Does Early Voting Really Improve Voter Turnout? The View from the Academy

1. Does Early Voting Really Improve Voter Turnout?The View from the Academy Paul Gronke, Director Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum, Research Director Early Voting Information Center July 16, 2007 Prepared for the National Association of Secretary of States’ Summer Meeting, Portland OR

2. Who am I? • Professor of Political Science at Reed College and Director of the Early Voting Information Center • Primary fields of research are voting behavior, public opinion, survey administration and statistics • Recent projects: • Carter/Baker Commission report on Voting by Mail • 2006 Carnegie Corporation project on 2004 Election Day Survey • 2007 EAC Contract on 2006 Election Administration Survey • Where you can find out more about me: • Email: earlyvoting@reed.edu • Web: http://earlyvoting.net, http://www.reed.edu/~gronke • Blog: http://electionupdates.caltech.edu

3. Agenda for today • Theories of voting and the early voter • Voting as A Cost/Benefit decision: Because EV decreases cost, turnout should increase • Voting as Consumption: Because voting is a marginal decision, EV should have small effects (positive and negative) on turnout • Voting and the Social Context: If states make it easier for parties, candidates, and other organizations to identify early voters, turnout should increase • Empirical studies of turnout and early voting • How scholars and policymakers can work together

4. State of the World: Early Voting is coming and you can’t stop it 6 states cast ballots before Iowa Caucus 12 states cast ballots before New Hampshire Major share of delegates at stake in early voting Thanks to: Source: Fitzgerald 2005

5. Voting as a Cost-Benefit Decision • Why should anyone vote at all? • Scholars often conceptualize voting as a cost-benefit calculation: Vote if: C < pB • The probability that a citizen’s vote will make a difference (p) multiplied by the perceived benefit from voting (pB) must be greater than the cost of voting (C) in order for a citizen to vote. • Prediction: rational citizens should not vote and in equilibrium, turnout should be zero

6. How to increase turnout if you believe the Cost-Benefit Model • The p (probability that one vote will make a difference) is virtually nil; thus… • Efforts to increase turnout work on B or C • B: most GOTV efforts for candidates and policy campaigns work here, trying to make potential voters feel that the benefit gained from voting is large (or that the cost of not turning out will be severe) • C: a few campaigns, and most civil servants operate here, trying to lower the costs of voting by making polls easier to access, making information accessible, etc. • Early Voting may increase turnout by lowering the costs of voting.

7. Voting as consumption • Many political scientists modify the classic cost-benefit model of turnout: Vote if: C < pB + D • D has been variously described as civic duty or value of democracy. • “Consumption” because you enjoy the benefit whether or not your candidate wins. You “consume” voting. • Prediction: turnout should equilibrate at some level greater than zero, and vary according to the consumptive value of the election.

8. How to increase turnout if you believe the consumption model • Manipulate D: • Encourage a sense of civic duty • Describe voting as a way to express your voice (“Rock the Vote”), not to win or lose for policy purposes • Structure voting so as to encourage community activity and civic rituals • Early voting: • Should have no impact, because small changes on the cost side won’t translate into big changes on the turnout side • Should have a negative impact because it destroys old civic rituals • Should have a positive impact because it creates a new civic ritual (“voting at the kitchen table”). • Regardless, any effects are likely to be small.

9. Voting and the Social Context • Criticism of “homo economicus”. What about “homo societus”—humans embedded in a social context? • Institutions play a role by getting people out to vote • Institutions play a role by teaching skills and providing “resources” needed to help navigate political waters • Evidence: • Mobilization can overcome barriers to voting • Citizens with greater social connections vote more frequently • Church attendance • Members of civic organizations • Volunteerism

10. How to increase turnout if you believe in mobilization • Encourage the health of American civic life • Fund political parties and not just candidate organizations • Encourage volunteerism and civic engagement; no more “bowling alone” • Early voting: • May have a positive impact if states and jurisdictions make permanent absentee lists and early voting returnseasily and cheaply available (statewide?) • Allows civic organizations to target mobilization efforts • Promotes cost efficiency among candidates and party organizations • May level the campaign playing field and lower campaign spending

11. VBM and Turnout: Empirical Evidence • Academic verdict on VBM’s effect: • Small increase in turnout • EVIC estimates are that voting by mail has increased turnout in Presidential elections approximately 5% • One California estimated a decrease of 2.6% • VBM does not expand the electorate • Tends to draw in regular voters, does not attract new voters • What we don’t know yet: • Changing landscape of voting by mail • Concerns about “novelty effect” and other “special circumstances” • Effects likely vary in higher and lower profile contests

12. Other Modes and Turnout • Liberalized absentee voting: • EVIC compared primary types of non-precinct place voting since 1960, in Federal elections, and found no impact (other than VBM) • Other studies have found consistently positive but small (less than 3%) and often statistically insignificant • In Person Early Voting and Voting Centers • No measurable impact on turnout • Early voting allows parties to “harvest core voters” • What we don’t know yet • Based primarily on studies in Texas and Colorado • Widespread party mobilization efforts directed at early voters

13. Who votes early? The Early Electorate • “Resource Rich” voters (better educated, higher income) • Committed voters (voters with strong ideological leanings and partisan ties, older voters?) • Voters who are inconvenienced by traditional precinct place voting (e.g. voters facing longer commutes, older voters?) • Early voting does not expand the electorate and reinforces existing biases in American politics • Early voting methods increase voter turnout on average (across many different types of elections), primarily by making it easier for current voters to continue to participate, rather than by mobilizing nonvoters into the electorate. • Very consistent with the theoretical expectations

14. Looking to the future • Electoral reforms that make voting more convenient but may exacerbate pre-existing biases • Retention is easy to fix. Likely voters1 who don’t participate already are those who respond best to lower physical costs—they’re already engaged, wealthy, educated, or habitual voters • Expanding the electorate is hard. • Turning unlikely voters into likely voters involves much more than administrative changes 1. Likely voters are those who share characteristics with habitual voters: older, wealthier, politically and socially engaged, educated, etc. The expectation that a member of these groups will turn out to vote is higher than for others.

15. How EV research can help you: • Study EV as a way to improve election administration • Give poll workers extra time to learn in a hands-on environment • Allow many problems to be caught and dealt with before the huge crowds of Election Day • Give voters the option of returning later if something isn’t working or if access is a problem • Study EV as a way to increase turnout and expand the electorate • Experimental studies of different methods of voter outreach and voter assistance • Different methods for different citizens • Study EV across jurisdictions to establish best practices

16. How you can help research • Tracking the number of early votes in an election is a source of considerable frustration • States such as Texas, Oregon, Florida make data readily available, in real-time and permanently • Other states don’t make these numbers available easily • Often can’t produce the data when directly solicited • Many don’t track EV at the state level (must go to each county) • Inconsistent definitions • Quick collection and analysis of national EV rates is currently impossible • Take full advantage of statewide voter registration systems and link to voter history files