IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v27y2019i02p193-207_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Does the American National Election Study Overestimate Voter Turnout?

Author

Listed:
  • Jackman, Simon
  • Spahn, Bradley

Abstract

Surveys are a key tool for understanding political behavior, but they are subject to biases that render their estimates about the frequency of socially desirable behaviors inaccurate. For decades the American National Election Study (ANES) has overestimated voter turnout, though the causes of this persistent bias are poorly understood. The face-to-face component of the 2012 ANES produced a turnout estimate at least 13 points higher than the benchmark voting-eligible population turnout rate. We consider three explanations for this overestimate in the survey: nonresponse bias, over-reporting and the possibility that the ANES constitutes an inadvertent mobilization treatment. Analysis of turnout data supplied by voter file vendors allows the three phenomena to be measured for the first time in a single survey. We find that over-reporting is the largest contributor, responsible for six percentage points of the turnout overestimate, while nonresponse bias and mobilization account for an additional 4 and 3 percentage points, respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Jackman, Simon & Spahn, Bradley, 2019. "Why Does the American National Election Study Overestimate Voter Turnout?," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 193-207, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:27:y:2019:i:02:p:193-207_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198718000360/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lauderdale, Benjamin E. & Bailey, Delia & Blumenau, Jack & Rivers, Douglas, 2020. "Model-based pre-election polling for national and sub-national outcomes in the US and UK," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 399-413.
    2. Ananyev, Maxim & Poyker, Michael, 2023. "Identity and conflict: Evidence from Tuareg rebellion in Mali," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    3. Roberto Cerina & Raymond Duch, 2021. "Polling India via regression and post-stratification of non-probability online samples," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-34, November.
    4. Sprick Schuster, Steven, 2023. "The persuasive power of the fourth estate: Estimating the effect of newspaper endorsements: 1960–1980," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 207(C), pages 496-510.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cup:polals:v:27:y:2019:i:02:p:193-207_00. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pan .

    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.