Election Laws, Mobilization, and Turnout: The Unanticipated Consequences of Election Reform

Abstract

State governments have experimented with a variety of election laws to make voting more convenient and increase turnout. The impacts of these reforms vary in surprising ways, providing insight into the mechanisms by which states can encourage or reduce turnout. Our theory focuses on mobilization and distinguishes between the direct and indirect effects of election laws. We conduct both aggregate and individual-level statistical analyses of voter turnout in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections. The results show that Election Day registration has a consistently positive effect on turnout, whereas the most popular reform-early voting-is actually associated with lower turnout when it is implemented by itself. We propose that early voting has created negative unanticipated consequences by reducing the civic significance of elections for individuals and altering the incentives for political campaigns to invest in mobilization. Authors are listed alphabetically. Replication data and supplemental information may be accessed at electionadmin.wisc.edu and the AJPS Data Archive. nation involves rethinking the calculus of voting to focus on the net consequences of election laws, that is, the sum of both direct and indirect effects. Direct effects stem from the costs imposed by the state and include registration requirements, polling locations and hours, and rules such as identification requirements. Yet an exclusive focus on direct effects leads to a misunderstanding of how election laws indirectly affect mobilization by nongovernmental actors such as the media, campaigns, interest groups, friends, and family. These actors indirectly raise or lower the costs of voting depending on how much information they provide and the social incentives for voting they generate. The added convenience of early voting decreases the direct costs of voting, but this effect is more than offset by

Making Young Voters: The Impact of Preregistration on Youth Turnout

“…Previous work has cast doubt on the ability of institutional reforms to increase turnout (Ansolabehere and Konisky 2006;Berinsky, Burns and Traugott 2001;Burden and Neiheisel 2013;Erikson 1981;Highton 1997;Keele and Minozzi 2013;Martinez and Hill 1999), with some evidence that some reforms actually depress turnout (Burden et al 2014). In a noticeable departure, we find that preregistration laws are effective at increasing turnout among young voters.…”

“…Indeed, this is a key explanation offered for the null findings that have become so common in causal analyses of the impact of other electoral reforms (e.g., early voting, vote-by-mail, Motor Voter registration). Although many classic observational works argued that burdensome registration requirements are "a major deterrent to voting" (Lijphart 1997, 7), this more recent causal research emphasizes that removing the obstacles to voting will not automatically translate into higher turnout among the unmotivated and unengaged (Ansolabehere and Konisky 2006;Berinsky, Burns and Traugott 2001;Burden et al 2014;Burden and Neiheisel 2013;Hanmer 2009;Highton 1997;Keele and Minozzi 2013;Kousser and Mullin 2007;Leighley and Nagler 2013;Martinez and Hill 1999).…”

“…Preregistration, in contrast, applies only to young citizens. To use the framework of Burden et al (2014), preregistration is a reform that brings in new voters rather than retaining existing voters-making preregistration more like Election Day registration laws than early-voting laws.…”

“…Data and code for replicating our results can be found in the AJPS Data Archive on Dataverse (http://dvn.iq.harvard.edu/dvn/dv/ajps). depress political engagement (Burden et al 2014). As one scholar succinctly put it, "non-participants are not likely to flood the polls simply because registration barriers diminish" (Timpone 1998, 155).…”

“…depress political engagement (Burden et al 2014). As one scholar succinctly put it, "non-participants are not likely to flood the polls simply because registration barriers diminish" (Timpone 1998, 155).…”