There's a lot of talk about turnout being the deciding factor in the coming election. According to the theory, the number of "true independents" or "swing votes" is small and getting smaller. Partisan politics is driven more and more by identity, and the dominance of party-line voters is the norm. The implication is that it isn't worth the effort to try to win votes from the "other side" since Democrats won't support a Republican any more than a Red Sox fan will cheer for the Yankees. Instead, the strategy says that elections are won by getting more of your team out to the polls than the other guy.
The politicians' belief in this theory does help explain the hyper-partisanship seen in today's campaigning and legislation. It also seems to drive the extremism we are seeing from the different candidates, putting the two parties further and further away, ideologically. For instance, Sanders and Clinton debate how much to increase the minimum wage, while the Republicans are trying to decide whether the existence of a minimum wage is unconstitutional or merely a very bad idea.
Validate the Theory
Given how much time is spent by the pundits talking about these points, very little ink and bytes has been spent looking deeper into this effect. For an empirical evaluation, let's turn to the past presidential exit polls to see how much truth there is to this point.
In 2012, 92% of Democrats voted for Obama, while 93% of Republicans voted for Romney, while self-declared Independent/"Other Party" voters split 50%:45% for Romney. Given that 32% of Americans identify as Democrat and 30% identify as Republican, you might be forgiven for thinking that Romney should win the popular vote, 49.5% to 48.5% (with 2% to "other" candidates). However, the actual turnout for Democrats was 38% of voters, vs. 31% for Republicans, with a final tally of 51% for Obama to 47% for Romney. A disproportionate turnout for Democrats clearly was the deciding factor in an election that Obama "should" have lost.
While this phenomenon is not an aberration, it is a relatively recent pattern. In 1980, Reagan came to power amidst a strong turnout for Democrats by winning over voters of all backgrounds. After that, we see Bush the 1st and Clinton (the 1st?) win elections by reaching out to the other party while voter turnout remains stable. In 2000, Bush the 2nd inherits the same voter turnout distribution, and wins the electoral vote despite narrowly losing the popular vote.
It is in 2004 that we first see the triumph of "turning out your base", with a surge in turnout for Republican and conservative independents providing the deciding factor in what otherwise could have been a nail-biting repeat of 2000. Whether intentional or not, the Democrats learned their lesson, and countered with increased turnout of their own, plus a large support from the independents, to win in 2008. However, in both 2004 and 2008, the winner of the popular vote (and presumably the electoral vote) would have been the same without it.
The conclusion: maybe voter turnout isn't the definitive strategy it's cracked up to be. It's a great way to tilt the tables a little, but a strategy of winning over the hearts and minds still has a better track record. Now, we continue to hear how the middle is shrinking and swing voters have gone the way of the dinosaur, so perhaps more than four years is too far back to look in politics. If the Republicans actually nominate Trump or Cruz, we will see if that is really the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment