|
|
|
|
Was Turnout Significantly Higher in the Battleground States in the 2000 Presidential Election? |
|
| Abstract | Word Stems | Keywords | Association | Citation | Get this Document | Similar Titles |
|
STOP! You can now view the document associated with this citation by clicking on the "View Document as HTML" link below. |
|
Click here to view the document
|
Abstract:
|
Abstract: This paper evaluates turnout in the 2000 presidential election with the expectation that turnout was higher in the so-called battleground states. I present several models of turnout with aggregate (state-level) and individual-level data and find that after controlling for several variables known to impact voting, the dummy variable for battleground state displays a positive and statistically significant effect on turnout. I contend that the reason for greater turnout in the battleground states is at least partially a consequence of competitiveness leading to greater mobilization efforts (e.g. as shown in the form of television spending and candidate visits) on behalf of the Gore and Bush campaigns because victory was only possible by winning a portion of the electoral votes in these most competitive states. |
Most Common Document Word Stems:
turnout (39), vote (24), elect (21), state (21), 2000 (13), mobil (13), candid (9), elector (9), battleground (9), polit (9), competit (8), higher (8), win (7), presidenti (6), model (6), 2001 (6), present (5), increas (5), rosenston (5), margin (5), research (5), |
Author's Keywords:
|
Keywords: turnout, battleground states, mobilization, designated market area, media exposure, television spending, current population survey |
|
 | Convention | | All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting. |  | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. |  | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! |  | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! |  | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. |  | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! |  | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
Association:
Name: American Political Science Association URL: http://www.apsanet.org
|
Citation:
|
MLA Citation:
| McKee, Seth. "Was Turnout Significantly Higher in the Battleground States in the 2000 Presidential Election?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston Marriott Copley Place, Sheraton Boston & Hynes Convention Center, Boston, Massachusetts, Aug 28, 2002 <Not Available>. 2009-05-26 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p66203_index.html> |
APA Citation:
| McKee, S. C. , 2002-08-28 "Was Turnout Significantly Higher in the Battleground States in the 2000 Presidential Election?" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston Marriott Copley Place, Sheraton Boston & Hynes Convention Center, Boston, Massachusetts Online <.PDF>. 2009-05-26 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p66203_index.html |
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Review Method: Peer Reviewed Abstract: Abstract: This paper evaluates turnout in the 2000 presidential election with the expectation that turnout was higher in the so-called battleground states. I present several models of turnout with aggregate (state-level) and individual-level data and find that after controlling for several variables known to impact voting, the dummy variable for battleground state displays a positive and statistically significant effect on turnout. I contend that the reason for greater turnout in the battleground states is at least partially a consequence of competitiveness leading to greater mobilization efforts (e.g. as shown in the form of television spending and candidate visits) on behalf of the Gore and Bush campaigns because victory was only possible by winning a portion of the electoral votes in these most competitive states. |
Get this Document:
Find this citation or document at one or all of these locations below. The links below may have the citation or the entire document for free or you may purchase access to the document. Clicking on these links will change the site you're on and empty your shopping cart.
| Document Type: |
.pdf |
| Page count: |
32 |
| Word count: |
1399 |
| Text sample: |
| 1 Was Turnout Significantly Higher in the Battleground States in the 2000 Presidential Election? Seth C. McKee The University of Texas at Austin Introduction The 2000 presidential election was the closest in American history. Al Gore won the popular vote by a margin of 537 179 votes but George W. Bush is the 43rd president of the United States because he secured a razorthin majority of electoral votes (50.5% 271 out of 537 votes cast) (Scammon McGillivray and Cook |
| (but see Niemi and Weisberg 2001). Mobilization by candidates and parties (and other political actors or groups) serves to increase turnout for at least two reasons: 1) it reduces the costs of political participation and 2) it has a ripple effect that permeates social networks as citizens are persuaded to participate because of the provision of selective social incentives that materialize in social relations (Rosenstone and Hansen 1993 17576). Rational choice theory also provides insight for why mobilization enhances |
Similar Titles:
Identities of Competitive States in U.S. Presidential Elections: Electoral College Bias or Candidate-Centered Politics?
Move to the Center or Mobilize the Base? Effects of Political Competition, Voter Turnout, and Partisan Loyalties on the Ideological Convergence of Vote-Maximizing Candidates in Two-Party Competition
|
|