THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA VOL. 57, NO.7 THE 1980 ELECTION: UNDERSTANDING THE REAGAN VICTORY IN VIRGINIA By David B. Magleby Mr. Magleby is a research associate on the staffofthe the popular vote in the nation as a whole. fairly stable, in the 50 to 60 percent range. In Institute of Government. After having cast its twelve electoral votes in Virginia, in contrast, turnout has grown 1976 for Gerald Ford, Virginia in 1980 from only 21 percent in 1948 to 49 percent in On the eve of the 1980 election, most returned to its more typical role ofvoting for 1980-with a dramatic growth of 18 per­ pollsters had declared the presidential race the national winner. (In only one other centage points occurring between the 1960 to be too close to call. While some public election since 1932-that of 1960-has and 1968 presidential elections alone. opinion surveys during the final week of Virginia failed to cast its electoral votes for This significant increase in the proportion the campaign had detected a growing the winning candidate.) of the voting age population casting ballots trend towards former California Governor This news letter will assess the reasons for in the state largely reflects growth in the Ronald Reagan, the fact that President the Reagan victory in Virginia by examining overall levels of registration, with the Carter had narrowed Reagan's substantial survey data gathered in public opinion polls greatest proportional growth occurring early lead made it difficult to assess which conducted both before and after the No­ among blacks. Between 1960 and 1971 the candidate might enjoy a last-minute surge. vember election. The discussion begins with proportion of the black voting age popula­ Yet when the votes were counted, Reagan a brief review, over time, of the state's voter tion registered to vote more than doubled had won the election by a surprisingly turnout and vote for president. Then, after rising from 23 percent to 52 percent. Growth decisive popular vote margin of 10 percent; explaining the methodology of the polls, the in the proportion of whites registered to vote and in carrying forty-four states, Reagan analysis will focus on our findings of why was less dramatic, rising from 46 percent in had garnered 489 electoral votes, compared Virginians voted as they did for president, 1960 to 60 percent in 1971. 1 Several factors with only 49 for President Carter. with particular attention to the relative account for this increase in registration. Virginia's voters chose Reagan over importance ofcampaign issues and ideology, Among the most important were passage in Carter by a margin almost identical to the candidate appeal, and party identification. 1964 of the 24th Amendment, which abol­ nationwide breakdown. In Virginia, 53 Finally, some attention will be devoted to the ished poll taxes as a condition for voting in percent voted for Reagan, compared to 51 question of whether the results of the 1980 federal elections; the 1966 U.S. Supreme percent nationwide; 40 percent chose Carter, election constitute a party realignment in Court decision extending the abolition of compared to 41 percent nationwide; and 5 Virginia. poll taxes to state elections;2 and the percent voted for John Anderson, while the suspension of literacy tests as mandated by independent candidate received 7 percent of TURNOUT the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Thus, an Slightly less than half of Virginia's voting essential backdrop for the 1980 presidential age population cast ballots in the 1980 election is the recognition that the pool of general election, only slightly below the Author's Note: The Virginia data used in this news letter have participating voters in Virginia elections state's record high turnout of 51 percent of been combined from two separately designed surveys. One, since 1960 has been expanded substantially. conducted under the direction of the author, was carried out by age-eligible voters, achieved in 1968. Nation-' sixty University of Virginia students as part of a course on public wide, Virginia ranked 43rd in turnout. THE VOTE FOR PRESIDENT opinion and elections. The students had completed several weeks of Several factors account for Virginia's rela­ instruction on question wording, sampling, and interviewing tively low turnout in 1980, including the In presidential elections since 1932 the technique. Funding was provided by the Dean of the College of absence of contests for statewide office breakdown of the vote by party in both Arts and Sciences, the Student Council, and the Woodrow Wilson which made the election less stimulating, and ':ir~inia and the nation has been quite Department of Government and Foreign Affairs. This poll used a the widespread belief that Governor Reagan Similar. In the four elections from 1932 random-digit dialing technique in which every telephone number in through 1944, when Fr.anklin D. Roosevelt Virginia had an equal chance of being sampled. was going to carry Virginia by a substantial margin. was the Democratic party nominee, Virginia The second survey, also by telephone, was conducted between Nationally, voter turnout has declined in was substantially less Republican in voting October 16 and 19 under the auspices of Mr. Larry Sabato, every presidential election since 1960. Part of choice than the nation as a whole. In assistant professor of government and foreign affairs, for a elections since 1948, however, the fortunes of syndicate of newspapers and television stations, using a statewide this decline is due to the extension of the sample provided by Survey Sampling, Inc., of Waterbury, voting franchise to the 18-21 year olds in Republicans have been virtually the same in Connecticut. The author would like to thank Mr. Sabato for his 1972, since this group is among the least Virginia and nationwide. In 1952, 1956, kind permission to use the data from that survey. likely to turn out. Figure 1 examines turnout I See Charles V. Hamilton, The Bench and the Ballot ( ew The combined sample of the two pre-election surveys included in presidential elections since 1948 for both York: Oxford University Press, 1973), pp. 238-9. slightly over 1,000 respondents. Of that number, 686 were Virginia and the nation as a whole. As this 2 Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 reinterviewed in the week following the election. figure shows, turnout nationally has been (1966). INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT / UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA / CHARLOTTESVILLE / MARCH 1981 26 Figure 1 acquired in childhood as the result of parental socialization and tends to remain Turnout of Voting Age Population in Presidential constant throughout adult life. In our poll, Elections in Virginia, 1948-1980 an individual's party identification was determined by coding the responses to the following questions: Generally speaking in politics, 60% do you think of yourself as a u.s. Democrat, a Republican, an inde­ pendent, or what? 50% ...,......•........•.......• (If Republican or Democrat) ..•• Would you call yourself a strong ••• Virginia Republican (Democrat) or a not 40% .... very strong Republican (Demo­ •• crat)? E ...•.. 0 ...... (If independent) Do you consid­ t: 30% •...... ~ •• er yourself as leaning toward the r- •••• Democratic or Republican party? •• This series of questions produces these seven 20%; categories of partisanship: strong Republi­ can, weak Republican, independent Repub­ 10% lican, independent, independent Democrat, weak Democrat, and strong Democrat. Our survey of Virginia .voters_ io_1980 0% revealed that the two parties are divided almost evenly, the Democrats having 45 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 percent and the Republicans, 42 percent.4 Presidential Elections Because Democrats are less likely to vote, if nonvoters had been part of our sample, the SOURCES: Estimates of the voting age population were provided by the Tayloe Murphy Institute, University of Virginia, and the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Projections o/the Population 0/ Voting Age/or States: November Democrats would enjoy a wider margin over 1980. The State Board of Elections provided figures for total votes cast in Virginia, and the national average data the Republicans. Party identification consti­ were derived from U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract ofthe U.S. 1979, p. 513, and Congressional tutes a standing decision about partisan Quarterly Weekly Report, November 8, 1980 for the 1980 election, p. 3297. politics; although individuals may change party preference, that happens quite rarely. 1972, and 1980 Republicans won by substan­ change by interviewing the same respond­ Rather, most people use their partisan tial margins in both Virginia and the nation. ents at two different times. More than 1,000 predisposition to simplify political choices Similarly, elections that were close nation­ respondents were interviewed initially be­ and to filter out conflicting information. All wide, such as those in 1960 and 1976, were tween October 16 and 19, and 686 were other things being equal, a person will vote also close in Virginia. The only exception to reinterviewed in November, in the week for the party with which he identifies. Things this pattern is the 1968 election, when the following the election. At least three efforts are not always equal, of course, and national result was close but Richard Nixon were made to reach each of the pre-election sometimes either a candidate oran issue may won Virginia by II percent. It is important to respondents during the post-election survey. prompt a voter temporarily to defect from remember, however, that independent Unlike aggregate voting data, which his preferred party. But this is precisely the George Wallace obtained a substantial 24 report the vote by voting precincts, cities, feature of party identification that is most percent of the Virginia popular vote in 1968, and counties, survey data gathered from distinctive; party preferences persist beyond a proportion that almost certainly affected public opinion polls permit us to compare the short-term forces ofa particular election.