Culture, Rhetoric, and Voting

The Presidential Election of 2012

Douglas M. Brattebo, Tom Lansford

• Publisher: University of Akron Press
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781629220406
• Topic: Politica e relazioni internazionali
• Subtopic: Campagne ed elezioni politiche

The presidential election of 2012 was among the most important in American history, both for the policies that will persist due to its result as well as the national political transformation it portends. The contest's outcome was the product of complex and fast-moving societal changes- demographic, technological, and economic- surfacing in American society. This volume, consisting of writings by leading scholars of American politics and the American presidency, examines the 2012 presidential election in its many facets. Particularly prominent in these analyses are: psychology, religion, and culture, rhetoric, and voting.

III. Voting

Chapter 10

The Predisposing, Motivating, and
Constraining Factors of Early Voting

Assessing the Impact of Campaign Strategies
and Voting Laws

Lisa Hager, Kent State University

INTRODUCTION

Theoretical models describing the decision to vote weigh individual benefits against the costs of voting (Downs 1957; Riker and Ordeshook 1968). Consequently, studies examining turnout also tend to focus on the costs associated with voting on Election Day (Piven and Cloward 1988; Teixeira 1992; Wolfinger and Rosenstone 1980). Early or convenience voting systems are popular for decreasing the costs of voting by allowing voters to cast their ballots prior to Election Day, thus increasing turnout. Early voting systems have become much more common in the United States with every state utilizing at least one system. Absentee voting by mail, in person, or at a satellite polling place are the most common early voting systems in most U.S. states. Other systems include vote by mail (VBM) in Washington and Oregon, vote by phone in Maine and Vermont, and vote by fax in Montana and Alaska (Gronke et al. 2008).

This chapter seeks to determine the individual, legal, and campaign factors that affected whether citizens voted early in the 2008 presidential election. Investigation into the 2008 election is warranted for three reasons. First, according to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Study Voter and Registration Supplement, the 2008 presidential election saw a noteworthy increase in early voting from 20 percent in 2004 to 30 percent in 2008. Second, prior to the 2008 election, numerous states passed same-day voting registration laws and allowed for multiple types of early voting (McDonald 2008). Third, the Obama campaign took advantage of these voting law reforms and included early voting in the campaign’s voter registration and mobilization efforts (Luo and Nixon 2008; Saulny 2008; Zeleny 2008).

The analysis in this chapter differs from prior research in three ways. First, the focus will be only on presidential elections rather than gubernatorial, congressional, or a combination of the three, and all types of early voting across all states will be investigated instead of only one form of early voting in one or a few states. Second, previous research has also not tested a full model of early voting including all individual, campaign, and legal factors that have been theorized to influence early voting behavior. Third, no study has sought to determine the impact that the aforementioned factors had in 2008. The study conducted by Gronke, Hicks, and Toffey (2009) tested a limited model and only sought to determine if, in 2008, the Obama campaign was able to mobilize citizens, specifically Southern African Americans, who are not predisposed to vote early. A variety of predictions will be developed and tested to determine if current models of early voting fully explain the 2008 election. It is possible that individual predictors of early voting were less relevant than legal factors because of the recent early voting law reforms in many states. It is also possible that citizens not predisposed to vote early did so because of the Obama campaign’s emphasis on early voting and the media coverage the campaign received. This possibility is in direct contrast with existing models predicting that individuals who are highly attentive to the campaign take longer to decide whom to vote for and will vote on Election Day. The results will also be discussed in relation to the 2012 presidential election and the use of early voting as a campaign strategy. The chapter will conclude by discussing opportunities for future research.

DOES EARLY VOTING INCREASE TURNOUT OR VICE VERSA?

Initial research concentrated on whether early voting systems decreased the costs of voting and increased turnout. Results have been mostly mixed, varying based on the method of early voting and the state included in the analysis. For example, an early study by Patterson and Caldeira (1985) analyzed the impact of turnout on in-person and by-mail absentee voting in California and Iowa during the 1978 and 1982 gubernatorial elections. The results indicated that higher turnout only increased early voting consistently in gubernatorial elections in Iowa. The most commonly analyzed state is Oregon because elections are conducted completely by mail and voting by mail (VBM) increases turnout in local and primary elections (Berinsky, Burns, and Traugott 2001; Karp and Banducci 2000; Magleby 1987; Southwell 2010). Since interest is typically low for local and primary elections, voters are less likely to turn out, but VBM decreases the costs of voting in these elections and increases the likelihood that citizens will vote.

Similar studies investigating the relationship between early voting and turnout in midterm and general elections have reported more definitive results at both the state and national levels. In California and Tennessee, increased turnout was not found to produce higher levels of early voting (Dubin and Kalsow 1996; Neeley and Richardson 2001). In a nationwide study spanning 1972–2002, Fitzgerald (2005) found that statewide turnout has not increased following early voting law reform. Additionally, the ease of early voting has not been found to consistently increase the likelihood that voters will vote early (Gronke and Toffey 2008; Kousser and Mullin 2007), but early voting law reform has been found to lead to a brief increase in the number of ballots cast early (Dubin and Kalsow 1996; Oliver 1996). Early voting law reform has been argued to make early voting more accessible to those already predisposed to vote where early voters have been found to use the most convenient method not requiring an excuse (Giammo and Brox 2010; Gronke, Hicks, and Toffey 2009).

While few studies have shown that there is no increase in turnout from early voting, even fewer studies have found that early voting does increase turnout. Studies on Oregon and Texas have found that early voting, particularly VBM, increases turnout (Berinsky, Burns, and Traugott 2001; Southwell 2010; Stein and García-Monet 1997). Increases in nationwide turnout following early voting law reform are very limited. In a study spanning 1980–2004, Gronke, Galanes-Rosenbaum, and Miller (2007) found that VBM is the only form of early voting that increases turnout and this only occurs in presidential elections. Giammo and Brox (2010) found that any increases that are evidenced disappear by the second general election following the early voting law reform. In sum, the literature on early voting and turnout suggests that VBM is the most successful at increasing turnout, but observing an increase in turnout varies by state, type of election, and the law on early voting.

WHO VOTES EARLY?

In addition to determining the impact that early voting has on turnout, research has sought to determine who votes early, which may begin to explain recent increases in early voting. Most studies found that the same sociodemographic characteristics that increase participation on Election Day (education, income, age, race, political knowledge, and political engagement) are also associated with early voting. In other words, early voters are typically white, older, wealthier, and more educated with higher levels of political knowledge and participation than Election Day voters (Barreto et al. 2006; Dubin and Kalsow 1996; Fitzgerald 2005; Gronke, Hicks, and Toffey 2009; Gronke and Toffey 2008; Karp and Banducci 2000, 2001; Oliver 1996; Patterson and Caldeira 1985; Stein 1998; Stein and García-Monet 1997; Southwell and Burchett 2000). However, there is a lack of consensus within the literature because each characteristic does not always directly impact early voting. For example, Neeley and Richardson’s (2001) study on Tennessee found no difference between Election Day and early voters for any of the aforementioned sociodemographic characteristics. The lack of consistent results is likely due to the variation in the types of early voting, elections, and states included in empirical analyses.

Despite the lack of consistency on the relationship between sociodemographic characteristics and early voting behavior, there is agreement that these characteristics need to remain in empirical models. However, a lack of consensus exists within the literature regarding political party affiliation, early voting, and turnout. Studies on gubernatorial and presidential elections have found that neither political party benefits from early voting. However, most of the studies focused on only one or a couple of states (Neeley and Richardson 2001; Patterson and Caldeira 1985; Stein 1998). Karp and Banducci’s (2001) study of congressional and presidential elections found no advantage for either party except that early voters were stronger partisans. Studies on VBM have also found varying results. In general, no partisan difference was found except for a study by Southwell (2010), who found that more Democrats voted by mail in Oregon (Berinsky, Burns, and Traugott 2001; Karp and Banducci 2000; Stein and García-Monet 1997).

Very few studies have looked at the interactive relationship between sociodemographic characteristics and the ease of early voting, where liberal early voting laws should further accentuate an individual’s likelihood of voting early. Using a national sample, Gronke and Toffey (2008) found that ease of early voting did not increase a citizen’s likelihood to ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Halftitle Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• I. Psychology, Religion, and Culture
• II. Rhetoric
• III. Voting
• Contributors
• Index