10.4%7.2%8.5%7.6%5.2%

16 Church Attendance Every week25.2% 21.8%23.6%22.3%21.8% Almost every week11.8%10.3%11.6%9.7%11.7%9.7% Once or twice a month14.8%14.0%16.0%15.0%15.3%13.8% Never or few times a year48.1%50.5%50.7%51.6%50.7%54.7% Marital Status Married / partnered55.0%56.1%56.4%58.1%56.9%49.4% Union membership Yes18.5%14.9%16.8%14.8%17.4%12.0% Median N

17  Estimate a logit model of turnout ◦ Pooled time-series with year fixed effects ◦ y = e (b 0 + b 1 Y92 + b 2 Y96 + b 3 Y00 + b 4 Y04 +b 5 Y08+b n X n )  Recall that in the multivariate analyses, the coefficients for each year dummy reflects the unexplained difference in the probability that a person would have voted in each year relative to 1988, controlling for other variables in the model.

18 Model 2a (Baseline)Model 2b (Education) Coefficients.e.p(z)Coefficients.e.p(z) (Intercept) Year Year Year Year Year Education Grades Some College College Null deviance on df on df Residual deviance on df on df AIC

19  In order to obtain the estimated hypothetical turnout in 1988 under the modeled conditions present in 2008 …  [1] Subtract the coefficient for the 2008 year dummy from the predicted (linear) value for each case in that year (XB).  [2] Convert those values into probabilities using the logit function (p = e XB / (1 + e XB )).  [3] The weighted sum of those probabilities is the estimated 1988 turnout under the conditions present in 2008.

20 Model 2aModel 2bModel 2c VariablesYear dummies onlyYear dummies; Education Year dummies; Education; Church Attendance; Home owner; Marital Status; Employment Status; Union household Actual turnoutSimulated Turnout % %53.9%54.0% %54.8%55.3% %55.8%56.5% %56.7%58.1% %57.7%57.6%

21 Partisan Strength Independent12.0%13.2%11.1%13.8%11.9%14.8% Leaner26.6%28.2%26.7%29.9%30.5%30.1% Weak33.1%31.9%36.2%27.8% 27.5% Strong28.4%26.8%26.0%28.5%29.8%27.6% Differences Between Parties No38.0%38.1%39.4%37.5%23.1%24.3% DK what7.0%6.4%2.4%3.5%6.2%0.0% Yes55.0%55.5%58.2%59.0%70.7%75.7% Expect Close Election Yes73.1%80.5%54.6%82.9%81.5%77.9%

22 Model 2bModel 4aModel 4c VariablesYear dummies; Education Year dummies; Education; Partisan strength; Perceived differences Year dummies; Education; Perception of Closeness Simulated Turnout % %53.2%54.3% %55.3%53.8% %55.5%56.2% %58.0%57.1% %59.4%57.8%

23 None76.1%78.0%73.5%66.2%55.3%56.3% Party only17.2%13.3%17.7%24.6%28.5%27.9% Other only3.8%4.9%3.8%3.7%6.4%5.1% Both3.0%3.7%5.0%5.5%9.7%10.8% N

24 Model 2bModel 6aModel 6b VariablesYear dummies; Education Year dummies; Contact by Party; Contact by Other; Interaction Year dummies; Education; Contact by Party; Contact by Other; Interaction Simulated Turnout % %51.9%53.2% %53.7%55.5% %56.1%58.2% %59.5%61.8% %59.4%62.6%

25 Unrestricted Absentee Voting In-person Early Voting Election Day Registration* Entries are numbers of states. Source: Fitzgerald (2005, ); Comstock-Gay, Carbo, and Eaton (2009); Gronke (2008). *EDR includes North Dakota, which does not require voter registration.

26 Model 2bModel 8aModel 8b VariablesYear dummies; Education Year dummies; State Laws Year dummies; State Laws Education; Simulated Turnout % %52.4%53.8% %52.6%54.8% %53.5%56.2% %53.1%57.1% %53.4%57.8%

27 Model 2aModel 2bModel 9 VariablesYear DummiesYear dummies; Education Year dummies; Demographics; Partisanship; Close Election; Contacting; State Laws Actual TurnoutSimulated Turnout % %53.9%53.1% %54.8%55.1% %55.8%58.0% %56.7%62.0% %57.7%62.2%

28  Turnout has increased rather dramatically in last three US Presidential Elections  Tools for analyzing the sources of that increase are still available ◦ Don’t take ANES for granted; no study in 2006  Education explains much of the increase ◦ But not the earlier decline  Contacting also explains a substantial portion of the increase ◦ Underscoring robustness of Rosenstone and Hansen’s explanation of the decline

29  Verify demographic findings with CPS data  Non-presidential elections  Does increased turnout affect election outcomes, patterns of representation, and public policy?

30 I’d appreciate your comments.

31


Download ppt "Michael D. Martinez Department of Political Science University of Florida P.O. Box 117325 Gainesville, Florida 32611-7325 USA"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google