IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v101y2020i2p978-988.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who Voted in 2016? Using Fuzzy Forests to Understand Voter Turnout

Author

Listed:
  • Seo‐young Silvia Kim
  • R. Michael Alvarez
  • Christina M. Ramirez

Abstract

Objective What can machine learning tell us about who voted in 2016? There are numerous competing voter turnout theories, and a large number of covariates are required to assess which theory best explains turnout. This article is a proof of concept that machine learning can help overcome this curse of dimensionality and reveal important insights in studies of political phenomena. Methods We use fuzzy forests, an extension of random forests, to screen variables for a parsimonious but accurate prediction. Fuzzy forests achieve accurate variable importance measures in the face of high‐dimensional and highly correlated data. The data that we use are from the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. Results Fuzzy forests chose only a small number of covariates as major correlates of 2016 turnout and still boasted high predictive performance. Conclusion Our analysis provides three important conclusions about turnout in 2016: registration and voting procedures were important, political issues were important (especially Obamacare, climate change, and fiscal policy), but few demographic variables other than age were strongly associated with turnout. We conclude that fuzzy forests is an important methodology for studying overdetermined questions in social sciences.

Suggested Citation

  • Seo‐young Silvia Kim & R. Michael Alvarez & Christina M. Ramirez, 2020. "Who Voted in 2016? Using Fuzzy Forests to Understand Voter Turnout," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(2), pages 978-988, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:101:y:2020:i:2:p:978-988
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12777
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12777
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12777?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:978-988. 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.