DOCSLIB.ORG

Goes to the Polls 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

AMERICA Goes to the Polls 2020 Policy and Voter Turnout in the 2020 Election AMERICA GOES TO THE POLLS Last updated: 03/18/2021 A report on Voter Turnout and Election Policy in the 50 States for the 2020 Election – March 2021 NONPROFIT VOTE REPORT TEAM: George Pillsbury, Senior Policy Consultant Caroline Mak, Field & Research Coordinator Brian Miller, Executive Director America Goes to the Polls 2020 represents the 7th edition in our biennial series based on the final certified voter turnout collected by the U.S. Elections Project. The report provides the official state rankings in voter turnout and turnout growth compared to the last presidential election in 2016. This ranking provides clear insights into the impact of election policies on state-by-state voter turnout. www.nonprofitvote.org www.electproject.org Nonprofit VOTE partners with America’s nonprofits to help the people they serve participate and vote. We are the leading source of nonpartisan resources to help nonprofits integrate voter engagement into their ongoing activities and services. The U.S. Elections Project, founded and directed by Dr. Michael McDonald at the University of Florida, seeks to provide timely and accurate election statistics, electoral laws, research reports, and other useful information regarding the United States electoral system. In doing so, the project informs the people of the United States on how their electoral system works, how it may be improved, and how they can participate in it. It serves as the official source for national and state turnout rates for biennial national elections. Special thanks to the National Vote at Home Institute team for reviewing our findings for clarity and accuracy. Designed by Robert Calmer, Adgraphics911.com; Kimberley Carroll-Cox, Nonprofit VOTE TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 Introduction 5 Executive Summary HOW WE VOTED AS A NATION 7 2020 National Turnout 9 50 State Turnout Ranking – 2020 Election Voter Turnout HOW POLICIES DRIVE TURNOUT DIFFERENCES 11 Top 10 States vs Bottom 10 States 12 Top 10 Highest Growth in Turnout Since 2016 GROWTH OF MAIL AND EARLY VOTING 14 Early Voting - Mail Ballots and Early In-person 15 Vote at Home - Mail Ballots 17 Benefits of Vote at Home 18 Mail Ballot Usage Map GROWTH OF SAME DAY REGISTRATION 20 Same Day Registration 21 Same Day Registration States Map 22 Benefits of Same Day Registration and Other Policies That Increase Access to Registration COMPETITION AND THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE 24 Competition and the Electoral College 25 Alternative to the Electoral College 28 METHODOLOGY 30 APPENDIX INTRODUCTION The November 2020 election was historic. Faced with the ongoing pandemic, many states expanded access to mail ballots, as well as options for early in-person voting. A new generation of poll workers was recruited to work at socially distanced polling locations. Meanwhile, many states had already implemented new policies prior to the pandemic, like Same Day Registration, that would help after months of DMV closures and a backlog of outdated registrations. America rose to the challenge. And voters, with expanded options for voting, turned out in numbers not seen in over a century. We extend our gratitude to the many poll workers and election officials – including some of our own neighbors, co-workers, and family members – who made this election possible. Amid the story of record turnout nationwide is also a story of differences. At the core of this report is a state-by-state ranking of voter turnout in all 50 states and DC – from the lowest-turnout state at 55% to a record-shattering 80% in the highest-turnout state. This 50-state ranking provides a powerful tool for examining the impact of state election policies. States in the top 10 of the ranking have markedly different policies than states in the bottom 10. Same Day Voter Registration states and “Vote at Home” states that mail every registered voter their ballot were consistently at the top of the turnout rankings. Those at the bottom generally made both registration and use of mail ballots harder. The report also looks at the role of competition and the Electoral College in shaping turnout. By lifting up policies that have a proven, real-world track record of increasing voter turnout, we aim to provide a blueprint for policy makers, advocates, and all Americans who care about a healthy democracy. Despite our differences, or perhaps because of those differences,our democracy works better when more people participate and vote. Only then can our democracy truly represent the will of the people. So let’s draw on the lessons of 2020 to build a stronger, more inclusive democracy. Brian Miller, Executive Director Nonprofit VOTE 4 AmericaAmerica Goes to theGoes Polls to the2020 Polls: Executive 2020 Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY With high voter interest and a global pandemic, 2020 was a high point for mail ballots, early voting, and policies like same day voter registration that gave voters more and better choices to register and vote, helping fuel record voter turnout. KEY TAKEAWAYS For the first time ever, more people voted with mail ballots or early in-person than filled out a ballot at the polls on Election Day • 70% of voters voted with a mail ballot or early in-person vs 30% of voters who voted in person on Election Day. • A record 111 million voted with either a mail ballot or early in-person, more than double the number who voted in person on Election Day. • 28 States changed their policy to make it easier to use a mail ballot. National voter turnout at 67% of eligible voters was the highest in 120 years • It set the modern record for turnout since 1900 and the expansion of the electorate with women’s suffrage, the Voting Rights Act, and lowering the voting age to 18. • All 50 states increased their turnout over 2016. Despite the record national turnout, there are still wide differences in voter turnout between states that make it easier or harder to vote • Turnout in the top 10 states averaged 17 percentage points higher than the bottom 10. • All of the top 10 turnout states either sent all their voters a mail ballot, have Same Day Registration that allows voters to register or update their registration when they vote, or both. • Eight of the bottom 10 turnout states cut off voter registrationfour weeks before the election or required an excuse to use a mail ballot. 5 America Goes to the Polls 2020: Executive Summary States that sent mail ballots to all voters had an advantage in turnout • In the top 10 states for their voter turnout, half were states that proactively mailed ballots to all registered voters (a.k.a Vote at Home states). • In the top 10 states for increase in voter turnout over 2016, six mailed ballots to all voters for the first time in a presidential election. States with Same Day Registration also saw a big turnout advantage • Eight of the top 10 voter turnout states had Same Day Registration. • States with Same Day Registration had an average turnout five percentage points higher than states that did not. • With eight more states adding Same Day Registration since 2016, this was a landmark year for the growth in the number of states adopting this time-tested policy. • Nearly half of all states now offer Same Day Voter Registration. • Despite nearly doubling the number of states with Same Day Registration since 2016, we still see a consistent turnout advantage of at least five points higher than states without it. Competition and the Electoral College impact the state turnout • Competition is a big driver of voter turnout. When it comes to the presidential race, the Electoral College divides the country into battleground (competitive) and non-battleground states. • Voter turnout in the 36 non-battleground states was four percentage points lower than that of the battleground states. All but one of the bottom 10 states in turnout were non-battleground states. • The two major candidates made 98% of their limited campaign visits to these 14 battleground states and gave the bulk of their campaign money to these 14 battleground states. 6 AmericaAmerica Goes to Goes the Polls to the 2020 Polls: National 2020 Turnout NATIONAL TURNOUT 2020 had the highest turnout of eligible voters for a presidential election since 1900. National turnout over time - marks the modern record for turnout after major historic expansions. 80% 74% 1920 – Expands 1965 – Voting women’s right Rights Act to vote 70% 67% 1971 – Voting age lowered to 18 60% 50% 40% 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Figure 1 Source: U.S. Elections Project Every state increased their turnout over 2016. Over 159,690,000 votes were cast, 23.8 million more than 2016. For the first time in recent history, 20 states had voter turnout over 70 percent. Minnesota led the way with 80% voter turnout. Source: U.S. Elections Project 7 The 50 State Ranking– 2020 Election Voter Turnout Voter turnout is calculated in each state as The total number of votes The number of people eligible to vote The number of people eligible to vote is determined by the Census data for the number of citizens 18 and over, then adjusted for those prohibited from voting due to a past conviction, depending on state law. Since the 1980s, the U.S. Elections Project has provided the official estimate of each state’s voter eligible population (VEP) as the most accurate method to meaningfully compare voter turnout between states. 8 America Goes to the Polls 2020: The 50 State Ranking STATE VOTER TURNOUT RANKINGS 2020 Percentage turnout of voting eligible population Rank Percentage Rank Percentage Percentage 2020 State Turnout 2020 State Turnout Rank State Turnout 1 Minnesota 80.0% 18 Maryland 71.1% 35 Kentucky 64.9% 2 Colorado 76.4% 19 Pennsylvania 71.0% 36 Louisiana 64.6% 3 Maine 76.3% 20 Delaware 70.7% 37 Wyoming 64.6% 4 Wisconsin 75.8% 21 Nebraska 69.9% 38 South Carolina 64.5% 5 Washington 75.7% 22 Utah 69.2% 39 North Dakota 64.5% 6 Oregon 75.5% 23 Alaska 68.8% 40 Dist.
Recommended publications
  • Voter Turnout in Texas: Can It Be Higher?

    Voter Turnout in Texas: Can It Be Higher?

    Voter Turnout in Texas: Can It Be Higher? JAMES MCKENZIE Texas Lyceum Fellow WHAT’S THE TAKEAWAY? In the 2016 presidential election, Texas’ voter turnout Texas’ voter turnout is among placed near the bottom of all the states, ranking 47th. In the lowest in the nation. Texas’ recent 2018 mid-term election, which featured a Low turnout can lead to policies closely contested US Senate race and concurrent favoring the interests of gubernatorial election, not even half of eligible voters demographic groups whose (46.3%) participated.1 members are more likely to vote. Low voter turnout is not a recent phenomenon in Texas. Tex- There are deterrents to as has consistently lagged the national average in presidential registering and voting that the elections for voter turnout among the voting eligible popula- state can address. tion (VEP). In fact, since 2000, the gap between Texas’ turn- out and the national average consecutively widened in all but Policies such as same-day registration, automatic voter one election cycle.2 Texans may be open to changes to address registration, mail-in early voting, low turnout. According to a 2019 poll by the Texas Lyceum on and Election Day voting centers Texans’ attitudes toward democracy, a majority (61%) agreed could help. that “significant changes” are needed to make our electoral system work for current times.3 VOLUME 10 | ISSUE 6 | SEPTEMBER 2019 2 DOES VOTER TURNOUT MATTER? This report addresses ways to boost voter Voter turnout is often considered the curren- participation in both population sets. cy of democracy, a way for citizen’s prefer- ences to be expressed.
  • Black Box Voting Ballot Tampering in the 21St Century

    Black Box Voting Ballot Tampering in the 21St Century

    This free internet version is available at www.BlackBoxVoting.org Black Box Voting — © 2004 Bev Harris Rights reserved to Talion Publishing/ Black Box Voting ISBN 1-890916-90-0. You can purchase copies of this book at www.Amazon.com. Black Box Voting Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century By Bev Harris Talion Publishing / Black Box Voting This free internet version is available at www.BlackBoxVoting.org Contents © 2004 by Bev Harris ISBN 1-890916-90-0 Jan. 2004 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form whatsoever except as provided for by U.S. copyright law. For information on this book and the investigation into the voting machine industry, please go to: www.blackboxvoting.org Black Box Voting 330 SW 43rd St PMB K-547 • Renton, WA • 98055 Fax: 425-228-3965 • [email protected] • Tel. 425-228-7131 This free internet version is available at www.BlackBoxVoting.org Black Box Voting © 2004 Bev Harris • ISBN 1-890916-90-0 Dedication First of all, thank you Lord. I dedicate this work to my husband, Sonny, my rock and my mentor, who tolerated being ignored and bored and galled by this thing every day for a year, and without fail, stood fast with affection and support and encouragement. He must be nuts. And to my father, who fought and took a hit in Germany, who lived through Hitler and saw first-hand what can happen when a country gets suckered out of democracy. And to my sweet mother, whose an- cestors hosted a stop on the Underground Railroad, who gets that disapproving look on her face when people don’t do the right thing.
  • Randomocracy

    Randomocracy

    Randomocracy A Citizen’s Guide to Electoral Reform in British Columbia Why the B.C. Citizens Assembly recommends the single transferable-vote system Jack MacDonald An Ipsos-Reid poll taken in February 2005 revealed that half of British Columbians had never heard of the upcoming referendum on electoral reform to take place on May 17, 2005, in conjunction with the provincial election. Randomocracy Of the half who had heard of it—and the even smaller percentage who said they had a good understanding of the B.C. Citizens Assembly’s recommendation to change to a single transferable-vote system (STV)—more than 66% said they intend to vote yes to STV. Randomocracy describes the process and explains the thinking that led to the Citizens Assembly’s recommendation that the voting system in British Columbia should be changed from first-past-the-post to a single transferable-vote system. Jack MacDonald was one of the 161 members of the B.C. Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform. ISBN 0-9737829-0-0 NON-FICTION $8 CAN FCG Publications www.bcelectoralreform.ca RANDOMOCRACY A Citizen’s Guide to Electoral Reform in British Columbia Jack MacDonald FCG Publications Victoria, British Columbia, Canada Copyright © 2005 by Jack MacDonald All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by an information storage and retrieval system, now known or to be invented, without permission in writing from the publisher. First published in 2005 by FCG Publications FCG Publications 2010 Runnymede Ave Victoria, British Columbia Canada V8S 2V6 E-mail: [email protected] Includes bibliographical references.

  • Fresh Perspectives NCDOT, State Parks to Coordinate on Pedestrian, Bike Bridge For

    Starts Tonight Poems Galore •SCHS opens softball play- offs with lop-sided victory Today’s issue includes over Red Springs. •Hornets the winners and win- sweep Jiggs Powers Tour- ning poems of the A.R. nament baseball, softball Ammons Poetry Con- championships. test. See page 1-C. Sports See page 3-A See page 1-B. ThePublished News since 1890 every Monday and Thursday Reporterfor the County of Columbus and her people. Thursday, May 12, 2016 Fresh perspectives County school Volume 125, Number 91 consolidation, Whiteville, North Carolina 75 Cents district merger talks emerge at Inside county meeting 3-A By NICOLE CARTRETTE News Editor •Top teacher pro- motes reading, paren- Columbus County school officials are ex- tal involvement. pected to ask Columbus County Commission- ers Monday to endorse a $70 million plan to consolidate seven schools into three. 4-A The comprehensive study drafted by Szotak •Long-delayed Design of Chapel Hill was among top discus- murder trial sions at the Columbus County Board of Com- set to begin here missioners annual planning session held at Southeastern Community College Tuesday Monday. night. While jobs and economic development, implementation of an additional phase of a Next Issue county salary study, wellness and recreation talks and expansion of natural gas, water and sewer were among topics discussed, the board spent a good portion of the four-hour session talking about school construction. No plans The commissioners tentatively agreed that they had no plans to take action on the propos- al Monday night and hinted at wanting more details about coming to an agreement with Photo by GRANT MERRITT the school board about funding the proposal.
  • The Effects of Secret Voting Procedures on Political Behavior

    The Effects of Secret Voting Procedures on Political Behavior

    UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Voting Alone: The Effects of Secret Voting Procedures on Political Behavior Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/50p7t4xg Author Guenther, Scott Publication Date 2016 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Voting Alone: The Effects of Secret Voting Procedures on Political Behavior A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science by Scott M. Guenther Committee in charge: Professor James Fowler, Chair Professor Samuel Kernell, Co-Chair Professor Julie Cullen Professor Seth Hill Professor Thad Kousser 2016 Copyright Scott M. Guenther, 2016 All rights reserved. The Dissertation of Scott M. Guenther is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: Co-Chair Chair University of California, San Diego 2016 iii DEDICATION To my parents. iv EPIGRAPH Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead. { Benjamin Franklin v TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page................................... iii Dedication...................................... iv Epigraph......................................v Table of Contents.................................. vi List of Figures................................... viii List of Tables.................................... ix Acknowledgements.................................x Vita........................................
  • The Problem of Low and Unequal Voter Turnout - and What We Can Do About It

    The Problem of Low and Unequal Voter Turnout - and What We Can Do About It

    IHS Political Science Series Working Paper 54 February 1998 The Problem of Low and Unequal Voter Turnout - and What We Can Do About It Arend Lijphart Impressum Author(s): Arend Lijphart Title: The Problem of Low and Unequal Voter Turnout - and What We Can Do About It ISSN: Unspecified 1998 Institut für Höhere Studien - Institute for Advanced Studies (IHS) Josefstädter Straße 39, A-1080 Wien E-Mail: offi [email protected] Web: ww w .ihs.ac. a t All IHS Working Papers are available online: http://irihs. ihs. ac.at/view/ihs_series/ This paper is available for download without charge at: http://irihs.ihs.ac.at/1045/ Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS), Wien Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna Reihe Politikwissenschaft / Political Science Series No. 54 The Problem of Low and Unequal Voter Turnout – and What We Can Do About It Arend Lijphart 2 — Arend Lijphart / The Problem of Low and Unequal Voter Turnout — I H S The Problem of Low and Unequal Voter Turnout – and What We Can Do About It Arend Lijphart Reihe Politikwissenschaft / Political Science Series No. 54 February 1998 Prof. Dr. Arend Lijphart Department of Political Science, 0521 University of California, San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive La Jolla, California 92093–0521 USA e-mail: [email protected] Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS), Wien Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna 4 — Arend Lijphart / The Problem of Low and Unequal Voter Turnout — I H S The Political Science Series is published by the Department of Political Science of the Austrian Institute for Advanced Studies (IHS) in Vienna. The series is meant to share work in progress in a timely way before formal publication.
  • Evaluating the Impact of Drop Boxes on Voter Turnout

    Evaluating the Impact of Drop Boxes on Voter Turnout

    Evaluating the Impact of Drop Boxes on Voter Turnout William McGuire, University of Washington Tacoma Benjamin Gonzalez O’Brien, San Diego State University Katherine Baird, University of Washington Tacoma Benjamin Corbett, Lawrence Livermore Lab Loren Collingwood, University of California Riverside Voter turnout in the United States lags behind most other developed democracies. A popular approach for increasing turnout is to improve the ease of voting. While evidence indicates that vote by mail (VBM) requirements increase voter turnout, there is little evidence of the impact ballot drop boxes have on voting, despite the fact that voters in VBM states often prefer these boxes to voting via the postal service. All VBM states (currently Washington, Colorado and Oregon) require some provision for voting by drop boxes. This project examines the impact the installation of new ballot drop boxes had on voter turnout in Pierce County, the second largest county in Washington State. To identify the causal effects of these boxes on the decision to vote, we exploit the randomized placement of five new ballot drop boxes in Pierce prior to the 2017 general election. Voters selected to receive a new ballot drop box experienced an average reduction in distance to their nearest drop box of 1.31 miles. We estimate that this change in proximity to drop boxes increased voter turnout. Specifically, we find overall a 0.64 percentage point increase in voting per mile of distance to nearest drop box reduced. The effect, hence, is not a particularly large one. However, within the context of the very low turnout in Pierce County in 2017 and compared with alternative ways election officials have attempted to encourage more people to vote, this effect is not negligible.
  • Electronic Voting: Methods and Protocols Christopher Andrew Collord James Madison University

    Electronic Voting: Methods and Protocols Christopher Andrew Collord James Madison University

    James Madison University JMU Scholarly Commons Masters Theses The Graduate School Spring 2013 Electronic voting: Methods and protocols Christopher Andrew Collord James Madison University Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/master201019 Part of the Computer Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Collord, Christopher Andrew, "Electronic voting: Methods and protocols" (2013). Masters Theses. 177. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/master201019/177 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the The Graduate School at JMU Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of JMU Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Electronic Voting: Methods and Protocols Christopher A. Collord A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Master of Science InfoSec 2009 Cohort May 2013 Dedicated to my parents, Ross and Jane, my wife Krista, and my faithful companions Osa & Chestnut. ii Acknowledgements: I would like to acknowledge Krista Black, who has always encouraged me to get back on my feet when I was swept off them, and my parents who have always been there for me. I would also like to thank my dog, Osa, for sitting by my side for countless nights and weekends while I worked on this thesis—even though she may never know why! Finally, I would also like to thank all who have taught me at James Madison University. I believe that the education I have received will serve me well for many years to come.
  • Absentee Voting and Vote by Mail

    Absentee Voting and Vote by Mail

    CHapteR 7 ABSENTEE VOTING AND VOTE BY MAIL Introduction some States the request is valid for one or more years. In other States, an application must be com- Ballots are cast by mail in every State, however, the pleted and submitted for each election. management of absentee voting and vote by mail varies throughout the nation, based on State law. Vote by Mail—all votes are cast by mail. Currently, There are many similarities between the two since Oregon is the only vote by mail State; however, both involve transmitting paper ballots to voters and several States allow all-mail ballot voting options receiving voted ballots at a central election office for ballot initiatives. by a specified date. Many of the internal procedures for preparation and mailing of ballots, ballot recep- Ballot Preparation and Mailing tion, ballot tabulation and security are similar when One of the first steps in preparing to issue ballots applied to all ballots cast by mail. by mail is to determine personnel and facility and The differences relate to State laws, rules and supply needs. regulations that control which voters can request a ballot by mail and specific procedures that must be Facility Needs: followed to request a ballot by mail. Rules for when Adequate secure space for packaging the outgoing ballot requests must be received, when ballots are ballot envelopes should be reviewed prior to every mailed to voters, and when voted ballots must be election, based on the expected quantity of ballots returned to the election official—all defer according to be processed. Depending upon the number of ballot to State law.
  • The Effect of Electoral Competitiveness on Voter Turnout

    The Effect of Electoral Competitiveness on Voter Turnout

    Western Washington University Western CEDAR WWU Honors Program Senior Projects WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship Spring 2017 The Effect of Electoral Competitiveness on Voter Turnout Joel Jordan Western Washington University Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwu_honors Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Jordan, Joel, "The Effect of Electoral Competitiveness on Voter Turnout" (2017). WWU Honors Program Senior Projects. 43. https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwu_honors/43 This Project is brought to you for free and open access by the WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in WWU Honors Program Senior Projects by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1 The Effect of Electoral Competitiveness on Voter Turnout Joel Jordan Political Science Honors Thesis Western Washington University 2 Introduction In the most recent midterm congressional elections of 2014, over 83 million people entered the polls to vote for the 435 people who would pass legislation for the next two years (McDonald, 2016). These 83 million people, however, only account for 33% of our voting age population. Explaining the 33% voter turnout for legislative elections in the United States is of interest for three primary reasons. First, the United States has a substantially lower voter turnout than most other electoral democracies in the world. Figure 1 shows the voting age population turnout across 36 countries (IDEA, 2017). These countries contain more than one million people, are classified by the world bank as “High Income,” and are classified by Freedom House as “Free” (CIA, 2015)(World Bank, 2017)(Freedom House, 2017).
  • Political Knowledge and the Paradox of Voting

    Political Knowledge and the Paradox of Voting

    Political Knowledge and the Paradox of Voting Edited by Sofia Magdalena Olofsson We have long known that Americans pay local elections less attention than they do elections for the Presidency and Congress. A recent Portland State University study showed that voter turnout in ten of America’s 30 largest cities sits on average at less than 15% of eligible voters. Just pause and think about this. The 55% of voting age citizens who cast a ballot in last year’s presidential election – already a two-decade low and a significant drop from the longer-term average of 65-80% – still eclipses by far the voter turnout at recent mayoral elections in Dallas (6%), Fort Worth (6%), and Las Vegas (9%). What is more, data tells us that local voter turnout is only getting worse. Look at America’s largest city: New York. Since the 1953 New York election, when 93% of residents voted, the city’s mayoral contests saw a steady decline, with a mere 14% of the city’s residents voting in the last election. Though few might want to admit it, these trends suggest that an unspoken hierarchy exists when it comes to elections. Atop this electoral hierarchy are national elections, elections that are widely considered the most politically, economically, and culturally significant. Extensively covered by the media, they are viewed as high-stakes moral contests that naturally attract the greatest public interest. Next, come state elections: though still important compared to national elections, their political prominence, media coverage, and voter turnout is already waning. At the bottom of this electoral hierarchy are local elections that, as data tells us, a vast majority of Americans now choose not to vote in.
  • "I Voted": Examining the Impact of Compulsory Voting on Voter Turnout Nina A

    "I Voted": Examining the Impact of Compulsory Voting on Voter Turnout Nina A

    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont CMC Senior Theses CMC Student Scholarship 2016 "I Voted": Examining the Impact of Compulsory Voting on Voter Turnout Nina A. Kamath Claremont McKenna College Recommended Citation Kamath, Nina A., ""I Voted": Examining the Impact of Compulsory Voting on Voter Turnout" (2016). CMC Senior Theses. Paper 1286. http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/1286 This Open Access Senior Thesis is brought to you by Scholarship@Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in this collection by an authorized administrator. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE “I VOTED”: EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF COMPULSORY VOTING ON VOTER TURNOUT SUBMITTED TO Professor Manfred Keil AND Professor Eric Helland AND Dean Peter Uvin By Nina Kamath For Senior Thesis Fall 2015 November 30, 2015 Department of Economics ii iii Abstract Over the past few decades, falling voter turnout rates have induced governments to adopt compulsory voting laws, in order to mitigate issues such as the socioeconomic voter gap and to bring a broader spectrum of voters into the fold. This paper presents evidence that the introduction of mandatory voting laws increases voter turnout rates by 13 points within a particular country through an entity- and time-fixed effect panel model. Moreover, it includes a discussion of the implications of adopting mandatory voting policies within the United States, finding that compelling citizens to vote would have increased participation rates to over 90 percent in the past four presidential elections. iv Acknowledgements First, I want to thank my parents for their unconditional love, support, and encouragement. I would also like to thank Professor Manfred Keil, Associate Professor of Economics at Claremont McKenna College, for his valuable guidance and support in completing this senior thesis.