IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v90y1996i04p780-793_20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Partisan Effects of Voter Turnout in Senatorial and Gubernatorial Elections

Author

Listed:
  • Nagel, Jack H.
  • McNulty, John E.

Abstract

Conventional wisdom holds that higher turnout favors Democrats. Previous studies of this hypothesis rely on presidential and House elections or on survey data, but senatorial and gubernatorial elections offer better conditions for directly testing turnout effects in U.S. politics. In a comprehensive analysis of these statewide elections since 1928, we find that the conventional theory was true outside the South through 1964, but since 1965 the overall relationship between turnout and partisan outcomes has been insignificant. Even before the mid-1960s, the turnout effect outside the South was strongest in Republican states and insignificant or negative in heavily Democratic states. A similar but weaker pattern obtains after 1964. In the South, which we analyze only since 1966, higher turnout helped Republicans until 1990, but in 1990–94 the effect became pro-Democratic. The conventional theory cannot account for these complex patterns, but they are impressively consistent with DeNardo's (1980) theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Nagel, Jack H. & McNulty, John E., 1996. "Partisan Effects of Voter Turnout in Senatorial and Gubernatorial Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(4), pages 780-793, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:90:y:1996:i:04:p:780-793_20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400208198/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gaebler, Stefanie & Potrafke, Niklas & Roesel, Felix, 2020. "Compulsory voting and political participation: Empirical evidence from Austria," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    2. Allers, M. & Kooreman, P., 2009. "More evidence on the effects of voting technology on election outcomes," Other publications TiSEM 76b3f561-a37f-4a29-bfd9-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Felix Arnold & Ronny Freier, 2015. "The Partisan Effects of Voter Turnout: How Conservatives Profit from Rainy Election Days," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1463, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    4. Stefanie Gäbler & Niklas Potrafke & Felix Rösel, 2017. "Compulsory Voting, Voter Turnout and Asymmetrical Habit-formation," CESifo Working Paper Series 6764, CESifo.
    5. Donald J. Lacombe & Garth J. Holloway & Timothy M. Shaughnessy, 2014. "Bayesian Estimation of the Spatial Durbin Error Model with an Application to Voter Turnout in the 2004 Presidential Election," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 37(3), pages 298-327, July.
    6. Alessandro Sforza, 2014. "The Weather Effect: estimating the effect of voter turnout on electoral outcomes in Italy," Working Papers w201405, Banco de Portugal, Economics and Research Department.
    7. Francesco Armillei & Enrico Cavallotti, 2021. "Concurrent elections and voting behaviour: evidence from an Italian referendum," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 21164, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.
    8. Jean-François Godbout, 2013. "Turnout and presidential coattails in congressional elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 333-356, October.
    9. Christine Fauvelle-Aymar & Abel François, 2003. "Campagne électorale, préférences politiques et participation. Une étude empirique sur les élections législatives françaises de 1997," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques j04009, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    10. John E. Mcnulty, 2005. "Phone-Based GOTV—What’s on the Line? Field Experiments with Varied Partisan Components, 2002-2003," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 601(1), pages 41-65, September.
    11. Francesco Armillei & Enrico Cavallotti, 2021. "Concurrent elections and voting behaviour: evidence from an Italian referendum," BAFFI CAREFIN Working Papers 21164, BAFFI CAREFIN, Centre for Applied Research on International Markets Banking Finance and Regulation, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy.

    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:cup:apsrev:v:90:y:1996:i:04:p:780-793_20. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    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.