Abstention, Protest, and Residual Votes in the 2016 Election
Objective: We analyze the significant increase in the residual vote rate in the 2016 presidential election. The residual vote rate, which is the percentage of ballots cast in a presidential election that contain no vote for president, rose nationwide from 0.99 to 1.41 percent between 2012 and 2016....
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2020
|
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/128739 |
| _version_ | 1811081733950406656 |
|---|---|
| author | Stewart III, Charles H Alvarez, R. Michael Pettigrew, Stephen S. Wimpy, Cameron |
| author2 | Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Political Science |
| author_facet | Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Political Science Stewart III, Charles H Alvarez, R. Michael Pettigrew, Stephen S. Wimpy, Cameron |
| author_sort | Stewart III, Charles H |
| collection | MIT |
| description | Objective: We analyze the significant increase in the residual vote rate in the 2016 presidential election. The residual vote rate, which is the percentage of ballots cast in a presidential election that contain no vote for president, rose nationwide from 0.99 to 1.41 percent between 2012 and 2016. Method: We use election return data and public opinion data to examine why the residual vote rate increased in 2016. Results: The primary explanation for this rise is an increase in abstentions, which we argue results primarily from disaffected Republican voters rather than alienated Democratic voters. In addition, other factors related to election administration and electoral competition explain variation in the residual vote rates across states, particularly the use of mail/absentee ballots and the lack of competition at the top of the ticket in nonbattleground states. However, we note that the rise in the residual vote rate was not due to changes in voting technologies. Conclusion: Our research has implications for the use of the residual vote as a metric for studying election administration and voting technologies. |
| first_indexed | 2024-09-23T11:51:37Z |
| format | Article |
| id | mit-1721.1/128739 |
| institution | Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-09-23T11:51:37Z |
| publishDate | 2020 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | mit-1721.1/1287392022-10-01T06:32:04Z Abstention, Protest, and Residual Votes in the 2016 Election Stewart III, Charles H Alvarez, R. Michael Pettigrew, Stephen S. Wimpy, Cameron Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Political Science Objective: We analyze the significant increase in the residual vote rate in the 2016 presidential election. The residual vote rate, which is the percentage of ballots cast in a presidential election that contain no vote for president, rose nationwide from 0.99 to 1.41 percent between 2012 and 2016. Method: We use election return data and public opinion data to examine why the residual vote rate increased in 2016. Results: The primary explanation for this rise is an increase in abstentions, which we argue results primarily from disaffected Republican voters rather than alienated Democratic voters. In addition, other factors related to election administration and electoral competition explain variation in the residual vote rates across states, particularly the use of mail/absentee ballots and the lack of competition at the top of the ticket in nonbattleground states. However, we note that the rise in the residual vote rate was not due to changes in voting technologies. Conclusion: Our research has implications for the use of the residual vote as a metric for studying election administration and voting technologies. 2020-12-07T20:22:16Z 2020-12-07T20:22:16Z 2020-03 2020-06-15T14:34:57Z Article http://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticle https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/128739 Stewart III, Charles et al. "Abstention, Protest, and Residual Votes in the 2016 Election." Social Science Quarterly 101, 2 (March 2020): 925-939 © 2019 by the Southwestern Social Science Association en http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/SSQU.12757 Social Science Quarterly Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ application/pdf Wiley SSRN |
| spellingShingle | Stewart III, Charles H Alvarez, R. Michael Pettigrew, Stephen S. Wimpy, Cameron Abstention, Protest, and Residual Votes in the 2016 Election |
| title | Abstention, Protest, and Residual Votes in the 2016 Election |
| title_full | Abstention, Protest, and Residual Votes in the 2016 Election |
| title_fullStr | Abstention, Protest, and Residual Votes in the 2016 Election |
| title_full_unstemmed | Abstention, Protest, and Residual Votes in the 2016 Election |
| title_short | Abstention, Protest, and Residual Votes in the 2016 Election |
| title_sort | abstention protest and residual votes in the 2016 election |
| url | https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/128739 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT stewartiiicharlesh abstentionprotestandresidualvotesinthe2016election AT alvarezrmichael abstentionprotestandresidualvotesinthe2016election AT pettigrewstephens abstentionprotestandresidualvotesinthe2016election AT wimpycameron abstentionprotestandresidualvotesinthe2016election |