IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v101y2020i2p925-939.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Abstention, Protest, and Residual Votes in the 2016 Election

Author

Listed:
  • Charles Stewart
  • R. Michael Alvarez
  • Stephen S. Pettigrew
  • Cameron Wimpy

Abstract

Objective We analyze the significant increase in the residual vote rate in the 2016 presidential election. The residual vote rate, which is the percentage of ballots cast in a presidential election that contain no vote for president, rose nationwide from 0.99 to 1.41 percent between 2012 and 2016. Method We use election return data and public opinion data to examine why the residual vote rate increased in 2016. Results The primary explanation for this rise is an increase in abstentions, which we argue results primarily from disaffected Republican voters rather than alienated Democratic voters. In addition, other factors related to election administration and electoral competition explain variation in the residual vote rates across states, particularly the use of mail/absentee ballots and the lack of competition at the top of the ticket in nonbattleground states. However, we note that the rise in the residual vote rate was not due to changes in voting technologies. Conclusion Our research has implications for the use of the residual vote as a metric for studying election administration and voting technologies.

Suggested Citation

  • Charles Stewart & R. Michael Alvarez & Stephen S. Pettigrew & Cameron Wimpy, 2020. "Abstention, Protest, and Residual Votes in the 2016 Election," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(2), pages 925-939, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:101:y:2020:i:2:p:925-939
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12757
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12757
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12757?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:101:y:2020:i:2:p:925-939. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.