Residential Mobility and Turnout: The Relevance of Social Costs, Timing and Education

Hansen, Jonas Hedegaard

doi:10.1007/s11109-016-9333-0

Cited by 21 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore we do not include it in the meta-analysis.26 Cantoni and Pons 2016.27 We divide the IIT by the contact rate. Usually this would give a consistent estimate of the CACE(Gerber and Green 2012, 151).28 Bhatti et al 2014a;Hansen 2016.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Is Door-to-Door Canvassing Effective in Europe? Evidence from a Meta-study across Six European Countries

Bhatti

Dahlgaard

Hansen

et al. 2016

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A vast amount of experimental evidence suggests that get-out-the-vote encouragements delivered through door-to-door canvassing have large effects on turnout. Most of the existing studies have been conducted in the United States, and are inspiring European mobilization campaigns. This article explores the empirical question of whether the American findings are applicable to Europe. It combines existing European studies and presents two new Danish studies to show that the pooled point estimate of the effect is substantially smaller in Europe than in the United States, and finds no effects in the two Danish experiments. The article discusses why the effects seem to be different in Europe compared to the United States, and stresses the need for further experiments in Europe as there is still considerable uncertainty regarding the European effects. While one possible explanation is that differences in turnout rates explain the differences in effect sizes, the empirical analysis finds no strong relationship between turnout and effect sizes in either Europe or the United States.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Is Door-to-Door Canvassing Effective in Europe? Evidence from a Meta-study across Six European Countries

Bhatti

Dahlgaard

Hansen

et al. 2016

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although seeHeath (2000) for an exception and new studies (e.g.,Bhatti & Hansen 2012;Hansen 2016;Dahlgaard 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 1. See Heath (2000) for an exception and new studies (e.g. Bhatti et al, 2016b; Bhatti and Hansen, 2012; Dahlgaard, 2018; Hansen, 2016). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Core and Peripheral Voters: Predictors of Turnout Across Three Types of Elections

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citizens who abstain from voting in consecutive elections and inequality in turnout in democratic elections constitute a challenge to the legitimacy of democracy. Applying the law of dispersion, which stipulates higher levels of turnout and higher levels of equality in turnout are positively related, we study turnout patterns across different types of elections in Denmark, a high-turnout European context. Across three different elections with turnout rates from 56.3 to 85.9 percent, we use a rich, nationwide panel dataset of 2.1 million citizens with validated turnout and high-quality sociodemographic variables. Nine percent of the citizens are abstainers in the three consecutive elections, and these are disproportionately male, of non-Western ethnic background, with little education, and with low income. The law of dispersion finds support as inequalities in turnout increase when turnout decreases and vice versa. Furthermore, municipalities with lower turnout have higher inequalities in participation than high-turnout municipalities in local elections.

show abstract

“…Finally, one could say that movers are, in general, a more peripheral set of voters, albeit temporarily. Many papers such as Highton (2000) and Hansen (2016) have demonstrated that disruptions of social environments can depress turnout for movers, and Highton and Wolfinger (2001) shows that residential stability slowly increases turnout. But also note that Highton (2000) argues that the major reason that movers have lower turnout is because of the re-registration burden.…”

Section: Avr Increases Turnoutmentioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic Voter Registration as a Housewarming Gift: Quantifying Causal Effects on Turnout Using Movers

Kim

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How much does automatic voter registration (AVR) increase turnout? Unlike many democracies, American voters in many states face additional costs of registration, resulting in potential disenfranchisement. AVR is expected to promote turnout by alleviating registration costs, but its causal effects have rarely been quantified due to violations of crucial assumptions. I show that automatic voter (re)registration increases turnout by 5.8 percentage points by exploiting a discontinuity in a novel dataset of voters who moved. Election officials in Orange County, California, notified existing registrants who moved that their residential addresses were automatically updated. The treatment alleviated registrants of re-registration burdensbut only for those who moved before the legal cutoff date. Contrary to the popular narrative, AVR had no significant effect on the turnout of registered Democratic voters, but Republicans' and nonpartisans' turnout increased by 8.1 and 7.4 percentage points.

show abstract

Residential Mobility and Turnout: The Relevance of Social Costs, Timing and Education

Cited by 21 publications

References 46 publications

Is Door-to-Door Canvassing Effective in Europe? Evidence from a Meta-study across Six European Countries

Is Door-to-Door Canvassing Effective in Europe? Evidence from a Meta-study across Six European Countries

Core and Peripheral Voters: Predictors of Turnout Across Three Types of Elections

Automatic Voter Registration as a Housewarming Gift: Quantifying Causal Effects on Turnout Using Movers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About