IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v103y2022i1p181-192.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of turnout on partisan bias in U.S. House elections, 1972–2018

Author

Listed:
  • Bernard Tamas
  • Ron Johnston
  • Charles Pattie

Abstract

Objective Partisan bias occurs when votes are distributed across districts in such a way that even if the vote between two parties were equal, one party would win more seats than the other. Gerrymandering is a well‐established cause of partisan bias, but it is not the only one. In this article, we ask whether the decline of voter turnout can also influence partisan bias. Methods We modified the Gelman–King partisan symmetry measure to make it sensitive to turnout differences across U.S. House elections from 1972 to 2018. Results We found that turnout variation has caused partisan bias in U.S. House elections in the Democratic Party's favor since at least 1972, though turnout bias has gotten weaker in recent elections. Conclusion While turnout bias can buffer the impact of turnout reductions, it has the potential to dramatically increase the number of seats a party loses when its supporters fail to vote.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernard Tamas & Ron Johnston & Charles Pattie, 2022. "The impact of turnout on partisan bias in U.S. House elections, 1972–2018," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(1), pages 181-192, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:103:y:2022:i:1:p:181-192
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13115
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13115
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13115?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tufte, Edward R., 1973. "The Relationship between Seats and Votes in Two-Party Systems," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(2), pages 540-554, June.
    2. King, Gary & Browning, Robert X, 1987. "Democratic Representation and Partisan Bias in Congressional Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(4), pages 1251-1273, December.
    3. Jack Citrin & Eric Schickler & John Sides, 2003. "What if Everyone Voted? Simulating the Impact of Increased Turnout in Senate Elections," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(1), pages 75-90, January.
    4. Richard J. Cebula & James E. Payne & Ira S. Saltz, 2017. "Determinants of Geographic Voter Participation Rate Differentials: the 2014 Mid-Term Election," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 45(1), pages 35-43, March.
    5. DeNardo, James, 1980. "Turnout and the Vote: The Joke's on the Democrats," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(2), pages 406-420, June.
    6. Charles J Pattie & Ron J Johnston, 2005. "Electoral Participation and Political Context: The Turnout–Marginality Paradox at the 2001 British General Election," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(7), pages 1191-1206, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Timothy Besley & Ian Preston, 2007. "Electoral Bias and Policy Choice: Theory and Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(4), pages 1473-1510.
    2. Matthew P. Dube & Jesse T. Clark & Richard J. Powell, 2022. "Graphical metrics for analyzing district maps," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 449-475, May.
    3. Christopher Warshaw & Eric McGhee & Michal Migurski, 2022. "Districts for a New Decade—Partisan Outcomes and Racial Representation in the 2021–22 Redistricting Cycle," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 52(3), pages 428-451.
    4. Barry Burden & Corwin Smidt, 2020. "Evaluating Legislative Districts Using Measures of Partisan Bias and Simulations," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, December.
    5. Godefroy, Raphael & Henry, Emeric, 2016. "Voter turnout and fiscal policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 389-406.
    6. Coleman, S., 2010. "Russian Election Reform and the Effect of Social Conformity on Voting and the Party System: 2007 and 2008," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, issue 5, pages 73-90.
    7. Fernanda L L de Leon, 2013. "Adding Ideology to the Equation: New Predictions for Election Results under Compulsory Voting," University of East Anglia Applied and Financial Economics Working Paper Series 044, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    8. Stephen Coate & Brian Knight, 2007. "Socially Optimal Districting: A Theoretical and Empirical Exploration," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(4), pages 1409-1471.
    9. LeRoux Kelly & Langer Julie & Plotner Samantha, 2023. "Nonprofit Messaging and the 2020 Election: Findings from a Nonpartisan Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) Field Experiment," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 14(2), pages 157-183, April.
    10. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09iats1f0hh is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Rafael Hortala-Vallve & Hannes Mueller, 2015. "Primaries: the unifying force," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 163(3), pages 289-305, June.
    12. 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.
    13. David Niven & Benjamin Plener Cover & Michael Solimine, 2021. "Are Individuals Harmed by Gerrymandering? Examining Access to Congressional District Offices," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(1), pages 29-46, January.
    14. Salvatore M. De Rienzo Jr., 2022. "Shelby County v. Holder and Changes in Voting Behavior," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 67(2), pages 195-210, October.
    15. Frey, Bruno S., 1978. "Politico-economic models and cycles," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 203-220, April.
    16. Tim R. Sass, 2000. "The Determinants of Hispanic Representation in Municipal Government," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 66(3), pages 609-630, January.
    17. Justin Svec & James Hamilton, 2015. "Endogenous voting weights for elected representatives and redistricting," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 434-441, December.
    18. Andrei Gomberg & Romans Pancs & Tridib Sharma, 2023. "Electoral Maldistricting," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 64(3), pages 1223-1264, August.
    19. Jean-François Godbout, 2013. "Turnout and presidential coattails in congressional elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 333-356, October.
    20. 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).
    21. Joseph McGarrity, 2001. "Vote share and return rates: A comparison of two measures of election outcomes," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 29(3), pages 294-303, September.

    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:103:y:2022:i:1:p:181-192. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.