Doctoral Dissertation Research in Political Science: The Politics of Structural Changes in Voter Turnout

选民投票率如何影响政治结果的问题，对于阐明选举的意义和结果至关重要。尽管这一问题具有明显的积极和规范重要性，但投票率如何影响民主结果的核心方面仍然存在争议。一方面，一个经常被说出的貌似合理的论点是，由于非选民群体中不成比例地由穷人、工人阶级或少数群体成员组成，政治结果可能会反映相对有利的社会成员的偏好--恰恰是因为他们更有可能出现在投票中。因此，根据“投票率问题”理论的支持者，在选民投票率高的时候，被认为偏向弱势群体的左翼候选人和政策应该会受益。尽管这一论点具有常识性，但对投票率与左翼政治命运之间关系的实证研究压倒性地未能支持这一观点。那些认为“低投票率无关紧要”的作者遵循了两条主线中的一条：(1)就他们声明的政策偏好而言，如果不是他们的人口统计数据，没有投票权的调查受访者看起来非常像选民(因此低投票率不利于右翼)，或者，(2)。根据左翼政党获得的选票份额来衡量，投票率与左翼政党的选举命运几乎没有相关性(因此，低投票率并不有利于右翼)。该项目使用正式建模以及定量和定性数据来解决辩论中的争论点--在法律变化导致投票率大幅变化的特定背景下。特别考察了结构变化的两个实例：(1)美国一些州最近对选举日登记要求进行了法律修改，增加了选票在不同选区之间的“可移植性”。1965年的美国投票权法案通过取消识字考试和人头税等措施消除了投票的结构性障碍。这两个案例构成了对文献中相互竞争的主张和本工作中提出的一些新命题的实证检验的基础。通过分析特定的道岔结构变化的影响，本研究将有助于我们理解有争议的重要问题道岔的政治含义。这是公民以及设计或改革政治体制的政策制定者广泛关注的话题。

The question of how voter turnout influences political outcomes is critical for illuminating the meaning and consequence of elections. Despite the obvious positive and normative importance of the issue, central aspects of how turnout affects democratic outcomes remain contested. On one hand, a frequently voiced and plausible argument is that, because the pool of non-voters disproportionately consists of citizens who are poor, working-class, or members of minority groups, political outcomes are likely to reflect the preferences of the relatively advantaged members of society-precisely because they are more likely to show up at the polls. Thus, according to proponents of the "turnout matters" thesis, the candidates and policies of the left, which are presumed to favor the disadvantaged, should benefit when voter turnout is high.Despite the common-sense appeal of this argument, empirical studies of the relationship between turnout and the political fortunes of the left have overwhelmingly failed to support it. Those authors who conclude that "low turnout doesn't matter" have followed one of two main lines of argumentation: (1.) In terms of their stated policy preferences, if not their demographics, non-voting survey respondents look very much like voters (hence low turnout does not favor the right), or, (2.) Turnout rates show very little correlation with the electoral fortunes of the left, measured in terms of the vote share garnered by leftist parties, (hence low turnout does not favor the right).This project uses formal modeling and both quantitative and qualitative data to addresses the points of contention in the debate-in the specific context of large changes in turnout precipitated by changes in the law. Two instances of structural change in particular are examined: (1.) recent legal changes to election day registration requirements in a number of U.S. states that have increased a vote's "portability" across electoral districts and (2.) the U.S. Voting Rights Act of 1965 which removed structural impediments to voting by, among other things, removing literacy tests and poll taxes. These two cases form the basis for empirical tests of the competing claims made in the literature and some novel propositions advanced in the present work.By analyzing the repercussions of specific structural changes in turnout, this research will contribute to our understanding of the contentious and important issue of turnout's political implications. This is a topic of broad concern to citizens as well as policymakers who design or reform political institutions.