IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v9y2021i2p319-331.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ranked Choice Voting and Youth Voter Turnout: The Roles of Campaign Civility and Candidate Contact

Author

Listed:
  • Courtney L. Juelich

    (Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin-Stout, USA)

  • Joseph A. Coll

    (Department of Political Science, University of Iowa, USA)

Abstract

Ranked choice voting (RCV) has become increasing popular in the United States as more cities and states begin allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference. This change in election system has been linked to increased campaign civility and mobilization, but with little evidence suggesting these benefits lead to increased voter turnout in the general population. This study argues that RCV elections may not increase overall voting but will increase youth voting. Considering young Americans, who have become increasingly pessimistic towards politics and are also heavily reliant on mobilization for participation, this study argues that increased campaign civility and mobilization may work to offset the negative feelings and lack of political engagement that plague young Americans. Using a matched study of individual level voter turnout for seven RCV and fourteen non-RCV local elections from 2013 and 2014, we find that there is no statistical difference in voting rates between RCV and plurality cities for the general public. Yet, in line with our hypotheses, younger voters are more likely to vote in RCV cities. Further, we find that increased contact in RCV elections accounts for a larger portion of the increased voter turnout compared to perceptions of campaign civility. Findings suggest RCV acts as a positive mobilizing force for youth voting through increasing campaign contact.

Suggested Citation

  • Courtney L. Juelich & Joseph A. Coll, 2021. "Ranked Choice Voting and Youth Voter Turnout: The Roles of Campaign Civility and Candidate Contact," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 319-331.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v9:y:2021:i:2:p:319-331
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.v9i2.3914
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/3914
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.v9i2.3914?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Imai, Kosuke & Keele, Luke & Tingley, Dustin & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2011. "Unpacking the Black Box of Causality: Learning about Causal Mechanisms from Experimental and Observational Studies," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(4), pages 765-789, November.
    2. Gerber, Alan S. & Green, Donald P., 2000. "The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(3), pages 653-663, September.
    3. Todd Donovan & Caroline Tolbert & Kellen Gracey, 2019. "Self‐Reported Understanding of Ranked‐Choice Voting," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 100(5), pages 1768-1776, August.
    4. Scott J. LaCombe & Courtney Juelich, 2019. "Salient Ballot Measures and the Millennial Vote," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 198-212.
    5. Scott J. LaCombe & Courtney Juelich, 2019. "Salient Ballot Measures and the Millennial Vote," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 198-212.
    6. Alan Gerber & Donald Green, 2001. "Getting out the youth vote: Results from randomized field experiments," Natural Field Experiments 00260, The Field Experiments Website.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Courtney L. Juelich & Joseph A. Coll, 2021. "Ranked Choice Voting and Youth Voter Turnout: The Roles of Campaign Civility and Candidate Contact," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(2), pages 319-331.
    2. Kosuke Imai, 2005. "Do get-out-the-vote calls reduce turnout? The importance of statistical methods for field experiments," Natural Field Experiments 00272, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Jared Barton & Marco Castillo & Ragan Petrie, 2014. "What Persuades Voters? A Field Experiment on Political Campaigning," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 124(574), pages 293-326, February.
    4. Stefano DellaVigna & Ethan Kaplan, 2007. "The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(3), pages 1187-1234.
    5. Gerry Stoker, 2010. "Exploring the Promise of Experimentation in Political Science: Micro‐Foundational Insights and Policy Relevance," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(2), pages 300-319, March.
    6. Todd Donovan, 2019. "The Promise and Perils of Direct Democracy: An Introduction," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 169-172.
    7. Iván M. Durán, 2018. "Television and electoral results in Catalonia," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 423-456, November.
    8. Kevin Arceneaux & David W. Nickerson, 2009. "Who Is Mobilized to Vote? A Re‐Analysis of 11 Field Experiments," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 1-16, January.
    9. John E. Mcnulty, 2005. "Phone-Based GOTV—What’s on the Line? Field Experiments with Varied Partisan Components, 2002-2003," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 601(1), pages 41-65, September.
    10. Ryan Friedrichs & David King & David Nickerson, 2004. "Mobilizing the party faithful: Results from a statewide turnout experiment in michigan," Natural Field Experiments 00315, The Field Experiments Website.
    11. Sheely, Ryan, 2015. "Mobilization, Participatory Planning Institutions, and Elite Capture: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Rural Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 251-266.
    12. Donald P. Green & Jennifer K. Smith, 2003. "Professionalization of Campaigns and the Secret History of Collective Action Problems," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 15(3), pages 321-339, July.
    13. León, Gianmarco, 2017. "Turnout, political preferences and information: Experimental evidence from Peru," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 56-71.
    14. Julia Cage & Edgard Dewitte, 2021. "It Takes Money to Make MPs: Evidence from 150 Years of British Campaign Spending," Working Papers hal-03384143, HAL.
    15. Grácio, Matilde & Vicente, Pedro C., 2021. "Information, get-out-the-vote messages, and peer influence: Causal effects on political behavior in Mozambique," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    16. Lisa M. George & Joel Waldfogel, 2006. "The New York Times and the Market for Local Newspapers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(1), pages 435-447, March.
    17. Acharya, Avidit & Blackwell, Matthew & Sen, Maya, 2016. "Explaining Causal Findings Without Bias: Detecting and Assessing Direct Effects," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 110(3), pages 512-529, August.
    18. Christoph Dworschak, 2024. "Bias mitigation in empirical peace and conflict studies: A short primer on posttreatment variables," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(3), pages 462-476, May.
    19. Parker Hevron, 2018. "Judicialization and Its Effects: Experiments as a Way Forward," Laws, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-21, May.
    20. Colombo, Emilio & Rotondi, Valentina & Stanca, Luca, 2018. "Macroeconomic conditions and health: Inspecting the transmission mechanism," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 29-37.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v9:y:2021:i:2:p:319-331. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.