This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
How Exit Polls Systematically Misrepresent Youth Turnout
Stanford University Abstract Data from the 2008 Exit Polls were used to demonstrate that voter turnout among young people rose slightly from 2004, but that young people were still sorely underrepresented. Indeed, the reports suggested that youth comprised only 18% of the electorate while accounting for over 21% of the voting eligible population. While this ﬁt historical trends in electoral participation, it appeared to belie the popular notion that young people were enthusiastic in anticipation of the election. Yet the exit-polling sampling method is inherently limited by its inability to capture early and absentee voting. While the national exit polls conducted by Edison-Mitofsky use telephone polling methods to account for these diﬀerences, the biases introduced may be rather large. By comparing states with early voting and no-excuse absentee voting to those that only allow absentee voting with an excuse, I ﬁnd that the supplemental data was highly skewed, leading to inconsistent conclusions about youth turnout. Accounting for this bias, youth voting numbers appear to reach population proportions. A number of alternative explanations could also address these ﬁndings. I explore the possibilities that young interviewers may be selecting young interviewees for the exit poll, that overall voting may be higher in early vote states thereby diminishing the youth portion of the electorate, and that diﬀerences between the states may explain this discrepancy (e.g. swing state, southern, etc.). Election results, 2004 data, and data from the current population survey are used to disentangle these possibilities. We ﬁnd that single-mode studies do not vary meaningfully across states, suggesting that the problem lies with the multi-modal design of the exit poll. Indeed, a similar trend is observed in data from 2004.
When 18-year-olds ﬁrst received the vote in 1972, commentators predicted that a surge of new young voters would materialize at the polls. Instead, voter turnout among individuals
Direct All Correspondence To: Josh Pasek, Ph.D. Candidate in Communication, Stanford University, email@example.com, 484-557-4594
few have questioned the extent to which our perceptions of minimal youth engagement may be artifactual. the ﬁnding that recent generations are less likely to participate fueled a new focus on political socialization (Niemi and Hepburn.. 2001. 2000. young voters continued to represent an ever-diminishing share of the electorate (Keeter et al. but little evidence emerged that young people had ﬁnally shed the mantle of apathy. Yet again in 2008. While both explanations lead to similar age-based predictions. young people seemed especially enthusiastic for Barack Obama and pundits forecast a new record. 2001). young people still seemed well below the point of equal representation. 2006) while others looked for evidence that improvements in civic education could stem the tide (Flanagan and Faison. 2001. the expanded 2008 electorate meant that advocates for youth participation were still able to emphasize a larger number of youth voters than in past elections. There is evidence both that turnout varies over the life-cycle. and that generational cohorts are socialized into diﬀering levels of turnout that remain distinct throughout the life-cycle (Jennings and Niemi. Jennings and Stoker. To date.MALIGNED YOUTH? 2 aged 18 to 30 only improved slightly (Eisner. Pasek et al. Lopez and Kirby. meant that young people remained severely underrepresented as a share of the electorate. And for the next 30 years. 1993. Verba et al.. 1981. Wass. 2001. while not insigniﬁcant. they were continuously disappointed.. however. 2001. Pasek et al. The one-percent improvement. . Soule. Political scientists studying voter turnout have long come to rely on age as a predictor. 2005). Indeed. Hence. as commentators predicted that young people would ﬁnally reach parity in the electorate. 2003. Indeed. 2002. Year after year. 1995). 2003. 2004). While 2008 Exit Poll data suggest that young voters improved their performance by a percentage point (from 17% of the electorate in 2004 to 18% of the electorate in 2008). Niemi and Junn. Galston. 2008). 2000. young people comprised 21. they portend very diﬀerent conclusions for the health of democracy. Yet two potential mechanisms could lead to low turnout among young people. Some suggested that new patterns of media use were undermining social capital and thereby participation (see Putnam. McDevitt and Chaﬀee.. Soule.34% of voting age American citizens.
This can lead to a number of potential biases. While these numbers are aggregated into the exit poll data that emerges on Election Day. who were notably enthusiastic for Barack Obama. in many states interviewers are required to stand a signiﬁcant distance from the polls. I explore these trends with particular focus on a major limitation of the Exit Poll’s methodology.MALIGNED YOUTH? 3 This study provides evidence that assessments of youth turnout in the 2008 election may have been inaccurate. individuals who do not vote on Election Day will not be captured by the exit polls. Second. they may represent a much larger share of the electorate than exit poll data would suggest. Finally. Thus. there are many potential reasons to believe that they will not prove appropriate for an unbiased estimate of voting populations. 2008). First. primarily in the 35 states that permit no-excuse absentee voting or set up early voting locations. 31. Assessments of bias introduced by this limitation indicate a pernicious problem: All surveys of turnout present serious complications when attempting to determine the number of young people who voted.14% of voters cast ballots before Election Day. Early Voting and the 2008 Exit Polls Exit polling is a very limited methodology. For instance. telephone Early/Absentee voting and total voting numbers were compiled from individual state records. namely the need for a mixed-mode design (exit polling and a supplemental telephone sample) to account for early voting. were among these early voters. The Edison-Mitofsky exit poll attempts to address this potential pitfall by sampling early voters via telephone. The number reported here is the proportion of all votes cast via one of these two methods. if young people represented a disproportionate share of the early vote. and most troublingly. voters may choose not to respond to an exit poll in a way that alters the balance of individuals who appear to have voted.2 Early voting evidence suggests that votes cast through one of these methods overwhelmingly favored the Democratic candidate (Nicholas. therefore. meaning that they will be unable to recruit many voters. that many young people. Interviewers stand outside of polling locations during the election and attempt to interview one individual for every few voters. In this vein. 2 . the 2008 election was remarkable for the prominence of early and absentee voting. It is possible.
over-reporters tend to be more educated. But social norms themselves are not ﬁxed. 2008). as much as 10% of the population regularly report votes that cannot be validated (Abramson and Claggett. Holbrook and Krosnick. The fact that young people are less likely to over-report should not be particularly surprising.MALIGNED YOUTH? 4 and in-person sampling methods tend to exclude certain niche demographic populations such as college students. 1990. they may be introducing a large bias against youth turnout. 2008). demonstrate stronger partisanship. they do tend to share particular demographic features. Compared to both successfully validated voters and those who do not vote. Indeed. Indeed. Ansolabehere and Hersh. This “social desirability” bias depends on the social norm that voting is an important activity. Problems with Traditional Surveys of Youth Voting Using survey data to discern whether or not young people voted is a problematic endeavor. the two primary explanations for over-reporting errors should vary across age groups. tend to live in counties that are predominantly black. They are therefore less likely to forget that some happenstance prevented them from making it to the polls. Political scientists have long been aware of the “Over-report bias. Further. There is also some evidence that over-reporters are wealthier. if individuals are confusing their memories of not voting in a recent election . While these individuals look similar to the electorate in most respects. Stocke and Stark. and are frequently among those who report having been contacted by candidates (Ansolabehere and Hersh. 2007). One possibility is that people lie about voting when talking to pollsters because they believe they are supposed to have voted (Belli et al.. Young people tend to have better memories. 1992. To the extent that they are using traditional survey methods to bolster their sample. Presser. 2007. 1999. 2008). A few papers have explored this bias by predicting the individuals who are likely to overreport. are more politically interested and tend to be older (Ansolabehere and Hersh. A second explanation for over-reporting relies on recall.” where more individuals claim to have voted than were acutally present on Election Day. and young people are likely to see voting as a less critical activity.
I asked how youth turnout compared to that of the population at large among the individuals that did vote on Election Day (and were therefore in the sampling frame of the exit polls). I explored the role that early voting may have had on exit poll indications of youth turnout. telephone or polling location). The Current Study In this paper. If the CPS data and exit poll data portray identical patterns. reduce the proportion of voters who are young. In each state. This is important as it addresses alternative explanations that might appear to be an exit poll bias. To do this. In 2004. Early voting might raise adult turnout and. the data diverge. I compared exit polling estimates of youth turnout in states that did have early voting with those that did not. If. we are then able to determine whether bias in that year was restricted to a single sampling mode (i. Current Population Survey (CPS) estimates of the proportion of eligible voters who are under age 30. I expand upon this initial analysis by looking at the 2004 election. however. The 2004 CPS supplement provides a perspective on youth voting that is independent of any diﬀerences in survey mode for early voting states.MALIGNED YOUTH? 5 with having voted in a more distant one. then this study can provide strong evidence of a systematic exit poll bias. Because more granular exit poll data is available for the 2004 election.e. I aggregated three kinds of data for this report: the presence or absence of a no-excuse absentee or early voting option in the state. and the portion of Election Day voters who were under age 30 as reported by the exit poll. in so doing. this suggests that early voting simply drives down the youth portion of the electorate. youth voting data is available both from the 2004 Exit Polls and from the 2004 CPS Voting and Registration Supplement. young people have fewer other elections that could be inducing confusion. .
uselectionatlas. deﬁned in Formula 1.org/ (11/6/08) 5 http://www. (1) CNN provides the proportion of exit poll respondents who were under age 30 nationally and in each state.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.7 and (8) websites for and phone calls to for each state’s election information page.g.cnn.6 (7) the CNN early voting map.gmu. using the 2008 CNN exit poll) to http://www.voting.htm 6 http://elections.ncsl.html 4 3 . is the ratio of youth portion of the electorate (e.com/2008/POLITICS/10/27/early.3 (2) The March 2008 Current Population Survey (CPS) was used to determine the share of eligible voters who were between the ages of 18 and 29.9 (Young Voters / All Voters) x 100 (Eligible Youth / All Eligible) Youth Representation Index (YRI) = (1) For each state. and (10) from the 2004 CNN exit poll data provided by CNN.html (11/6/08) 7 http://www.html?eref=rss latest (11/6/08) 8 updated as of 8/31/09 9 http://us.5 A state was coded as early vote if it was possible to vote either at a polling place ahead of election day or using an absentee ballot without an excuse.0.8 (9) Comparison data for 2004 was taken from the November 2004 CPS supplement. The YRI.edu/early vote 2008.map/index.org/programs/legismgt/elect/absentearly.cnn.MALIGNED YOUTH? 6 Methods Data I compiled ten datasets to analyze whether exit poll data may be altering perceptions of youth voter turnout.main/ http://www. Results for aggregate turnout in each state were acquired via (3) phone calls to the secretaries of state as well as (4) the Election Atlas4 (these were used as a weighting variable for all analyses of 2008). I created a youth representation index (YRI). Early voting information for 2008 was assembled for 44 states using the highest available number from one of four sources: (6) 2008 Early Voting page from George Mason University.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls. (5) A dummy variable for status as a 2008 early vote state was created using the Absentee and Early Voting information sheet from the National Council of State Legislators.
Similar numbers for 2004 are available directly from the CPS supplement. Either the supplemental exit poll data used to capture early turnout was biased against young people or older individuals turned out in disproportionate numbers when early voting was an option. the total number of voters in the state in a given year was used as a weighting variable.MALIGNED YOUTH? 7 the youth portion of eligible voters (e. Finally. If early voting states had a smaller portion of youth turnout compared to non-early voting states. Analysis Strategy I used ordinary least squares regression (OLS) to predict each state’s value on the 2008 youth representation index using both status as an early vote state and the portion of votes cast early. citizenship. I ran the same analyses using the 2004 CPS supplement to disentangle these claims. Early voting percentages for 2008 were calculated as a ratio of the best available number of early and absentee ballots over the total number of votes cast according to the US Election Analysis dataset. For all analyses. there are two possibilities.g. early voting states should only appear diﬀerent if older voters did indeed utilize early voting at disproportionate rates. If. . I multiply this ratio by 100 so that the ratio can be interpreted as a percentage. it suggests that the exit poll provided estimates that undercounted the youth share of the early vote. there was no signiﬁcant youth drop-oﬀ in early voting states. I created a similar measure for 2004 using age. the 2004 CNN exit poll was also used to create a second YRI for that year. and reported voting measures from the 2004 CPS supplement. with 100 representing a perfect parity between young voters and the entire voting population. values under 100 denoting underrepresentation of young people in the electorate and values of greater than 100 indicating that young people were overrepresented in the state. using citizenship and age measures from the 2008 CPS). I also looked at the proportion of young and old individuals who reported voting early in 2004 to corroborate these findings. Because the CPS used consistent data collection methods for all states. however.
Prediction errors were created using 1000 simulations of each of the measures from the exit polls. Finally. On average. I multiplied this by the total electorate to determine the number of young people who voted and used that number to approximate the overall portion of young people who voted. I then multiplied this by the population proportion of young people to determine what the youth share of the electorate would have been. I used the regression intercept from the 2008 regression to determine the value of the youth representation index with no early voting.65% of exit poll respondents . 17.MALIGNED YOUTH? 8 Figure 1. Exit Poll YRI for Election Day Only and Early Voting States 2008 Youth Representation Index (YRI) (100 Indicates Perfect Parity With Other Groups) 60 70 80 90 100 110 Election Day Only States Early Voting States Early Voting Status I attempted to extrapolate the results to determine the youth portion of the electorate eliminating any bias caused by sampling issues in the exit poll. Results and Discussion 2008 Exit Polls Young people represented a smaller proportion of the individuals interviewed by the exit poll in states that had early voting.
20.22. The model predicted that young people would have appeared in the exit polls at 96. r2 = 0.MALIGNED YOUTH? 9 were under age 30 in these 34 states (plus the District of Columbia).40% of their expected share of the population.e. Young voters only comprised 81.11. I used the CPS Voting and Registration Supplement to look at early voting and youth portion of the electorate in 2004.04% of respondents were under age 30 in the 16 states that did not oﬀer early voting.79% in non-early voting states).e. 2004 Current Population Survey These results presented two distinct possibilities.62% in early voting states as opposed to 20. Converting these numbers into population proportions. the CPS uses a 10 The boxplot in Figure 1 does not weight by state size.26% of the national rate in a state with no absentee or early votes and only at 62. Portion Early/Absentee β = -33. it would be possible that young people predominantly vote early or vote early in rates similar to older individuals) or that young people only tend to vote on Election Day and that early voting occurs primarily in older age brackets. among the 44 states where early and absentee voting data were available. A quick look at the 2004 CPS results allowed us to disentangle these possibilities. In contrast.10 Further. Indeed.26.34). It may be that attempts to capture early voting failed to include young voters (hence. This discrepancy is further compounded by the fact that young people comprised a larger portion of the population in the early voting states (21. Figure 2 plots these 44 states by both measures. s.87.39% of the national rate where all of the voting was done by early or absentee ballot (Intercept β = 96. I found that young voters were not underrepresented as a portion of the exit poll electorate in non-early voting states. Figure 1 shows the range of proportion of the expected population in each set of states. young voters accounted for 96. s. however.65% of their expected share in the states with early voting. = 3. Unlike the exit polling data. there was a strong negative linear relationship between early voting and youth turnout. . = 7.
This ensured that the variance between states is not a function of voting method or survey mode.51% of those who reported voting on Election Day in 2004. Portion Early/Absentee β = -7.0 0. had aggregated infor- .0 Proportion of Votes Cast Early or Absentee consistent sampling method for all voters (in person. Figure 3 demonstrates that there was no significant linear relationship using the 2004 data (Intercept β = 80. s. I also used the 2004 CPS data to conﬁrm that young people were taking disproportionate advantage of early voting possibilities. Exit Poll YRI by Proportion of Votes Cast Early or Absentee 2008 For States With Early/Absentee Information 120 Early Vote No Early Vote Regression Line 110 LA CT ID (100 Indicates Perfect Parity With Other Groups) Youth Representation Index 80 MT NM WI MI WV KY DE NH DC IN UT IL NJ SC KS ND WY PA OKSD ME OH RI AK IA MD NE AZ HI VT AR TN 100 NC CA FL NV CO 70 90 TX GA WA OR 50 60 0. It appeared. Delaware’s. but 20.61.8 1. = 3.e. = 1. early.02. Only one state elections oﬃce. s.02.2 0.6 0. Young people represented 16. This suggested that exit polling was introducing a bias.63.4 0.33% of early voters.e. that early voting did not disproportionately increase turnout among older voters and thus reduce the youth share of the electorate. therefore. and by mail).07).MALIGNED YOUTH? 10 Figure 2. we lack a solid benchmark for youth turnout. Predicting Turnout Because of the challenges inherent in measuring youth turnout.70% of absentee voters and 18. r2 = 0.
6 0. This is almost certainly a biased benchmark. however. I treat YRIs in the states that did not allow early voting as the most accurate.4 0. In an attempt to understand the full size of a potential discrepancy.8 1 Proportion of Votes Cast Early or Absentee 2004 mation on the total number of young voters. CPS YRI by Proportion of Votes Cast Early or Absentee 2004 For All States Using Self−Response Data Regression Line DC (100 Indicates Perfect Parity With Other Groups) Youth Representation Index (2004 CPS) 100 KY AK MN WV WI GA IA NH MS UT NY LA OH ME MI ID MD DE FL NJ WY MA ND CA PA AL AZ MO CT SC SD CO IL OK NMTX TN NV NC VA NE IN KS RI MT VT AR HI 90 80 WA OR 60 70 0 0.91 instead of the YVI of 93. we did not consider this single state’s number a suﬃcient indicator of how the exit poll’s results might compare to actual youth turnout. While there is some evidence that exit poll respondents may interview too many young voters (Merkle and Edelman. 11 Full details on the Edison-Mitofsky weighting scheme were not available . While it is likely that the in-person exit poll results also include some level of bias.66 measured by the exit poll. approximate ages of missed contacts are recorded and presumably included in the weighting corrections.11 .2 0. I considered these numbers to be the most reliable benchmark available. While this gave Delaware an oﬃcial YVI of 81. Nonetheless. 2001). though few of the states he assessed had a sizable early vote. McDonald (2007) ﬁnds evidence that the exit poll may have consistently overestimated youth turnout in a number of states in 2004.MALIGNED YOUTH? 11 Figure 3.
13).34% of the national population.36% to 99.93% to 21.65.92%) (exact numbers have yet to be ﬁnalized).10.26% of their population share (range 93.05 million) with a turnout rate of approximately 62. Election Day segment of the sample. it is not clear from the data whether young people did indeed approach proportional turnout or if determining the proportion of young voters has been similarly problematic in prior elections.87. s.MALIGNED YOUTH? 12 lacking a better set of ﬁgures. a number that is only minimally distinguishable from equivalent representation.19% to 63. Portion Early/Absentee β = -28. the numbers for 2004 looked much like 2008 (Intercept β = 97. I found that the projected youth vote share for a state with no early or absentee voting was 96. We can see that the exit poll discrepancy in 2008 was steeper than in 2004 (-33.41 million to 28. Figure 4 demonstrates that the problems experienced by the 2008 Exit Poll are nothing new.12 Since young people make up 21. this projection would suggest that young people actually comprised 20.06% (range 60.20. = 2. s.e. This would translate into approximately 27.23 million young voters (range 26. In Figure 3. Indeed. Did the 2004 Exit Poll Have The Same Problem? While we can account for the purported bias in the 2008 Exit Poll data to show that 2008 turnout may have been much higher than initially reported.16%).e. we assessed what turnout would have been if the exit poll numbers were correct for the in-person. but in both cases young people in states without early voting – and therefore without supplemental telephone samples – voted at a rate indistinguishable from that of the general public. = 10.10). 12 .87 vs -28. r2 = 0. Indeed. Ranges reﬂect a 95% conﬁdence interval created using 1000 bootstrapped simulations of state-by-state variations in youth portions of the electorate. We look therefore at the 2004 Exit Poll to determine what youth turnout would have looked like with a similar adjustment.16%).55% of the 2008 electorate (range 19.
Figure 5). Telephone polls were conducted in 13 states in 2004.04. the numbers are even starker.2 0.MALIGNED YOUTH? 13 Figure 4. Limiting to the 12 states with both in person and telephone polling (all voting was by mail in Oregon). . it is possible to test whether the supplemental telephone samples used by the Exit Poll account for the low youth representation index values in early states. = 12.4 0. Indeed. On average. Indeed. if we eliminate the telephone sample.e.6 0.48% of the in person respondents. Exit Poll YRI by Proportion of Votes Cast Early or Absentee 2004 120 Regression Line PA CA OH MO MT RI IL MI VA FL CT DC NHWIAK WY NJ ID KY ALSC ME MN GA WV LA OK MD ND MS HI DE NY UT KS VT MA NESD IA AR IN NC Youth Representation Index (2004 Exit Poll) (100 Indicates Perfect Parity With Other Groups) 90 100 110 TX NV NM 80 AZ TN CO OR WA 60 70 0. the youth voting proportions fall into line with expectations. the telephone mode seemed to account for some of the under-representation. young people represented only 12. and the relationship between YRI and the absentee portion of the electorate becomes slightly.0 Proportion of Votes Cast Early or Absentee (CPS) Telephone vs Polling Place Samples Because individual data for the 2004 Exit Poll is available through the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.92 for the telephone and 21. positive (β = 27.47 for the in person.12. though not signiﬁcantly. with 12.0 0.98% of the telephone respondent voters while they represented 19.8 1. s.
that young voters might be overrepresented in this sample and thus underrepresented at the polls.8 1. It should come as no surprise. this suggests that young voters likely accounted for a larger portion of voters than their oﬃcial share of the population.0 Proportion of Votes Cast Early or Absentee (CPS) Explaining the Mode Eﬀect The results of these analyses suggest that the mixed-mode design of the Exit Poll induces serious biases into our understanding of youth voter turnout.0 0.2 0. But why. If anything. 1985). Exit Poll In-Person YRI by Proportion of Votes Cast Early or Absentee 2004 120 PA MI CA NM NV TX CO In Person Regression Line Telephone Regression Line (100 Indicates Perfect Parity With Other Groups) FL OH MT MO VA IL RI WIAK TN NH DC CT WY NJ ID ALSC ME CA MN KY MD WVGA OK AZ LA ND IA FL MS HI DE NY VT KS UT MA NESD AR IN NC IA NC AZ 100 WA 80 60 TX NV NM CO TN OR WA 40 MI 0.4 0.MALIGNED YOUTH? 14 Youth Representation Index − 2004 Exit Poll In Person (Black) and Telephone (Gray) Figure 5. should the results of the telephone and in-person surveys be so discrepant? For a variety of reasons.6 0. Patterson and Caldeira. exactly. therefore. excused absentee voting is a possibility for individuals who are unable to make it to the polling location on Election Day in every state. Excused absentee voting is common among college students and military populations as well as the inﬁrm and elderly (Oliver. 1996. exit polling will not yield a fully unbiased estimate of youth voter turnout. First. These individuals may also have been under-sampled in the exit polls. .
In states where the in person exit poll most closely resembled the set of individuals who actually voted. The large bias introduced in attempting to account for early voting is only the latest of a series of problems to jeopardize this agenda. There is no reason to believe. First. First. Instead the bias is likely caused by two factors. young voters reached parity with the electorate as a whole. respondents who are older may be more likely to suﬀer from recall errors and may be more likely to feel social pressure to vote. however. that young people did not participate in the election at equivalent numbers in these states. it is possible that individuals who voted early (or reported voting early) will be disproportionately likely to forget whether or not they had voted. the survey suggested that far fewer young people voted. By generalizing from the states where almost all ballots were cast on Election Day. Exit poll marginals are frequently used to estimate turnout for a variety of groups. While these factors make the exit poll a useful dataset. increases in early and no-excuses absentee voting severely curtail our ability to generalize from the ﬁndings. Conclusions The 2008 Exit Poll appears to have mis-estimated the proportion of voters under the age of 30. As noted above. In states where the exit poll needed to be supplemented to account for mail-in and early voting. These numbers present a misleading picture of the national youth turnout. Second. supplemental telephone survey results for early voting states did not appear to reach a suﬃcient number of young voters. 2008 may have marked the ﬁrst year where young people voted in numbers that were equivalent to . there is reason to believe that over-reporting of voting is not going to be independent of a variety of age-related variables. Far fewer individuals cast ballots in the general election than had reported voting in the CPS. The large-N and broad national sampling available from the exit poll allows insight into the voting behavior of a number of groups and mitigates many of the traditional challenges of self-reports. On one level this provides valuable data that is diﬃcult to compile from other sources.MALIGNED YOUTH? 15 Additionally the CPS and telephone survey numbers may not provide an accurate picture of youth turnout.
J. Either way. Andolina. 15(1). Generational change.. (1981). Public Opinion Quarterly. Belli. (2008). Retrieved from http://web. L. J. (2002). memory failure. (2001). it appears equally problematic to generalize from the in-person segment of the survey. (2007).. C. Annual Review of Political Science. 4(1):217–234. (1999). S. 54(3):871–880. L.mit. and source monitoring.MALIGNED YOUTH? 16 those of older adults. 63(1):90–108. Princeton University Press. M. [Unpublished Manuscript]. Second. Taking back the vote: Getting American youth involved in our democracy. exit polling numbers in prior elections seem to have overrepresented young voters (McDonald. W.. Flanagan. (2004). A. M. life cycle processes. and McGonagle. political engagement. A. Political knowledge. M. 2007). Holbrook. and that presenting the results of diﬀerent modes without a fuller explanation of sample gathering techniques or a demarcation of how data was gathered in each state has the potential to promote highly misleading results.. . NJ. The quality of record keeping and racial diﬀerences in validated turnout. References Abramson. G. and social capital. F. W. K. Reducing vote overreporting in surveys: Social desirability.. N. and Faison. Given this countervailing evidence. The civic and political health of the nation: A generational portrait. A. and Stoker. the results suggest that the Exit Poll is highly susceptible to diﬀerences in survey mode. C. Ansolabehere. But evidence from the voter rolls suggests otherwise. E. A. Young. R. [Unpublished Manuscript]. R. A. Zukin. K. S.. K. and Niemi. CIRCLE Report. P. (2001). Journal of Politics. Social desirability bias in voter turnout reports: Tests using the item count and randomized response techniques. K. Princeton. Generations and politics: A panel study of young adults and their parents. R. American Political Science Convention. M. and Jenkins. Beacon Press. Jennings. and Krosnick. (1992). (2001). W. and Claggett. Social Policy Report: Giving Child and Youth Development Knowledge Away. Youth civic development: Implications of research for social policy and programs. Eisner. Traugott. Jennings. M. and Hersh. and civic education. Vote validation in the 2006 cces. Keeter. Boston.edu/polisci/portl/cces/material/. Galston.
Civics courses and the political knowledge of high school seniors. R. M... Survey Nonresponse. CIRCLE. (2006). The true electorate: A cross-validation of voter registration ﬁles and election survey demographics. 71(4):588–602. (1993).. 40(2):498–513. MD. . A. College Park. and Stark. J. (2007). and Hepburn. S. E. (2000). Measurement issues in the study of social change. 68(3):856–868. The eﬀects of eligibility restrictions and party activity on absentee voting and overall turnout. and Jamieson. Simon & Schuster. and Kirby.. Applied Cognitive Psychology. (1985). (2001). (2008). Perspectives on Political Science. participation and attitudes of generations x and y. G. and Chaﬀee. A. (2003). A. McDevitt. Merkle. K. (2007). R. The American Sociologist. Closing gaps in political communication and knowledge: Eﬀects of a school intervention. M. editors. Soule. McDonald. 27(3):259–292. M. J. Presser. M. (2003). Burns. M. L. PhD thesis. R. Eltinge. Early-voting trends appear to favor barack obama.. Mailing in the vote: Correlates and consequences of absentee voting. G. and Junn. The school as a democratic proving ground: Building long-term political interest with civic education. 21:239–257. (1990).. H. D. Nonresponse in exit polls: A comprehensive analysis. D. J. H. (2000).. Feldman. 29(4):766–788. M. 12(1):26–37. L. Annenberg Public Policy Center. 34(1-2):45–69. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. L. R. and Jamieson. Political involvement and memory failure as interdependent determinants of vote overreporting. pages 243–257. G. In Groves. (2001). Voter Turnout Among Young Women and Men. New York. and Edelman. Oliver. T. S. S. The rebirth of political socialization. D.... Romer. P. Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. Public Opinion Quarterly. Social Forces. (1996). Nicholas. V. Pasek.MALIGNED YOUTH? 17 Lopez. American Journal of Political Science. Schools as incubators of democratic participation: Building long-term political eﬃcacy with civic education. Stocke. German and American Conference ”Active Participation or a Retreat to Privacy?”. J. N. and Schlozman. R. Niemi. P. and Caldeira. Feldman. (2008). D. Niemi. Pasek. Wiley-Interscience. Romer. C. J. Dillman. J.. H. K. E. American Journal of Political Science. H. Los Angeles Times. Verba. K. Patterson. S. D. Communication Research. and Little.. (1995). 24(1). S. Will they engage? political knowledge. L. Unequal at the starting line: Creating participatory inequalities across generations and among groups. M. Putnam. A. Applied Developmental Science.
. Politics of Participation Conference. H. (2005).MALIGNED YOUTH? 18 Wass. Generations and socialization into political participation.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.