1993
DOI: 10.1007/bf01053302
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Election closeness and voter turnout: Evidence from California ballot propositions

Abstract: Abstract. This paper uses a new data set of 885 California ballot propositions from 1912 through 1990 to test the hypothesis that voter turnout increases as an election becomes closer. Various measures of voter participation are regressed on various measures of election closeness. The main finding is that there is not a systematic relation between closeness and turnout. Two conclusions are drawn: (1) voters are not sensitive to the probability their votes are decisive, and (2) other studies which found higher … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
63
0
7

Year Published

2003
2003
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 105 publications
(71 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
1
63
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…Accordingly, academics have set about testing the hypothesis that voter turnout increases as an election becomes (or is at least perceived by the electorate to become) closer. A number of measurements of 'closeness' have been suggested, including the absolute difference in votes for and against in a twohorse race (Cox 1988), the percentage difference in votes cast between the winning and second placed candidate (Matsusaka 1993) and the marginality in the preceding election (Denver and Hands 1974). Of these variables, the third has repeatedly proved to be a statistically significant predictor of turnout in British elections (Mughan 1986, Lutz 1991, Denver and Halfacree 1992, Whiteley et al 2001, McAllister 2001.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Accordingly, academics have set about testing the hypothesis that voter turnout increases as an election becomes (or is at least perceived by the electorate to become) closer. A number of measurements of 'closeness' have been suggested, including the absolute difference in votes for and against in a twohorse race (Cox 1988), the percentage difference in votes cast between the winning and second placed candidate (Matsusaka 1993) and the marginality in the preceding election (Denver and Hands 1974). Of these variables, the third has repeatedly proved to be a statistically significant predictor of turnout in British elections (Mughan 1986, Lutz 1991, Denver and Halfacree 1992, Whiteley et al 2001, McAllister 2001.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Inspection of (25) and (26) reveal that setting r = 1 improves the incumbent's probability of winning each j state electoral college vote but worsens his chances of winning each i state electoral college vote. Moreover, since the degree of electoral competition is the same across the two state types, it follows that ∆ρ j < −∆ρ i .…”
Section: Proofmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…28 A more plausible approach is a model in which a political leader increases his effort to foster the participation among those who are in favor of the proposed law when the vote is close: A major reason for campaigning is not only to reward those that are already decided to vote, but also to get the undecided voters to turn out. Political strategists have long recognised that it is much 26 Various specifications of partial equilibrium models have been estimated: Rosenthal and Sen (1973), Kau and Rubin (1976), Crain and Deaton (1977), Foster (1984), Darvish andRosenberg (1988), andMatsusaka (1993). 27 For a recent survey on theoretical paradoxes of voter participation see Dhillon and Peralta (2002) and the references therein.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%