Just What is a "Likely Voter"?
The prospect of a May 29 primary, with any necessary runoffs on July 31, has spawned much "conventional wisdom" about who will turn out for this election. Most of what you’ll hear comes from one campaign or the other, usually in a blatant — if understandable — attempt to paint their chances in the best light as a means of attracting donor dollars in what is already an extremely long campaign season. All this posturing raises the question: Given a survey of potential voters, how should we go about determining what the electorate might look like on Election Day?
If you ...
Comments (5)
wfborges
Good article, Joshua.
But why should citizens care want to know who is going to win before they vote? Knowing winners with certainty reduces the vote turnout, as most of us will not bother to vote if our vote has no effect, no matter how strong our sense of civic duty.
Of course, contributors want to know who the winner will be, either to maximize the power of their support, or to hedge their bets. In Texas election, the hedging function is less useful, as interest groups, lobbyists and individuals can catch the "late train."
Joshua Blank
Thanks for the comment. First, the likely voter screen doesn't necessarily say who is going to win. The most recent poll, for instance, doesn't say anything about who is going to win a few months from now, but instead tells us how the race stands at this moment in time. I think that this kind of information, contrary to your expectation of suppressing activity, could be very useful for voters deciding on further action. For instance, if the candidate that you had considered voting for has a slim chance according to this survey, then you might consider supporting the best option of the remaining candidates with the potential to win. Or maybe you support a candidate who is behind but within range of the front-runner, you could decide that the election is over and not turn out, or you could decide to devote some of your time to campaigning for your preferred candidate in order to close the gap. These are just two examples, but I don't think that it's clear that knowing more means not participating, and in the examples provided, it may lead to more informed participation. Now, if we were talking about a general election for many positions in Texas, then knowing the likely outcome could (and probably should) reduce turnout, but this would happen with or without a well-constructed survey. And also, a lopsided general election doesn't mean that knowing the composition of the electorate isn't useful, especially with respect to down-ballot races. Thanks for the question.
wfborges
I agree that additional information does not necessarily suppress voter turnout, particularly among partisan voters. Nor does it suppress in close races. How do you think this plays out with independents?
I would also note that some Internet surveys can approximate a survey of likely voters because respondents who join panels (such as YouGov's) are usually more interested, more informed, more educated and have more income than the general electorate. These are all indicators of increased likelihood of voting in most polities.
Joshua Blank
Well, truth be told, most independents, true independents (see this lovely article by my predecessor for the distinction http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/texas-political-news/how-independent-are-texas-independents/ ), aren't paying very much attention to politics in the first place. The 10% or so of voters who are truly independent are characterized by their lack of interest and likelihood to turnout in any event, so this information is rather irrelevant. The only exception I might make is to go back to my previous example and say that someone who might support the libertarian or green parties may look at the polls going into a general election and decide to back the Democratic or Republican candidate because their vote may have more value there.
Adele Roberson
Freshman Oklahoma state senator Ralph Shortey recently introduced a bill that would ban “the sale or manufacture of food or products which contain aborted human fetuses.” After a collective brow-raise over such a bizarre proposal, Shortey told the Los Angeles Times he got the idea “while doing some research on the Internet.”
So is there an issue with aborted fetuses ending up as foodstuffs? No. And there never has been.
There is a long and storied global history of demonizing groups of people with whom you disagree by tarring them with the charge of cannibalism—tapping into one of humanity’s deepest and most firmly held taboos. The consequences of such charges have often been deadly. Abortion service providers are already routinely harassed, threatened, shot at and even bombed. Casting them now as handmaidens to cannibalism is just the next extreme step in turning the decades-long effort to make them into pariahs.