© 2014 University of New Hampshire. All rights reserved.

Turnout and Voter Trust

Andrew E. Smith, Ph.D.

Presentation to thePresidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

Goffstown, NHSeptember 12, 2017

Why Vote?

• Rational to vote only if expected benefits of voting are greater than cost (Downs, Tullock, Riker & Ordeshook)

PB + D > C

P = Probability that individual vote will affect the outcomeB = Expected benefit of votingD = Psychological benefit citizen receives from votingC = Cost of voting (time, expense, opportunity costs)

• Low turnout due to either high costs, low expected benefits, or both

Multiple Factors Correlated with Turnout• Demographics

– Age– Education– Income

• Barriers• Civic Education

– Confidence in elections

• Campaign factors– Competition– Interest in race– Economy– War

• No Single cause of increase or decrease in turnout

Turnout: US Presidential Elections (VAP)

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

US Turnout NH Turnout

NH Sec. of State

Turnout: US Presidential Elections (VEP)

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

DC Turnout MN Turnout SD Turnout OR Turnouot

McDonald, US Elections Project

Why Differences?

• Varies by state

– Some consistently high – Minnesota

– Some consistently low - Hawaii

– Some change over time

• Different reasons for changes in each state

Why Turnout Decline after 1960s?

• 26th Amendment?

– Turnout dropped for 20 years as Baby Boom was “digested”

• But is that what happened?

Turnout: US Presidential Elections (VAP)

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

US Turnout

NH Sec. of State

US Turnout 1964-2012 by Age (VAP)

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012

18 to 24 25 to 44 45 to 64 65+

Young-Adult Voting: An Analysis of Presidential Elections, 1964-2012, Thom File, US Census Bureau

Trust in Elections Essential

• For accepting results

• Trust/support of winning candidate & policies

Public confidence “is closely related to the State’s interest in preventing voter fraud, public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process has independent significance, because it encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.”

Justice Stevens, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

Perceived Threats to Electoral Trust

• Lack of Constitutional understanding– State variations in electoral procedures– Misunderstanding of Electoral College

• Inaccurate counting– Computer hacking– Paper trail

• Illegal voting– Non-residents– Non citizens– Multiple votes

Trust in NH elections:Confidence vote in previous election was accurately counted

85% 83%

7%13%

9%4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2003 2016

Confident Not Confident Don't Know/Not Sure

Source: Granite State PollUNH Survey Center

Less confidence in Electronic Voting than Paper Ballots:Increasing over recent years

53%

69%

38%

23%

10% 8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2003 2016

Paper Ballot Touch Screen Don't Know/Not Sure

Source: Granite State PollUNH Survey Center

Summary

• Many factors influence turnout. Very difficult to determine a specific cause for changes in turnout

• Citizens need to have confidence in elections:

– Tradeoffs between stricter voting laws to increase trust and barriers that may discourage voting

Thank You!Andrew.Smith@unh.edu