Electoral Voice -
Material
SUMMARY OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH ON
COLLEGE STUDENT VOTER REGISTRATION
AND VOTER PARTICIPATION
American Democracy Project National Meeting, June 15-17, Snowbird,
Utah
Harry Basehart, Salisbury University, Salisbury, MD
Voter
Registration
Generally,
the academic research literature is thin on the effectiveness of college
student voter registration programs. Nevertheless, good sources of
information are available, including Current Population Reports from the
U.S. Bureau of the Census and two recent national surveys.
U.S. Bureau
of the Census, Current Population Reports, Voting and Registration in
the Election of November 2004.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf
Registration information by state and age groups
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/cps2004/tab04b.xls
In 2004,
according to census data, the 18-24 citizen population was 24.8 million,
with a registration rate of 57.6 percent. Citizen population includes,
of course, both college students and non-students.
Richard
Niemi and Michael Hanmer (University of Rochester) completed one of the
first national surveys of college students after the November 2004
election:
College Students in the 2004 Election, CIRCLE Fact Sheet
http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_College_Voting.pdf
Sample includes students living on-campus,
off-campus, and at home; 88 percent of the respondents reported they
were registered to vote and 88 percent of those said they had voted.
Two/thirds of registered students were registered to vote in their home
town.
The Eagleton National Student Survey (Rutgers
University) of 1,000 college students who were registered voters was
completed in March 2005 and contains detailed information on their
registration experience. Authors are Susan Sherr, Jeffrey Levin and
April Rapp.
The College Student Voter in 2004: Obstacles,
Outreach and Electoral Engagement.
http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/News-Research/StudentVoterReport.pdf
Most students (42 per cent) registered to vote at
the “county clerk’s office or division of motor vehicles;” second most
frequent site was “on campus” (26 percent). Students who received help
in the process most frequently cited “parents or other relatives” (23.6
percent). University-related assistance totaled 19.7 percent, 13. 6
percent came from “student or university sponsored effort to get out the
vote” and 6.1 percent from professors or teaching assistants. Finally,
students living on-campus were more likely to receive help that those
living off-campus (67 percent versus 50 percent).
Youth Vote Coalition in 2002 interviewed 1,600
18-24 year-olds in a Nationwide Voting Survey that presents an
intriguing look at the kind of messages that could convince young adults
to register.
http://www.youthvote.org/assets/YVCpresentationLSPmessages.pdf
Voter Participation
Voter participation percentages are found in the
Current Population Report noted above. Also, an excellent report by Mark
Hugo Lopez, Emily Kirby and Jared Sagoff has turnout rates for 1972-2004
and analyzes factors affecting turnout of 18-24 year-olds:
The Youth Vote 2004, CIRCLE Fact Sheet
http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_Youth_Voting_72-04.pdf
In 2004, 47 percent of the 18-24 age group voted,
an increase of 11 percentage points from 2000. Turnout for all age
groups increased 4 percentage points, from 60 percent to 64 percent. In
actual numbers, voter turnout of 18-24 year olds increased by 3 million
voters over 2000 (11.6 million/8.6 million). Young voters made up 13
percent of the citizen population, but only 9 percent of the votes cast
in 2004; still their share of the vote was up from the 8 percent in
2000.
For young nonvoters, eligibility obstacles such as
moved to a new location and not yet registered or lack of registration
knowledge are emphasized as reasons for not voting in a 2004 survey by
Thomas Patterson (Harvard University). This report is one of
several in Patterson’s Vanishing Voter Project.
Young Voters and the 2004 Election
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/presspol/vanishvoter/2004_Releases.shtml
Patterson notes that Election Day registration,
used in only six states, would benefit young adults, a very mobile
population.
Donald Green and Alan Gerber (Yale University) have
coauthored numerous studies using the methodology of randomized field
experiments to determine the effectiveness of various Get Out the Vote
techniques. Findings and methodology are summarized at
GOTV: Get Out the Vote
http://www.yale.edu/vote/index.html
Green’s study of 2003 state elections in New Jersey
concludes that Election Day contact of young registered voters by a
phone call increased turnout by 3.8 percentage points.
The Effects of Election Day Voter Mobilization
Campaign Targeting Young Voters
http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/WorkingPapers/WP21Green.pdf
Baseline Data
The best baseline data is potentially available to
all campuses. HAVA (Help America Vote Act of 2002) mandated creation of
statewide electronic voter registration databases and presents an
opportunity for colleges and universities to identify with reasonable
accuracy their students who are registered to vote. Simply
matching a computer list of students with appropriate voter registration
list(s) will produce a tally of the number of students who are
registered in the community or state where they are attending school.
|
