In this week's reading, researchers Ashenfelter and Kelley did not find that "perceived closeness" of a political race had any statistically-significant relationship to voters' probability of casting their ballots (Mueller, 311). Feeling a duty or obligation to vote had a much stronger impact. Later in the chapter, Mueller described a separate study also conducted in 1975. Researchers Tollison, Crain, and Paulter did report importance in "perceived closeness," especially in states with large newspaper circulation. Mueller quoted them on page 319: “Information concerning the expected outcome [tends] to make more people vote in close races."
I considered how people have constant access to news today. Now that we can no longer escape the headlines, if the public is inundated with predictions that a race is neck-in-neck, will that information motivate them to head to the ballot box? The National Bureau of Economic Research published a paper in 2017 that did find a causal effect of "anticipated election closeness" on voter turnout; the findings "indicate that information about an election’s competitiveness can shape political behavior." The paper speculates that if the media hadn't predicted a Democratic landslide in 2016, the outcome of the presidential election may have been different. The American Psychological Association highlighted a similar study on their website with identical findings — "voter turnout increases when polls predict a close race."
How this will affect the 2020 general election, no one can say yet. But those hoping for one candidate's victory should steer clear of painting it as an inevitability.
No comments:
Post a Comment