Voting and Registration

Steven Taylor has a post over at OTB on voting and registration. Although the comments almost immediately go into a digression on requiring voter ID, that’s not really the subject of the post. While I agree with Steven about the importance of voting for a representative democracy, I’m not as convinced as Steven appears to be about the value of registering as many voters as possible and making it easy to do so.

Consider the total voting age population, the number of registered voters, and the actual number of voters in quadrennial elections since 1960:

Year Voting age population Registered voters Voters Voters as percentage of
registered
Voters as percentage of voting
age population
2004 221,256,931 174,800,000 122,294,978 69.96 55.27
2000 205,815,000 156,421,311 105,586,274 67.50 51.30
1996 196,511,000 146,211,960 96,456,345 65.97 49.08
1992 189,529,000 133,821,178 104,405,155 78.02 55.09
1988 182,778,000 126,379,628 91,594,693 72.48 50.11
1984 174,466,000 124,150,614 92,652,680 74.63 53.11
1980 164,597,000 113,043,734 86,515,221 76.53 52.56
1976 152,309,190 105,037,986 81,555,789 77.64 53.55
1972 140,776,000 97,328,541 77,718,554 79.85 55.21
1968 120,328,186 81,658,180 73,211,875 89.66 60.84
1964 114,090,000 73,715,818 70,644,592 95.83 61.92
1960 109,159,000 64,833,096 68,838,204 106.18 63.06

Source: Federal Election Commission

The way it looks to me is that there’s a core of people who actually vote and that core increases more slowly than the number of registered voters does and a lot more slowly than the number of people of voting age does. I would suggest a model along the following lines. The population is comprised of several different groups: those who are motivated to register and vote, those who can be pressed to register but are really not likely to vote, and those who will neither register nor vote. Registration campaigns work on that second group but that doesn’t do much to increase the number of voters.

Steven replies to my question about the relationship between voting and registration, correctly, that “get out the vote” campaigns can use registration lists. In theory that’s right but in practice ground organizations have been declining for decades (there’s a good reason they’re declining: dwindling patronage systems leave politicians with less and less to offer campaign workers). I haven’t seen a Democratic precinct captain around here for more than a decade.

BTW, don’t blame me that the number of voters in the 1960 election exceeded the number of registered voters. Those are the numbers I got from the Federal Election Commission. And people wonder why that election is questioned!

26 comments… add one
  • PD Shaw Link

    I think the central paradox of the Professor’s line of thinking is that your single vote does not count. I have voted in every non-primary election since I was of age, and I have never participated in an election decided by a single vote, nor do I expect there to be. The larger the population, the more votes cast, I expect the odds of that happening to decrease.

    The Professor is not concerned with purported purpose of registration requirements (voter fraud) absent evidence of “serious, systematic voter fraud.” I take that to support the notion that de minis fraud exists and is not important since the likelihood of a single fraudulent vote being determinative is highly unlikely, it would have to fraud at a larger, improbable scale (more likely by the vote takers than the givers)

    But they strike me as operating on the same set of assumptions. The individual voter does not see value his single vote, so its logical not to vote; nor do critics of registration requirements see it as worthwhile either. Outside of compulsary systems, how would you make people feel otherwise?

  • PD Shaw Link

    I was surprised to find out that my precinct no longer has a Democratic Captain. I don’t know when that happened. Its a pretty purple precinct, that I believe went for Obama last time. The decline of the local party organizations seems to me to be a significant underlying contributor to things like Obama’s election and Romney’s primary troubles. Not reported much.

  • Based on my own experiences here in Virginia, campaign Get Out The Vote efforts are more likely to utilize lists of people who have actually voted in recent elections rather than a broad list of registered voters. Part of the reason for that is, as you said, the fact that there isn’t the massive ground operation in most parts of the country that there used to be. Part of it is simple economics, if you’re going to spend resources on a GOTV effort it makes sense to concentrate your efforts on people likely to vote

  • Drew Link

    BTW, don’t blame me that the number of voters in the 1960 election exceeded the number of registered voters. Those are the numbers I got from the Federal Election Commission. And people wonder why that election is questioned!

    Heh. ” The policeman isnt here to create disorder, the police are here to preserve disorder.”

  • Icepick Link

    I have voted in every non-primary election since I was of age, and I have never participated in an election decided by a single vote, nor do I expect there to be.

    I was so pissed in 2000. FINALLY my vote might have counted! Except that I had moved to Maryland in July of 2000 and registered to vote up there INSTEAD OF FLORIDA! AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!

    (And unlike thousands and thousands of snow birds I did not vote in two states.)

  • Zachriel Link

    Dave Schuler: BTW, don’t blame me that the number of voters in the 1960 election exceeded the number of registered voters. Those are the numbers I got from the Federal Election Commission. And people wonder why that election is questioned!

    You’re missing an important footnote.

    64,833,096 x
    x Registrations from AL, AK, DC, IA, KS, KY, MS, MO, NE, NM, NC, ND, OK, SD, WI, and WY not included
    http://www.fec.gov/pages/htmlto5.htm

  • michael reynolds Link

    I assume the 1960 number is largely attributable to Chicago. In those days people were a little tougher. They didn’t make lame excuses for not voting like, “It’s snowing,” or, “I’m dead.”

  • mattb Link

    I’m a bit curious about how the rise of professional voter registration people might have affected those percentages. Anyone know what that became a normal political tool? I’m assuming that it was tied in to the ratification of the 26th amendment circa 71/21.

  • PD Shaw Link

    @Icepick, I think your Florida vote still wouldn’t have counted under the various counts that have been used. And my fallback position is that any election where one vote has decided it, its more likely that voter error swung the election. I’m suggesting voting is not an rational decision on the individual basis; it may be rational on the basis of a larger society and it may be rational for an individual to engage his own identity within a larger social framework through the voting process (though one doesn’t need to vote for the latter).

  • PD Shaw Link

    @mattb, I think that the precinct system was superior to the professional voter sytem today. So, I would date the use of that tool to the time after the precinct system failed, probably in the 80s? My grandfater was a precinct captain through the early 80s, and he would have known every person in his precinct, would have known many of their concerns, and communicated his body of knowledge up the ladder. I assume that system fell apart at different rates in the country, but probably fell apart due to (a) civil service & unionization and economic changes limiting the spoil system, and (b) loss of neighborhood/local community cohesion.

  • Icepick Link

    PD, my vote would have come damned close to counting in 2000. If I’m within a few dozen votes of getting to decide who gets to be POTUS out of over 105,000,000 votes cast, then my vote has great worth. If I’m in Maryland (or some other state that can be expected to go one way or the other no matter what) then my vote has little worth.

    However, there are still reasons to vote even if you believe your one individual vote might not decide the issue. There are matters of crowd psychology and giving legitimacy to your candidate if s/he wins and denying same to the people you vote against. (“Yay, we won a landslide” is better than “Wow, that was close.”) It’s not exactly a zero-sum game in which one’s individual vote decides things or not.

    (All this ignores voting in other races or for various ballot initiatives.)

  • PD Shaw Link

    @icepick, my own interpretation of Dave’s data is that your take-away from the 2000 election was internalized by a number of people — that there was a close election and the perceived value of an individual’s vote was increased, offsetting somewhat the longer trend towards a smaller proportion of the population voting. Maybe that was a lesson a reasonable Floridian might take to heart, but I’m thinking the increase was not restricted at all to Florida.

    I don’t disagree that there is value in voting. I just think its usually more rational for the individual to not vote than to vote. If the individual is largely acting rationally in not voting, then I don’t see much value in system modification that doesn’t address that. If voting is a collective good, then socialization is the obvious answer, but a lot of people don’t like that.

  • PD Shaw Link

    To put it another way, do we have a situation of market failure? Are there individuals who want to vote for candidates that want their vote, but it does not happen because of registration requirements, inconvenience of voting, lack of information, etc.? Or do we have a situation where there are people who do not want to vote for the candidates they could vote for?

  • Or do we have a situation where there are people who do not want to vote for the candidates they could vote for?

    That’s my take.

    My guess is that both vote fraud and voter suppression are going on, they are both going on at very low rates, and there’s a trade-off between the two and cost-benefit issues in stamping them out to boot.

  • Drew Link

    They didn’t make lame excuses for not voting like, “It’s snowing,” or, “I’m dead.”

    Heh. Hence the first Mayor Daley reference, which, as Don Imus would say ” you can’t make this, uh, stuff, up”

    But seriously. I often hear that voter fraud is small. Does anyone really have evidence for that? I’m a cynic, I have lived in or near Chicago most of my adult life. I know you serve as an election official, Dave. I assume that’s Sauganash. But really, try being an official south of there.

  • steve Link

    Bryan Caplan did a pretty good job of showing that any individual vote does not matter much, and voters act upon that belief. Since the downside to registering everyone is so low, I cannot see why we would not do so.

    Steve

  • Since the downside to registering everyone is so low, I cannot see why we would not do so.

    When you say “everyone”, what do you mean? All eligible voters? Everyone who shows up at the polls to vote?

    If it’s the former, you’ve placed yourself in a position in which you’re either rejecting some people who are actually eligible or accepting some people who are ineligible.

    If it’s the latter, you’re setting yourself up for massive voter fraud. If I can go to every precinct in Chicago, demand a ballot, and can’t be turned away, I could vote 2,500 times.

  • steve Link

    “, I could vote 2,500 times.”

    Why would you? Your votes are not likely to matter much. ( I am assuming a more realistic number than 2,500.) The risk of getting caught is also low, but probably higher than the vote making a difference. If you want to commit fraud, go after the election officials.

    Steve

  • Icepick Link

    Or do we have a situation where there are people who do not want to vote for the candidates they could vote for?

    That’s where I’m at now. I’m not voting for President this year because I don’t think the difference in the two is worth wasting my time.

  • PD Shaw Link

    @steve, IMHO the voter’s view that their vote does not count much is not unrelated to the perception that the government is taking few visible steps to prevent fraud or vote error. Perhaps this is a variation of security theatre, but normal people are disturbed by the fact that they can show up and vote just on their word that they are who they say they are. This is true in almost no other area of life.

  • PD Shaw Link

    @icepick, perhaps its important for an individual to struggle through the subtle distinctions life offers. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

  • michael reynolds Link

    The reason people don’t think their vote counts is that in most cases it doesn’t. It counts if you live in Ohio, Florida and a few other states. If you’re voting in California or Texas in the presidential your vote is essentially irrelevant. The electoral college is responsible for a lot, as is gerrymandering in congressional elections. As people have become more sophisticated about this they’ve figured out their time is being wasted.

    We have a stupid system. States are anachronisms, the electoral college is ridiculous, and allowing parties to rig congressional elections with gerrymandering violates the very point of elections.

    All that’s before we even get into the fact that the parties are both in thrall to Wall Street and that government is paralyzed.

  • Michael, the federal government is incapable of doing what you’re suggesting. You may be right that states are anachronisms but the federal government is an even greater anachronism. Massive centralization is an idea that has failed everywhere it has been tried.

    States like California and Texas are too big for effective government. In a rational system they’d be divvied up.

    Not all elections are quadrennial presidential elections. Small numbers of votes do have consequences. The difference between Rahm Emanuel being elected mayor of Chicago in 2011 and not is a handful of votes per precinct in the Democratic primary when he first ran for Congress—it wasn’t a blow-out, it was actually relatively close.

    Pointing to the effectiveness of wholesale vote fraud doesn’t imply that retail vote fraud can be ignored. They both need to be addressed. It is not only important that justice be done but that it be seen to be done.

  • Icepick Link

    PD, my choice is to stop rewarding the two main parties for their current strategies, which can be best expressed as “Vote for us. Sure we’re a disaster waiting to happen, but the other guys are going to be catastrophes!” Disasters just aren’t worth the effort.

    (Yes, I recognize the reference.)

  • Icepick Link

    As for the electoral college: Imagine doing the Florida recount for the whole nation. Because THAT is what you are going to get.

  • PD Shaw Link

    BTW/ I wanted to mention yesterday, in 2008 the “voting age population” figures included about 8.2% non-citizens and 1.3% ineligible felons. That in and of itself may explain 2/3rds of the difference between those eligible to vote and those that have registered.

Leave a Comment