Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T01:10:08.652Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Driving Saints to Sin: How Increasing the Difficulty of Voting Dissuades Even the Most Motivated Voters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

John E. McNulty ,
Conor M. Dowling  and
Margaret H. Ariotti
John E. McNulty*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Binghamton University, P.O. Box 6000 Binghamton, NY 13902-6000.
Conor M. Dowling
Affiliation:
Institution for Social & Policy Studies, Yale University, 77 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06520. e-mail: conor.dowling@yale.edu
Margaret H. Ariotti
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and Department of Geography, Binghamton University, P.O. Box 6000 Binghamton, NY 13902-6000. e-mail: molly@binghamton.edu
*
e-mail: jmcnulty@binghamton.edu (corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The consolidation of polling places in the Vestal Central School District in New York State during the district's 2006 budget referendum provides a naturalistic setting to study the effects of polling consolidation on voter turnout on an electorate quite distinct from previous work by Brady and McNulty (2004, The costs of voting: Evidence from a natural experiment. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Political Methodology, Palo Alto, CA). In particular, voters in local elections are highly motivated and therefore might be thought to be less affected by poll consolidation. Nevertheless, through a matching analysis we find that polling consolidation decreases voter turnout substantially, by about seven percentage points, even among this electorate, suggesting that even habitual voters can be dissuaded from going to the polls. This finding has implications for how election administrators ought to handle cost-cutting measures like consolidation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 17 , Issue 4: Special Issue: Natural Experiments in Political Science , Autumn 2009 , pp. 435 - 455
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Authors' note: Earlier versions of this article were presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Las Vegas, Nevada—The Riviera Hotel and Casino—March 8–10, 2007; and at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois—The Palmer House Hilton—April 3–6, 2008. We are grateful to Gregory Robinson, Jonathan S. Krasno, Christopher Zorn, Craig Laramee, Jasjeet Sekhon, Robi Ragan, Henry E. Brady, Cynthia Van Maanen, Superintendent Mark Capobianco, Dr. Annamary Allen, the Vestal Central School District, the Broome County Board of Elections, the Tioga County Board of Elections, Kevin Heard of the Binghamton University Geographic Information System Campus Core Facility, and Michael P. Welch and Blitwise Productions (www.blitwise.com). We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback. We are grateful to the Harpur College of Arts and Sciences at Binghamton University and the National Science Foundation (Project: 1057309, Award: 40509). This research was approved by the Human Subjects Research Review Committee of Binghamton University on May 9, 2006; thanks to Anne Casella, vice chair of the committee, for her gracious support and assistance. All errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors. Replication materials are available on the Political Analysis Web site.

References

Achen, Christopher. 1986. The statistical analysis of quasi-experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Alford, Robert R., and Lee, Eugene C. 1968. Voting turnout in American cities. American Political Science Review 62: 796–813.Google Scholar
Arceneaux, Kevin, Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P. 2006. Comparing experimental and matching methods using a large-scale voter mobilization experiment. Political Analysis 14: 37–62.Google Scholar
Brady, Henry E., and McNulty, John E. 2004. The costs of voting: Evidence from a natural experiment. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Political Methodology, Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, Robert G. 1996. Great circle distance between two points. October. http://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/gis-faq-5.1.html.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Dunning, Thad. 2008. Improving causal inference: Strengths and limitations of natural experiments. Political Research Quarterly 61: 282–93.Google Scholar
Dyck, Joshua J., and Gimpel, James G. 2005. Distance, turnout, and the convenience of voting. Social Science Quarterly 86: 531–48.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P. 2005. Correction to Gerber and Green (2000), Replication of disputed findings, and reply to Imai. American Political Science Review 99(2): 301–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gimpel, James G., Dyck, Joshua J., and Shaw, Daron R. 2006. Location, knowledge, and time pressures in the spatial structure of convenience voting. Electoral Studies 25: 35–58.Google Scholar
Gimpel, James G., and Schuknecht, Jason E. 2003. Political participation and the accessibility of the ballot box. Political Geography 22: 471–88.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P., and Gerber, Alan S. 2008. Get out the vote: How to increase voter turnout, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Hajnal, Zoltan L., and Lewis, Paul G. 2003. Municipal institutions and voter turnout in local elections. Urban Affairs Review 38: 645–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, James J. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47: 147–61.Google Scholar
Heckman, James, Ichimura, Hidehiko, Smith, Jeffrey, and Todd, Petra. 1998. Characterizing selection bias using experimental data. Econometrica 66: 1017–98.Google Scholar
Heckman, James, Ichimura, Hidehiko, and Todd, Petra. 1997. Matching as an economic evaluator estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training program. Review of Economic Studies 64: 605–54.Google Scholar
Heckman, James, Ichimura, Hidehiko, and Todd, Petra. 1998. Matching as an economic evaluation estimator. Review of Economic Studies 65: 261–94.Google Scholar
Holland, Paul. 1986. Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association 81: 945–60.Google Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, and van Dyk, David A. 2004. Causal inference with general treatment regimes: Generalizing the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association 99: 854–66.Google Scholar
Imbens, Guido. 2003. Semiparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. Review of Economics and Statistics 86(1): 4–29.Google Scholar
Merriam, Charles E., and Gosnell, Howard. 1924. Non-voting. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Morlan, Robert L. 1984. Municipal versus national election voter turnout: Europe and the United States. Political Science Quarterly 99: 457–70.Google Scholar
Neyman, Jerzey. 1923. On the application of probability theory to agricultural experiments. Essay on principles. Section 9. Edited and translated by Dabrowska, D. M. and Speed, T. P. Statistical Science 5: 465–72.Google Scholar
Riker, William H., and Ordeshook, Peter C. 1968. A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review 62: 25–42.Google Scholar
Robinson, Gregory, McNulty, John E., and Krasno, Jonathan S. 2009. Observing the counterfactual: The search for political experiments in nature. Political Analysis. Advance Access published on August 5, 2009. 10.1093/pan/mpp011.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Paul. 2002. Observational studies. 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Paul R., and Rubin, Donald B. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70: 41–55.Google Scholar
Rosenstone, Steven J., and Hansen, John Mark. 1993. Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: MacMillian.Google Scholar
Rubin, Donald B. 1974. Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies. Journal of Educational Psychology 66(5): 688–701.Google Scholar
Sekhon, Jasjeet S. n.d. Multivariate and propensity score matching software with automated balance optimization: The matching package for R. Journal of Statistical Software. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Simon, Mark. 2003. Recall spurs new voters to voter registration: Informal tallying shows numbers up despite summer usually being slow. San Francisco Chronicle August 21, Section A-1.Google Scholar
Sinnott, Roger W. 1984. “Virtues of the Haversine.” Sky and Telescope 68: 158.Google Scholar
Smith, Jeffrey, and Todd, Petra. 2001. Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental methods? Journal of Econometrics 125: 305–33.Google Scholar
Stein, Robert M., and Vonnahme, Greg. 2008. Engaging the unengaged voter: Voter centers and voter turnout. Journal of Politics 2: 487–97.Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Brady, Henry E. 1995. Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wolfinger, Raymond E., and Rosenstone, Steven J. 1980. Who votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar