One common thread that runs through many posts on elections (particularly when they are close) is that victory is heavily dependent on who turns out to vote. This often includes inconclusive discussions of how to increase turnout (e.g., recurrent arguments about the "air campaign" versus the "ground campaign"). Although every race has local features that are not readily covered in a general survey, there still are many useful things to be learned by studying carefully what seems to drive turnout in general.
Turnout has been systematically studed since 1889. It was one of the first aspects of elections and voting to be attacked with the tools of opinion surveys and statistical analysis. That research has produced an accumulated body of documented regularities in turnout, but until recently we lacked a compelling theory of voting that would explain the data. Fortunately, that has begun to change.
Chris Achen has neatly summarized the key findings of more than a century of research on turnout. (After you click the link, select 2006 papers, then look for his 17 July submission). More importantly, he presents a simple but powerful theory that seems to account for tha data. What makes his ideas particularly interesting is that some of their implications are not things that "everybody knows" -- and he seems to be correct about those points as well.
We'll get to the theory in a subsequent diary. For now, let's start with some basic findings that are well documented by previous research.
1. "Turnout is generally higher in elections for more important offices and in more consequential or polarized times."
2. "Those interested in the election are more likely to vote."
3. "The educated generally vote more than the less educated."
4. "The better informed are more likely to vote, whether information is measured directly or indirectly, as media consumption or political discussion."
5. "Older citizens vote more than the young."
6. "Stronger partisans are more likely to vote than weak partisans or Independents."
One often sees such claims in pundits' discussions of elections, so in one sense they are merely the conventional wisdom. But two points need to be remembered: these claims are documented by systematic research (they are not just "what everybody thinks they know"), and each relationship holds when one controls for other factors that affect voting. In other words, education (in a general sense) and information (that is relevant to a campaign) each play independent roles; partisanship is not merely a reflection of highly polarized times; nor does interest in the election merely reflect degree of partisanship.
In part two, I'll cover more empirical findings, some of which are seldom if ever discussed.
Finally, a note about his paper: although it does contain some technical material, if you aren't interested in "what's under the hood" you can just skip over those sections.