The effect of distance between home and polling place on turnout.

By Grebner

Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 22:12:40 PM EST

What’s the impact on voter turnout of distance?  More generally, how do the practical considerations of personal convenience affect the decision to vote?

Taking the Michigan voter file as it existed in September 2006, I conducted a logistic regression analysis, with voting as the dependent variable, and independent variables including previous voter record, various demographic variable, and a transformed measure of distance between the registration address and the coordinates of the polling place. 

What I found was a small but consistent effect:  being further away makes voting slightly less likely.  For a person who would normally have a 50% chance of voting, adding one mile between home and polling place reduced the turnout to about 48%.  I used the actual distance, rather than the distance along the driving route, because it was easier, and I was examining millions of points.

The distance variable was coded as the quartile of distances among voters in each precinct.  That is, comparing people who lived within a given precinct, I compared the 25% living closest to the poll, to the 25% living farthest away.  This was necessary because raw distance to the poll is correlated to urbanization and socio-economic status – cities have geographically small precincts, while cities and rural areas are spread out.  So I compared turnouts among people who live in precincts of similar sizes.

The effect was quite robust, and the coefficients were consistent in size and sign for precincts of different sizes.

I was worried that even within a precinct, people who live near the polling place may live in different kinds of neighborhoods than people who live farther away.  Examining distance to the NEXT nearest polling place showed no statistical relation to turnout, which makes me confident the main result I found was not a statistical artifact.

The effect was greatly reduced for people who ordinarily use absentee ballots when they vote, which makes sense.

The research I performed doesn’t distinguish between literal distance and the lack of familiarity with the polling place.  That is, I don’t know how much of the effect is due to voters’ reluctance to TRAVEL, as opposed to their reluctance to go somewhere UNFAMILIAR.  Maybe it would be possible to code polling places by how visible they are from major thoroughfares – that’s beyond my interest.

I also didn’t look at the effect of MOVING a polling place, which I would expect would have a separate effect of reducing voter turnout, which would presumably be transient and fade within a few years.


Comments

6 responses to “The effect of distance between home and polling place on turnout.”

  1. Violet Avatar
    Violet

    What about Oregon?
    Mr. Grebner,
    Given the finding that “the effect was greatly reduced for people who ordinarily use absentee ballots when they vote”, what are your thoughts about Michigan moving to an Oregon-style voting system where essentially all registered voters are mailed absentee ballots and there are no polling places?
    by: Butch Snider @ Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 23:28:40 PM CST

    “I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.” — Harry S Truman

    1. Violet Avatar
      Violet

      Mail-in balloting is completely different.

      Oregon’s system is nearly a total break with America’s implementation of what is called “the Australian Ballot”. (In Australia, of course, they call it “the American Ballot”.)

      Not only can everybody vote by mail, EVERYBODY IS AUTOMATICALLY MAILED A BALLOT FOR EVERY ELECTION. If a person fails to vote in Oregon it means they looked at the ballot and decided not to fill it out or mail it back. One powerful effect of GOTV drives in Oregon is the desire of everybody to get off the list of people who haven’t returned their ballots – as soon as your ballot is logged by the Clerk, all the phone calls and door-to-door canvassers disappear.

      Totally different animal, and not within my professional competence.

      by: Grebner @ Sun Nov 04, 2007 at 23:53:20 PM CST

  2. Violet Avatar
    Violet

    The 2% solutions?

    Given Mr. Grebner’s research on distance and turnout, it would be great to hear some ideas on how under current MI election law we could reduce that 2% gap in targeted precincts. Focused absentee ballot work is one fairly obvious tactic.

    “If the success or failure of this planet, and of human beings, depended on how I am and what I do, how would I be? What would I do?? –Buckminster Fuller

    by: LiberalBubba @ Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 06:16:23 AM CST

  3. Violet Avatar
    Violet

    For a more theoretical approach that contains the relevant literature, (pdf file
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247821641_The_Costs_of_Voting_Evidence_from_a_Natural_Experiment ) presented at the Political methodology conference in 2004…
    They found the as costs to voting increase, the likelihood of voting decreases.

    by: Nazgul35 @ Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 13:19:47 PM CST

    1. Violet Avatar
      Violet

      Numerical results, rather than concepts
      I’m familiar with the research that shows, in a very general way, that making voting easier means more people do it.
      My interest is in assigning numbers to the phenomena, in order to make trade-offs clear. For example, the City of Lansing just reduced the number of precincts from about 70 to about 40, meaning many people will now be voting in new locations. What is the likely effect?

      I talked to the City Clerk (Chris Swope) who sent me his counts of voters whose polls had changed, with estimates of how many had farther to go, and how many actually lived closer to their new polling place than to the old one.

      In tomorrow’s election, there are (I guess) about 5000 people who are likely to cast walk-in ballots, and they live (another guess) an average of 1000 feet farther from their new poll than the old one. A 2% reduction per mile, times 5000 people, times 1/5 mile = 10 fewer votes. The other side of the balance is (roughly) $10,000 savings in wages and ballot printing.

      Was the change a good idea? I guess it was, although others seem to differ. The ability to assign numbers, rather than just arguing about principles, makes things a lot clearer, I think.

      ps. I couldn’t get your link to work.

      by: Grebner @ Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 14:41:20 PM CST

  4. Violet Avatar
    Violet

    We find evidence that changing polling place locations does decrease turnout overall by a substantial 1.88 percentage points; a drop in polling place turnout of 3.05 percentage points is offset by an increase in absentee voting of 1.19 percentage points. Furthermore, merely the disruption of having your polling place change reduces polling place turnout by 2.8 percentage points of which 1.0 percentage points are made-up by absentee voting (for a net reduction in turnout of 1.8 percentage points.) Increasing distance to your polling place reduces polling place turnout by .25 percentage points for every tenths of a mile of which .20 percentage points are made-up by absentee voting for a net reduction in voting of .05 percentage points for every tenth of a mile increase in distance to the polling place. Consequently, disruption effects dominate transportation effects.

    by: Nazgul35 @ Mon Nov 05, 2007 at 15:30:48 PM CST

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *