Persistence in Political Participation

Meredith, Marc

doi:10.1561/100.00009015

Cited by 186 publications

(136 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

126

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another potential explanation for why our findings differ from previous studies (Gerber, Green, and Shachar 2003;Meredith 2009; Fujiwara, Meng, and Vogl 2016) highlights individuals' perceptions of the legislative process underlying an electoral reform. In Vaud, elites imposed compulsory voting on citizens.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 86%

“…Theories of habitual voting (Weber 1968;Almond and Verba 1963;Lijphart 1997;Plutzer 2002;Gerber, Green, and Shachar 2003;Fowler 2006) predict that citizens develop a voting habit under compulsory voting because they are more likely to having repeatedly engaged in this activity. Consistent with this reasoning, recent empirical work on the formation of voting habits documents that those who voted in today's election are also more likely to participate in subsequent elections (Meredith 2009;Fujiwara, Meng, and Vogl 2016). This habit-formation argument not only predicts the contemporaneous effect of compulsory voting on turnout in elections.…”

mentioning

confidence: 78%

“…In line with the idea of voting as a habit-forming activity, Gerber, Green, and Shachar's (2003) field-experimental evidence suggests that get-out-thevote campaigns based on face-to-face canvassing and direct mailings increase voter turnout in subsequent years. More recently, Meredith (2009) finds that voters who are barely 18 at the time of a presidential election, and hence eligible to vote, are also about four percent more likely to vote in the subsequent election than those who just missed the age cut-off.…”

Section: Compulsory Voting and Habit Formationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Compulsory Voting, Habit Formation, and Political Participation

Bechtel

Hangartner

Schmid

2018

The Review of Economics and Statistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 86%

mentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Compulsory Voting and Habit Formationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Compulsory Voting, Habit Formation, and Political Participation

Bechtel

Hangartner

Schmid

2018

The Review of Economics and Statistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Being a part of the political system might, for instance, change a young person's identity as participant rather than outsider, which could in turn affect her efficacy, attentiveness, and, ultimately, participation in future elections (Bryan et al 2011). Many scholars have concluded that there is a strong habitual nature of political engagement (e.g., Fowler 2006;Meredith 2009;Plutzer 2002), so earlier integration into the political system might set those forces in action. Indeed, the habitual nature of (non)voting might explain the diminishing impact of electoral reform returns found over the life course (Butler and Stokes 1974).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making Young Voters: The Impact of Preregistration on Youth Turnout

Holbein

Hillygus

2014

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research has cast doubt on the potential for various electoral reforms to increase voter turnout. In this article, we examine the effectiveness of preregistration laws, which allow young citizens to register before being eligible to vote. We use two empirical approaches to evaluate the impact of preregistration on youth turnout. First, we implement differencein-difference and lag models to bracket the causal effect of preregistration implementation using the [2000][2001][2002][2003][2004][2005][2006][2007][2008][2009][2010][2011][2012] (Bennion and Nickerson 2011;Hanmer et al. 2010;Herrnson et al. 2008;Niemi et al. 2009;Ponoroff and Weiser 2010). While it was once commonly assumed that reducing legal obstacles to voting would inevitably lead to higher turnout (Burnham 1987;Lijphart 1997; Powell 1986; Wolfinger and Rosenstone 1980) We wish to thank the National Science Foundation (Grant #SES-1416816) for their generous support for this project. In addition, we wish to thank Barry C. Burden, Michael McDonald, Steven A. Snell, and three anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback. Finally, we wish to thank Matthew Tyler for his invaluable work as a research assistant. 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).An electoral reform that has nonetheless gained momentum in recent years is preregistration, whereby individuals younger than 18 are able to complete their registration application so that they are automatically added to the registration rolls once they come of age. Preregistration laws have been implemented in a dozen states, debated in at least 19 others in the last 5 years, and proposed in the U.S. Congress (2004). The policy is of particular salience and controversy in North Carolina, where preregistration was implemented with wide bipartisan support in 2009 and then abruptly repealed 4 years later by a newly elected Republican majority in the state legislature.1 Allegations swirled that the repeal was an attempt to impede future turnout among young voters, who had disproportionately voted Democratic in the 2012 election.2 On both sides of the aisle, policy makers seemed to assume that preregistration would increase youth Furthermore, recent scholarly research evaluating other electoral reforms offers a rather bleak outlook for the potential to increase citizen engagement through institutional changes. In this article, we estimate the causal effect of preregistration on youth turnout using two complementary approaches. First, using a nationally representative, pooled cross-section from the 2000-2012 Current Population Survey, we implement a difference-in-difference approach. We supplement this with lag models to create bracketed estimates of preregistration's impact (Angrist and Pischke 2008;Manski 1990...

show abstract

“…First, the idea that different periods of history are dominated by different political ideas, or zeitgeists, is well-known. Second, it is known that the prevailing political beliefs when one first becomes politically active are of outsized importance in determining one's political orientation (Meredith, 2009;Mullainathan and Washington, 2009). While these insights may not be new, they have not been formalized, and by incorporating them into our theory about overconfidence we are able to produce new tests of these combined theories.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are conservatives overconfident?

Ortoleva

Snowberg

2015

European Journal of Political Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies suggest psychological differences between conservatives and liberals, including that conservatives are more overconfident. We use a behavioral political economy model to show that while this is undoubtedly true for election years in the current era, there is no reason to believe that conservative ideologies are intrinsically linked to overconfidence. Indeed, it appears that in 1980 and before, conservatives and liberals were equally overconfident.JEL Classifications: D03, D72, D83, C83

show abstract

Persistence in Political Participation

Cited by 186 publications

References 18 publications

Compulsory Voting, Habit Formation, and Political Participation

Compulsory Voting, Habit Formation, and Political Participation

Making Young Voters: The Impact of Preregistration on Youth Turnout

Are conservatives overconfident?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About