Menu Expand
  1. Journals
  2. Economics, Finance, Business & Management
  3. Applied Economics Quarterly
  4. Vol. 63, Issue 3
  5. pp. 319–340

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
Cebula, R. Panel Data Analysis of the Impact of Larger State Size / Land Area on Voter Turnout in US Presidential Elections: 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012. Applied Economics Quarterly, 63(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.3790/aeq.63.3.319
Cebula, Richard J. "Panel Data Analysis of the Impact of Larger State Size / Land Area on Voter Turnout in US Presidential Elections: 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012" Applied Economics Quarterly 63.3, , 319-340. https://doi.org/10.3790/aeq.63.3.319
Cebula, Richard J.: Panel Data Analysis of the Impact of Larger State Size / Land Area on Voter Turnout in US Presidential Elections: 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012, in: Applied Economics Quarterly, vol. 63, iss. 3, 319-340, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/aeq.63.3.319
Format
Download

Panel Data Analysis of the Impact of Larger State Size / Land Area on Voter Turnout in US Presidential Elections: 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012

Cebula, Richard J.

Applied Economics Quarterly, Vol. 63 (2017), Iss. 3 : pp. 319–340

Preview Login to order (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/aeq.63.3.319
Language
English
Pages
22
Keywords

Pricing

Individual
€ 24.00 (incl. local VAT if applicable)

Author Details

Cebula, Richard J., Davis College of Business, Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, FL 322211, USA.

References

  1. Aldrich, J. H. (1993): “Rational Choice and Turnout,” American Journal of Political Science, 37 (2): 246–278.  Google Scholar
  2. American Research Group (2017): “New Hampshire Poll for Presidential Ballot,” At: http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/pres16/.  Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, T. W. / Hsiao, C. (1981): “Estimation of Dynamic Models with Error Components,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76 (375), 598–606.  Google Scholar
  4. Arellano, M. / Bond, S. (1991): “Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations,” The Review of Economic Studies, 58 (2), 277–97.  Google Scholar
  5. Barreto, M. A. / Segura, G. M. / Woods, N. D. (2004): “The Mobilizing Effect of Majority / Minority Districts on Latino Turnout,” American Political Science Review, 98 (1), 65–76.  Google Scholar
  6. Bipartisan Policy Center (2014): “2012 Voter Turnout Report” at: www.bipartisanpolicy.org / library / 2012-voter-turnout / .  Google Scholar
  7. Blundell, R. / Bond, S. (1998): “Initial Conditions and Moment Conditions in Dynamic Panel Data Models,” Journal of Econometrics, 87 (1), 115–143.  Google Scholar
  8. Burden, B.C. / Wichowsky, A. (2014): “Economic Discontent as a Mobilizer: Unemployment and Voter Turnout,” The Journal of Politics, 76 (4), 887–898.  Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, A. / Converse, P. / Miller, W. / Stokes, D. (1960): The American Voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.  Google Scholar
  10. Cancela, J. / Geys, B. (2016): “Explaining Voter Turnout: A Meta-analysis of National and Subnational Elections,” Electotal Studies, 42 (3), 264–275.  Google Scholar
  11. Cebula, R. J. (2004): “Expressiveness and Voting: Alternative Evidence,“ Atlantic Economic Journal, 32 (3): 216–221.  Google Scholar
  12. Cebula, R. J. / Toma, M. (2006): “Determinants of Geographic Differentials in the Voter Participation Rate, “Atlantic Economic Journal, 34 (1), 33–40.  Google Scholar
  13. Cebula, R. / Tullock, G. (2005): “An Extension of the Rational Voter Model,” Published in: The Elgar Companion to Public Economics: Empirical Public Economics (28 May 2006), 263–273.  Google Scholar
  14. Clark, J. R. / Lee, D. R. (2016): “Higher Costs Appeal to Voters: Implications of Expressive Voting,” Public Choice, 167 (1), 37–45.  Google Scholar
  15. Copeland, C. / Laband, D. (2003): “Expressive Voting,” Public Choice, 110 (3), 351–63.  Google Scholar
  16. Council of Economic Advisors (2013) Economic Report of the President, 2013,Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office.  Google Scholar
  17. Cox, G. W. / Munger, M. (1989): “Closeness, Expenditures, and Turnout in the 1982 US House Elections,” American Political Science Review, 83 (2): 217–231.  Google Scholar
  18. Degen, A. / Merlo, A. (2011): “A Structural Model of Turnout and Voting in Multiple Elections,” Journal of the European Economic Association, 9 (2): 209–245.  Google Scholar
  19. Downs, A. (1957): An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York, NY: Harper and Row.  Google Scholar
  20. Greene, K. V. / Nikolaev, B. (1999): “Voter Participation and the Redistributive State,” Public Choice, 98 (2): 213–226.  Google Scholar
  21. Grober, J. / Schram, A. (2010): “Public Opinion Polls, Voter Turnout, and Welfare: An Experimental Study,” American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 700–717.  Google Scholar
  22. Grofman, B. / Collett, C. / Griffin, R. (1998): “Analyzing the Turnout-competition Link with Aggregate Cross Section Data,” Public Choice, 82 (1), 107–124.  Google Scholar
  23. Halvorsen, R. / Palmquist, R. (1980): “The Interpretation of Dummy Variables in Semi-logarithmic Regressions,” American Economic Review, 70 (3), 474–475.  Google Scholar
  24. Hausman, J. A. (1978): “Specification Tests in Econometrics,” Econometrica, 46 (6), 1251–1271.  Google Scholar
  25. Herrera, H. / Levine, D.K. / Martinelli, C. (2008): “Policy Platforms, Campaign Spending and Voter Participation, “Journal of Public Economics, 92 (3 – 4), 501–513.  Google Scholar
  26. Kennedy, P. (2003): A Guide to Econometrics. 5 edition. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.  Google Scholar
  27. Kirchgassner, G. / Zu Himmern, A. M. (1997): “Expected Closeness and Turnout: An Empirical Analysis for the German General Elections, 1983 – 1994,” Public Choice, 91 (1), 3–25.  Google Scholar
  28. Knack, S. (1999): “Drivers Wanted: Motor Voter and the Election of 1996,” P.S.: Political Science and Politics, 32 (3), 237–243.  Google Scholar
  29. Krasa, S. / Polborn, M. K. (2008): “Is Mandatory Voting Better than Voluntary Voting?” Games and Economic Behavior, 66 (1), 275–291.  Google Scholar
  30. Lacombe, D. J. / Coats, R. M. / Shughart, W. F. / Karahan, G. (2016): “Corruption and Voter Turnout: A Spatial Econometric Approach,” Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 46 (2): 168–185.  Google Scholar
  31. Ledyard, J. (1984): “The Pure Theory of Two Candidate Elections,” Public Choice (44), 1, January, 7–41.  Google Scholar
  32. Leighly, J. (1996): “Group Membership and the Mobilization of Political Participation,” Journal of Politics, 58 (2), 447–463.  Google Scholar
  33. Matsusaka, J. G. (1993): “Election Closeness and Voter Turnout: Evidence from California Ballot Propositions,” Public Choice, 76 (3), 313–334.  Google Scholar
  34. Matsusaka, J. G. / Palda, F. (1999): “Voter Turnout: How Much Can We Explain?” Public Choice, 98 (3 / 4), 431–446.  Google Scholar
  35. Morton, R. (1991): “Groups in Rational Turnout Models,” American Journal of Political Science, 35(4), 758–776.  Google Scholar
  36. Pew Research Center (2013): “Unauthorized Immigrant Population, by State, 2010,” at: http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdf.  Google Scholar
  37. Putnam, R. D. (2000): Bowling Alone, New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.  Google Scholar
  38. Rosenstone, S. J. (1982): “Economic Adversity and Voter Turnout,” American Journal of Political Science, 26 (1), 25–46.  Google Scholar
  39. Rosenstone, S. J. / Hansen, J. M. (1993): Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.  Google Scholar
  40. Schwartz, T. (1987): “Your Vote Counts on Account of the Way it is Counted: An Institutional Solution to the Paradox of Voting,” Public Choice 54, (1), 101–121.  Google Scholar
  41. Tolbert, C. J. / Smith, D. A. (2005): “The Educative Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout,” American Politics Research, 33 (2), 283–309.  Google Scholar
  42. Tollison, R. D. / Willett, T. D. (1973): “Some Simple Economics of Voting and Not Voting,” Public Choice, 16 (1), 59–71.  Google Scholar
  43. Tullock, G. (2006): “Some Thoughts on the Voting Process,” Atlantic Economic Journal, 34 (1), 41–46.  Google Scholar
  44. US Census Bureau (2012): American Community Survey. Washington, D.C.: US Census Bureau.  Google Scholar
  45. US Census Bureau (2002): Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2002, Washington, D.C.: US Bureau.  Google Scholar
  46. US Census Bureau (2006): Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2006, Washington, D.C.: US Census Bureau.  Google Scholar
  47. US Census Bureau (2010): Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2010, Washington, D.C.: US Census Bureau.  Google Scholar
  48. US Census Bureau (2012): Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2012, Washington, D.C.: US Census Bureau.  Google Scholar
  49. Whitby, K. J. (2007): “The Effect of Black Descriptive Representation on Black Electoral Turnout in the 2004 Elections,” Social Science Quarterly, 88 (3), 1010 – 1023.  Google Scholar

Abstract

Abstract

This study has two objectives, both of which seek to provide insights into factors that influenced the voter participation rate in general elections in the US in recent years. The principal objective of this study is to proffer and then empirically investigate the following hypothesis: the voter participation rate of registered voters is reduced by greater state size (in squares miles) because, other things held the same, greater state size increases the transactions costs of voting for many of those persons who prefer to cast a ballot in person rather than by mail. A focus on this variable is unique in the literature. The secondary general objective of this study is to identify other factors that influenced the voter participation rate in recent years. The study adopts a state-level panel dataset and reports both Cross-section Random-effects estimations and dynamic panel estimations (Panel GMM estimates) for the first four US Presidential elections years of the 21st century, i.⁠e., 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012. After allowing for a variety of variables in the model, it is found that a 10,000 square mile greater size for a state in turn implies 0.148⁠%-0.156⁠% lower voter turnout, whereas a 100,000 square mile greater state size implies a 1.48⁠%-1.56⁠% lower voter turnout. Furthermore, the study finds that the voter participation rate of registered voters was an increasing function of six other factors: the unemployment rate, the percent of the population that earned a high school diploma or more, election competitiveness, median family income, and the percentage of the population that was either Afro-American / black or Hispanic / Latin.

JEL classifications: D72, R10, R11

Keywords: voter participation rate, state land area, expected costs of voting, educational attainment, unemployment, minority status, election competitiveness, income

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2024 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Powered by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.