1. “Local Political Parties and Young Voters.” Daniel Shea, 2009.

2. Introduction Local Parties and Electoral Mobilization (166) Historically, parties were key to high turnouts. US Youth Voting (VT) in Comparative terms History of Voter Turnout in the US (167) Methodological Questions: Defining Voters Defining Youth: 18-24 or 18-29?

3. Turnout Levels Methodological Questions: Defining Voters: VAP v. VEP VAP: Voting Age Population “Voting-age population…consists of everyone age 18 and older residing in the United States…” VEP: Voting Eligible Population Defined by those who are eligible to vote (“excludes: non-citizens and ineligible felons, and [includes] overseas eligible voters…”)* Defining Youth: 18-24 or 18-29? * Source: M. McDonald, http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm.

4. Turnout Levels Source: M. McDonald, http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm.

5. Turnout Levels Defining Youth: (18-24 or 18-29?) Presidential Elections, 1927-2008

6. Turnout Levels Defining Youth: (18-24 or 18-29?) Presidential Elections, 1927-2006 Source: CIRCLE (The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (Tufts University)

7. Turnout Levels Youth Turnout (18-29): Massachusetts, Presidential Elections, 1974-2004.

8. Turnout Levels Youth Turnout (18-29): Mid-term Elections, 1974-2006. Source: CIRCLE (The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (Tufts University)

9. Turnout Levels Youth Turnout: (18-24 and 18-29) Gender, Presidential, 1972-2004 Source: CIRCLE (The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (Tufts University)

10. Turnout Levels Youth Turnout (18-29): Area, Mid-term Election, 2006. Source: CIRCLE (The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (Tufts University)

11. Introduction What drove voter participation in the past? Parties: specifically local parties) were key in the 19 th and early 20 th Centuries. Several recent studies found that local parties often play a critical role in reg. new voters and in GOTV (Frendeis et al. 1990; Shea and Green 2007) But local parties declined during over the course of the 20 th C.

12. Introduction Party Variation and Youth Engagement Efforts Methodology: Green and Shea (2007) [Chapters 2 and 3] conducted a 2003 survey of 805 local party leaders. Most see Youth Engagement (YE) as important, but only about half do it.

13. Focus of Study: Perceptual and Contextual forces Shaping Youth Engagement Studies focuses on “perceptual and contextual forces that shape” a party’s willingness to … undertake youth-centered projects and the likely success of these efforts.” We might assume certain types of parties in certain contexts will be more successful at YE than other orgs. (169)

14. Outline of Chapter: Outline of Chapter: Focus on three key variables 1) Party Goals 2) Party Resources 3) Electoral Competition

15. Party Goals What are local parties designed to accomplish? What distinguishes a “successful” from a “failed” party? Two Differing Perspectives on Party Goals: Rational-Efficient/Pragmatic Responsible/Ideological Rational-Efficient/Pragmatic: Elite, no mass-base, focused on the “professional” goal of becoming more technically advanced. Even more so than winning elections, the objective is to aid candidates (invokes the “service” party concept). Responsible/Ideological: Goal is public policy change, elections should be won in order to elect officials who espouse the party’s policies.

16. Party Goals Rational-Efficient/Pragmatic: Elite, no mass-base, focused on the “professional” goal of becoming more technically advanced. Even more so than winning elections, the objective is to aid candidates (invokes the “service” party concept). Responsible/Ideological: Goal is public policy change, elections should be won in order to elect officials who espouse the party’s policies.

17. Party Goals Hypothesis 1: (Party Type) Responsible Party (IV) more willing to mobilize youth than rational-efficient.

18. Party Goals Grassroots Youth Mobilization: Difficult and Costly Since, grassroots mobilization of new voters, esp new young people is difficult, time consuming … parties have begun to focus more on converting independent voters.

19. Party Strength Party Strength (171) Also, given the cost, author predicts, Strong Parties more likely than Weak parties to try to engage new, youth voters. Hypothesis 2: (Party Strength) Stronger Parties (IV: Cause) more likely than Weak parties to try to mobilize youth voters (DV: Effect).

20. Electoral Competitiveness Electoral Competition: Studies have suggested that Youth Voting is related to competitiveness (Franklin 2004). But is unclear why. Two theories: 1) Is it because parties are more aggressive reaching to voters 2) Or because voters feel uncertain about the outcome of the election

21. Electoral Competitiveness Hypothesis 3: (Electoral Competition) Parties that face competition (IV) more likely to mobilize youth (DV).

22. The Data Data sets: Survey of 805 county party leaders Census data (which provide county specific variables). County-by-county results form 2000 and 2004. Voter turnout date form 27 states (purchased)

23. Variables Dependent Variables: Effects (172) Party has Youth Engagement Program Willingness of Party to attract Youth Voters Overall YE efforts (reg prog, GOTV) Perceived success of progs Independent Variables Party Goals Party Strength Electoral Competition

24. Measurements Party Functions (Goals) and Youth Engagement Party leaders asked to describe party type: Rational-Efficient or Responsible. Results: parties are split. (Table 7.2)

25. Findings Goals: clearly shape attitudes toward Youth Engage Responsible Party more willing to engage youth than rational-efficient. Party Strength (174) Stronger parties are more likely to engage youth. Electoral Competition Data also suggests that there is a positive correlation between Electoral Competition and youth engagement by parties.

26. Measures of central tendency: Review Theory 1: There is a relationship between party strength (concept 1) and democracy (concept 2). Theory 2 : There is a relationship between party strength (concept 1) and voter turnout (concept 2). Hypothesis 1: (Party Type) Responsible Party (IV) more likely to mobilize youth than rational-efficient. Hypothesis 2: (Party Strength) Stronger Parties (IV: Cause) more likely than Weak parties to try to mobilize youth voters (DV: Effect). Hypothesis 3: (Electoral Competition) Parties that face competition (IV) more likely to mobilize youth (DV). 26

27. Measures of central tendency: Hypothesis 1: (Party Type) Responsible Party (IV) more willing to mobilize youth than rational-efficient. Hypothesis 2: (Party Strength) Stronger Parties (IV: Cause) more likely than Weak parties to try to mobilize youth voters (DV: Effect). Hypothesis 3: (Electoral Competition) Parties that face competition (IV) more likely to mobilize youth (DV). Operational Definitions IV: Stronger Parties: Budget, staffing, fundraising (State Parties, SOS) DV: Mobilize Youth: Youth Engagement Program (State Parties, SOS) IV: Competition: Electoral Results, Voter Registration Numbers (SOS) DV: Mobilize Youth: Youth Engagement Program (State Parties, SOS) 27

28. Measures of central tendency: Operational Definitions IV: Stronger Parties: Budget, staffing, fundraising (State Parties, SOS) DV: Mobilize Youth: Youth Engagement Program (State Parties, SOS) Selection Bias: Look at all fifty states, all states in a region, pick states randomly. Falsification: Only US, only a specific region, only Republican state parties, only parties with more than 50 staff… IV: Competition: Electoral Results, Voter Registration Numbers (SOS) DV: Mobilize Youth: Youth Engagement Program (State Parties, SOS) Selection Bias: Look at all fifty states… Falsification: Only US… 28