Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-zsp5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T04:47:05.100Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Voter Turnout in the 2010 Congressional Midterm Elections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2011

Costas Panagopoulos
Costas Panagopoulos
Affiliation:
Fordham University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Against the backdrop of the 2008 presidential election, a watershed event in terms of electoral participation, many speculated that renewed interest in voting would spill over into the 2010 cycle, resulting in a meaningful uptick in voter turnout in the midterm elections overall. Turnout was expected to be especially robust among Republicans eager to regain their numbers in 2010, capitalizing on Democratic withdrawal fueled by voters' frustration with President Obama, congressional Democrats, and the struggling economy. In 2008, an electorate energized around an historic contest and unprecedented levels of voter mobilization helped to drive more citizens to the polls on Election Day than ever before (Panagopoulos and Francia 2009). An estimated 131.1 million Americans voted for president, representing 61.6% of the eligible voting population (McDonald 2009). Voter turnout among eligible voters in 2008 was 1.5 percentage points higher than in 2004, when 122.3 million voters participated in the presidential election (Bergan et al. 2005). The 2008 election thus marked the third consecutive presidential election cycle in which voter turnout increased, reversing a trend of declining participation that began in the 1960s (McDonald 2009). In fact, national turnout in recent presidential elections has rivaled modern highs in the level of electoral participation that occurred in the 1950s and 1960s.

Information

Type
Symposium
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 2011, pp. 317 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

Against the backdrop of the 2008 presidential election, a watershed event in terms of electoral participation, many speculated that renewed interest in voting would spill over into the 2010 cycle, resulting in a meaningful uptick in voter turnout in the midterm elections overall. Turnout was expected to be especially robust among Republicans eager to regain their numbers in 2010, capitalizing on Democratic withdrawal fueled by voters' frustration with President Obama, congressional Democrats, and the struggling economy. In 2008, an electorate energized around an historic contest and unprecedented levels of voter mobilization helped to drive more citizens to the polls on Election Day than ever before (Panagopoulos and Francia Reference Panagopoulos and Francia2009). An estimated 131.1 million Americans voted for president, representing 61.6% of the eligible voting population (McDonald Reference McDonald2009).Footnote 1 Voter turnout among eligible voters in 2008 was 1.5 percentage points higher than in 2004, when 122.3 million voters participated in the presidential election (Bergan et al. Reference Bergan, Gerber, Green and Panagopoulos2005). The 2008 election thus marked the third consecutive presidential election cycle in which voter turnout increased, reversing a trend of declining participation that began in the 1960s (McDonald Reference McDonald2009). In fact, national turnout in recent presidential elections has rivaled modern highs in the level of electoral participation that occurred in the 1950s and 1960s.

Despite expectations, however, the bounce in voter turnout nationwide was rather modest in 2010. In absolute terms, more ballots were cast for the highest state offices across the country in November 2010—about 89.1 million—than in any prior congressional midterm election cycle, and national turnout climbed for the third consecutive midterm cycle.Footnote 2 But the rate of overall voter turnout in 2010 is estimated to have been about average; McDonald (Reference McDonald2010) estimates that 40.8% of the eligible electorate voted in November 2010, only slightly higher than the 40.4% who voted in 2006. One conceivable explanation is that Democratic apathy in 2010 was offset but not necessarily overcome by revitalized Republican enthusiasm. The scenario was reversed in the 2006 midterm cycle, when Republicans were fighting an uphill battle against Democrats.

Figure 1 presents national voter turnout rates in midterm election cycles since 1982 and suggests that 2010 turnout was in line with participation rates in previous cycles during this period. On average, 39.7% of eligible voters participated in midterm elections between 1982 and 2006 (McDonald Reference McDonald2010). It is a well-known phenomenon that the level of electoral participation nationally is significantly lower—by 15 to 20 percentage points on average—in midterm cycles compared to presidential years, during which about 56% of eligible voters have cast a ballot on average since 1980.

Figure 1

Aggregate National Voter Turnout Rates in Midterm Election Cycles (1982–2010)

Source. United States Elections Project (2010).

Notes. Turnout rate (%) is calculated as the number of votes cast for the highest office on statewide ballots divided by the voting-eligible population.

Explaining Voter Turnout Rates

Previous research has consistently demonstrated that the structure of electoral competition influences levels of voter turnout in elections (Bergan et al. Reference Bergan, Gerber, Green and Panagopoulos2005; Panagopoulos and Wielhouwer Reference Panagopoulos and Wielhouwer2008; Panagopoulos and Francia Reference Panagopoulos and Francia2009). For example, presidential voter turnout in battleground states is generally higher than turnout in non-battleground states (Bergan et al. Reference Bergan, Gerber, Green and Panagopoulos2005). Competitive electoral environments may stimulate voter interest, attentiveness, and, ultimately, turnout (Lipsitz Reference Lipsitz2004; Lipsitz Reference Lipsitz2009), partly by enhancing voters' perception of the impact of their individual vote (Downs Reference Downs1957). Additionally, campaigns for closely contested election battles are typically more intensive than campaigns in less competitive settings (Panagopoulos Reference Panagopoulos2009), resulting in elaborate mobilization and communications efforts. In such information- and contact-rich contexts, citizens' exposure to mobilization and campaign information is heightened, facilitating both learning (Arceneaux Reference Arceneaux2006) and engagement (Panagopoulos Reference Panagopoulos2009; Rosenstone and Hansen Reference Rosenstone and Hansen1993) and helping overcome collective action problems by reducing the consumption costs associated with electoral participation and providing greater selective benefits to vote (Downs Reference Downs1957; Rosenstone and Hansen Reference Rosenstone and Hansen1993).

In this article, I examine the impact of competition on the November 2010 general election, focusing on aggregate statewide voter turnout patterns. Consistent with McDonald (Reference McDonald2009), I calculate turnout as the number of votes cast for the highest office on the ballot (which varies by state in non-presidential election years) divided by the total number of eligible voters.Footnote 3 Using this measure, I find considerable variation in statewide voter turnout in November 2010, ranging from a low of 32.3% of eligible voters in Texas to a high of 55.5% in Minnesota.

Variation also occurs in the degree of electoral competition that exists in different states. In 2010, nearly all states (46) held at least one statewide contest for either governor or the U.S. Senate. Thirty-six states featured senatorial contests,Footnote 4 while 37 states held gubernatorial contests; 27 held contests for both offices. The intensity of these contests also varied markedly, as many races were not considered to be competitive by leading analysts. In its final pre-election report, for example, the Cook Political Report classified U.S. Senate races in seven states and gubernatorial races in 11 states as “toss-up” races (Cook Political Report 2010). In the case of the U.S. House, all 435 seats were up for grabs, and an unprecedented number of competitive races resulted. The Cook Political Report classified more than one in 10 House races—50 in sum—as “toss-ups” in its final pre-election report.

To what extent does the structure of competition in these states help explain the observed variation in turnout? Theoretically, as I discussed previously, voter turnout levels should be influenced by the degree of electoral competition within each state. I developed and empirically estimated a model to assess the impact of competition on aggregate statewide participation rates. Specifically, I employed multiple regression analysis to present state-level voter turnout in November 2010 as a function of the total number of statewide contests (gubernatorial or U.S. Senate only), whether or not a state held a competitive gubernatorial or U.S. Senate contest (using dummy variables to designate those elections classified as “toss-ups” by the Cook Political Report in its final pre-election release), and the share of total U.S. House races in each state that were deemed “toss-ups.” I hypothesized that turnout would be higher in states with more statewide contests, in states with competitive contests for governor and the U.S. Senate, and in states where a greater proportion of U.S. House seats were competitive in November 2010, with all else being equal. The analysis also included controls for statewide turnout in the 2006 and 2008 general elections to account for baseline rates of electoral participation attributable to states' other institutional and sociodemographic characteristics. The dependent variable in the analysis was the overall level of estimated voter turnout in the November 2010 general elections in each of the 50 states.Footnote 5

The results of the analysis are presented in table 1. The estimates provide support for the hypothesis that statewide races raised turnout overall. On average, aggregate turnout increased by 1.16 percentage points for each additional statewide race, regardless of competitiveness with all else being equal. The results also demonstrate that competitive U.S. Senate races boosted aggregate participation significantly in 2010: turnout in states with competitive U.S. Senate contests was 2.48 percentage points higher on average than in states without such races. By contrast, competitive gubernatorial races do not appear to have elevated statewide turnout significantly in 2010 after taking other contextual factors into account. Consistent with the hypothesis developed previously with respect to U.S. House elections, the analysis also shows that turnout levels increased with the relative share of competitive U.S. House races, ceteris paribus.

Table 1

Explaining Aggregate Statewide Voter Turnout Rates in the November 2010 Elections

Notes. OLS regression. N = 50; R 2 = 0.78. Dependent variable represents the total number of votes cast for the highest office on statewide ballots divided by the total number of eligible voters (%). Standard errors in parentheses.

* p < .05;

** p < .01, one-tailed tests.

Conclusion

Despite more ballots being cast in absolute terms in the November 2010 congressional midterm elections, voter turnout was not much different than it has been in midterm cycles over the past three decades. As in previous cycles, national turnout was substantially lower than the rates of participation typically observed in the presidential years—the turnout rate in 2010 was over 20 percentage points lower than the rate in the 2008 presidential election cycle. Nevertheless, national turnout rates in midterm cycles rose for the third consecutive cycle in 2010, suggesting that a long-term trend toward enhanced participation in these elections may be afoot.

Notwithstanding these developments, I conclude that overall voter turnout rates in 2010 were rather typical. The key patterns I observed are consistent with theoretical expectations and empirical regularities reported for previous cycles. My analysis of statewide voter turnout in 2010 shows, for example, that electoral participation was generally responsive to the degree of electoral competition within states, at least with respect to races for the U.S. Congress. The findings do raise some intriguing questions, with the most notable being why competitive gubernatorial races failed to elevate turnout in 2010. I also acknowledge limitations to the current study—mainly, my exclusive reliance on aggregated turnout data. More refined analyses taking advantage of individual-level data as they become available promise to reveal the more significant nuances of 2010 voter turnout. Overall, however, the results reported here reinforce the notion that competitive elections are integral to the democratic process, at least partly because they help stimulate electoral engagement and participation.

Footnotes

1 This number represents a turnout rate of approximately 56.8% of the voting-age population.

2 All 2010 voter turnout data reported and analyzed in this article were obtained from McDonald (Reference McDonald2010), as updated on December 13, 2010.

3 The pool of eligible voters excludes noncitizens and ineligible felons.

4 New York featured two races for the U.S. Senate in 2010, including a special election to fill the seat vacated by Hillary Clinton when she was appointed secretary of state.

5 The District of Columbia was excluded from this analysis.

References

Arceneaux, Kevin. 2006. “Do Campaigns Help Voters Learn? A Cross-National Analysis.” British Journal of Political Science 36: 159–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergan, Daniel E., Gerber, Alan S., Green, Donald P., and Panagopoulos, Costas. 2005. “Grassroots Mobilization and Voter Turnout in 2004.” Public Opinion Quarterly 69 (5): 760–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook Political Report. 2010. “2010 Competitive Race Charts (Governors, Senate, House).” Cook Political Report, November 1.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Lipsitz, Keena. 2004. “The Significance of Rich Information Environments: Voter Knowledge in Battleground States.” Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, April 15–18.Google Scholar
Lipsitz, Keena. 2009. “The Consequences of Battleground and ‘Spectator’ State Residency for Political Participation.” Political Behavior 31: 187–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, Michael. 2009. “The Return of the Voter: Voter Turnout in the 2008 Presidential Election.” Forum 6 (4): 1–12.Google Scholar
McDonald, Michael. 2010. “2010 General Election Turnout Rates.” http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html.Google Scholar
Panagopoulos, Costas. 2009. “Campaign Dynamics in Battleground and Nonbattleground States.” Public Opinion Quarterly 73 (1): 119–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panagopoulos, Costas, and Francia, Peter. 2009. “Grassroots Mobilization in the 2008 Presidential Election.” Journal of Political Marketing 8 (4): 315–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panagopoulos, Costas, and Wielhouwer, Peter. 2008. “The Ground War in 2000–2004: Strategic Targeting in Grassroots Campaigns.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 38: 347–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenstone, Steven J., and Hansen, John Mark. 1993. Mobilization, Participation and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
United States Election Project. 2010. http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1Aggregate National Voter Turnout Rates in Midterm Election Cycles (1982–2010)Source. United States Elections Project (2010).Notes. Turnout rate (%) is calculated as the number of votes cast for the highest office on statewide ballots divided by the voting-eligible population.

Figure 1

Table 1Explaining Aggregate Statewide Voter Turnout Rates in the November 2010 Elections