Book review: Who Votes Now?

The current debate concerning voting in the media and between experts, Leighly

and Nagler argue, is regarding turnout. As they coin it, attempts at answering “how

many vote?”. However, Leighly and Nagler pose a different question, arguing it’s greater

salience and undue emphasis on the turnout of voters. They as, does who vote matter

still today? To Leighley and Nagler, this is a central question of interest after observing

significant change in the demographics within the American electorate in the past few

decades. If “who votes” matters, then how so? Leighley and Nagler attempt to answer

these questions in the context of an update to the seminal work by Raymond E.

Wolfinger and Steven J. Rosenstone's in 1980, “Who Votes?”. By considering the impact

of electoral reforms on turnout, the differences in the public opinion of poorer and

wealthier voters and response by the political parties, Leighley and Nagler compellingly

find that who votes does indeed matter and perhaps what this could mean for turnout

and in policymaking.

Using Wolfinger and Rosenstone as the backdrop for asking their questions, the

ultimately find that that Wolfinger and Rosenstone’s work did not hold quite as it used

to. According to Wolfinger and Rosenstone, who votes does not matter because political

preferences of voters and nonvoters are similar, there are few representation

inequalities introduced by the failure of all eligible voters to participate in the electoral

process (2). In the 1980 study, most simulations of effects on turnout show same

candidates in presidential and senatorial elections would win, even if all eligible citizens

voted. Leighley and Nagler deviate form Wolfinger and Rosenstone’s conclusions

primarily on the finding that poor Americans are different from the wealthy, especially
on their preferences of issues. Leighley and Nagler state that Wolfinger and Rosenstone

focuses on partisan and candidate preferences, but not preferences among the electorate

over issues. The authors “believe that candidates offering distinct policy choices to

citizens constitutes another mechanism by which voter turnout might be increased and

could also lower the income bias of voters” (4). Income bias of voters, they speculate, is

a problematic phenomenon as they believe it could result to a bias in political

representation.

The first chapter, “Demographics of Turnout”, is an empirical examination of

changes in demographics and distribution of income in the electorate affects the

composition and turnout of voters since 1972. They find that the “turnout of eligible

citizens has not declined since 1972” (12). Furthermore, what has not changed since

then is the overrepresentation of the wealth versus the poor among voters has remained

stable and large over time (12). What has changed, however, is “the relative turnout

rates of men and women, blacks and whites, and younger and older adults” (12). An

interesting result is how the black and white voter turnout gap has been decreasing,

contrary to other literature that I have read that had attributed increased black turnout

in 2012 election primarily due to Obama being a black candidate. In the second chapter,

“Theoretical Framework and Models”, they try to see if income bias is conditional by

studying single characteristics of voters, while holding other demographic

characteristics as controls. They again reconfirm their initial results and that income

bias has remained stable, but relationships between age, race, and gender on turnout

have not.

In the second chapter, titled “Policy choices and Turnout”, the authors examine

the impact of election reforms by states on voter turnout. They find that measures, such
as such as election-day registration, absentee voting, and moving the closing date for

registration closer to the election have had moderate effects on turnout. Out of these

policies, election day registration and absentee voting was found to have the greatest

effect on voting, whereas the effects of early voting policies are not conclusive. Reforms

on voting may have had modest effects in helping turnout but are not nearly enough for

the United States to catch up to other developed democratic countries. This applies

especially to poor voters and these policies are found to help increase turnout primarily

in higher income voters.

The authors then analyze the relationship between perceived policy differences of

voters and their turnout and then compare the policy preferences held by voters and

nonvoters. They hold that policy choices offered by candidates are determinants for

turnout in elections, as individuals will be more likely to vote when candidates offer

distinct choices that are aligned with the individual’s preferences. Leighley and Nagler

find that voters are more likely when they are presented a choice in policies, which

occurs when the two candidates are different enough. This perception of choice,

however, is different between voters of different incomes and perhaps education as

higher-income voters perceive this difference in policy more so than lower-income

voters (126). In their analysis, however, they focus primarily on economic issues using

proxies such as guaranteed government jobs and health insurance assigns that they are

in favor of reducing economic inequality or redistribution (141). I find that they may

have overstated the role economic inequality plays in the minds of voters, especially

considering traditional American beliefs of a meritocratic system. Their assumption is

especially problematic when considering poor, white Southern voters who align

themselves as Republicans. Furthermore, they may have overlooked social issues, such
as racial sentiment, as well, which are especially salient in today’s politics. Nonetheless,

their finding that “increasing economic inequality is unlikely to be met by increased

turnout on the part of the poor unless one or both of the major parties offers a

distinctive and compelling policy choice” is convincing.

Overall, the authors put forth a detailed empirical and theoretical analyses that

are quite interesting with very real implications in the way we understand turnout

today. They answer their initial questions with great detail and convincing arguments

and find that the question of “who votes” does indeed matter and is perhaps more

salient now than “how many vote”. Although they may have been able to elaborate more

on the effects this income bias in voters may have on policy and how candidates may

translate these concerns in their campaigns, the effect of income inequality in the

electorate is a topic that I have not seen so thoroughly covered in other literature and is

certainly one with substantial implications.