Michael P. McDonald2012-06-01T03:11:37-04:00Michael P. McDonaldhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=michael-p-mcdonaldCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Michael P. McDonaldGood old fashioned elbow grease.http://creativecommons.org/images/public/somerights20.gifpollster/mcdonaldhttp://feedburner.google.comIs Minority Voter Registration Really Declining?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.14978132012-05-07T16:28:07-04:002012-05-07T23:31:58-04:00Michael P. McDonaldhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/Washington Post reports that voter registration is down among Blacks and Hispanics, and could pose a "serious challenge" to the Obama campaign.
Unfortunately, it is the Washington Post's statistics that are seriously challenged.
The source of this information is the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey, also called the CPS. The CPS is a very reliable survey. The federal government uses the CPS to calculate the unemployment rate -- among many other important uses -- and expends considerable resources to ensure that it is accurate. The CPS has a huge sample size, an impressive response rate, and is meticulously scrutinized by the world's best survey researchers.
It would appear that I am leveling a very serious allegation that the CPS is flawed in disputing the Washington Post's reporting.
The CPS registration and voting statistics are reported from a limited number of questions asked on the CPS questionnaire in a November of an election year. These questions are very useful to those who are interested in elections because the CPS's large sample size allows fine-grained analysis of sub-populations, such as minorities or the disabled, which are simply not possible with typical smaller-sample election surveys.
To understand my contention that the Washington Post's analysis is flawed, I must explain how the voting and registration questions are asked.
The CPS asks a single person to report for all citizens age 18 and older living in a household if each person voted:
"In any election, some people are not able to vote because they are sick or busy or have some other reason, and others do not want to vote. Did (you/name) vote in the election held on ____?"
The permitted responses are a simple "Yes" and "No." However, the CPS reports additional response categories for those who don't know, refuse to answer the question, or do not provide a response. The Census Bureau treats these three additional response categories as a "No." This is problematic for a few reasons.
Perhaps someone does not wish to reveal if they voted, even if they did, and simple refuses to answer the question.
Perhaps someone reporting for another household member truly does not know if they voted.
And finally, "no response" literally means that the voting and registration supplemental questionnaire was not administered to a household member.
It is thus more appropriate to treat the three additional response categories of don't know, refuse to answer, and no response as missing responses since we do not really know if these respondents voted.
I present three turnout rates in Table 1. The actual voting eligible turnout rate is calculated by myself from the official administrative records and is widely considered by academics, the media, and policy makers to be the most accurate turnout rate. The second turnout rate is the official CPS turnout rate, as reported by the Census Bureau, and includes the missing responses as a "No." The third turnout rate excludes the missing responses from the calculations, calculated by myself from the Census Bureau's data.
Table 1 reveals why many scholars and others have trusted the CPS as the best source for turnout rates. All surveys have what is known as "over-report bias," the difference between the turnout rate on the survey and the actual turnout. The official CPS turnout rate has an exceptionally small over-report bias when counting missing responses as "No."
However, there are troubling problems with the CPS in recent elections. Compared to 2004, the 2008 CPS turnout rate declined by 0.2 percentage points when the actual turnout rate increased -- and there is no way that it could have possibly declined since the increase in voters exceeded the increase in the voting-eligible population. Compared to 2006, the 2010 CPS turnout rate declined by 2.3 percentage points when again the actual turnout rate increased. These differences are likely not random statistical error, either, since they fall outside the margin of error of the CPS.
When the missing responses are removed from the CPS calculations in the third row, the CPS now tracks the actual turnout rate more closely, but the over-report bias is much greater. In fact, the CPS over-report bias is now comparable to the over-report bias in other election surveys, such as the venerable American National Election Study.
Given this information, it is more plausible -- and simply common sense -- that the missing responses should be treated as truly missing data rather than being categorized as a "No" response.
Correcting the CPS by excluding missing responses to the registration question, rather than treating them as a "No," reveals the flaws in the Washington Post's voter registration analysis.
In Table 2, I report the Census Bureau's official registration rates by race. In Table 3, I report the corrected rates that exclude the missing responses.
The patterns in Table 2 might indeed concern the Obama campaign. Registration rates for all groups are trending downward, particularly for Hispanics. But, what is really happening is that there are more missing responses. The corrected data show that Hispanics are registered at a statistically-indistinguishably slightly higher rate than 2006 and Blacks have experienced a significant registration increase.
The Obama campaign appears better situated in terms of registering of Blacks and Hispanics in the wake of the 2010 election than in the wake of the 2006 election. That these minority populations are also growing in size relative to the non-Hispanic White population should give more worry to the Romney campaign than to the Obama campaign.]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/is-minority-voter-registr_b_1497813.htmlRedistricting Gratification, Delayedtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.13055982012-02-27T21:50:43-05:002012-04-28T05:12:01-04:00Michael P. McDonaldhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/
The prospect of a veto is possible because Governor Cuomo ran on a platform that included reforming the arcane process of redistricting. But calls for a veto at this stage miss the real point of redistricting reform. A veto provides only short-term instant gratification to a long-term structural problem that will rear its ugly head repeatedly every decade. Relying on future governors to play veto whack-a-mole is not a viable reform strategy.
By wielding the heavy hammer of the veto the governor might bludgeon the legislature into producing a few more pleasing districts, but my experiences around the country suggest that a veto is likely to produce only marginally improved districts, creates substantial delays that can harm voters and, most importantly, furthers no real reforms of the redistricting process.
A bruising political battle in the midst of a redistricting that is already underway has never produced meaningful reforms that affect the lines immediately. Never. Politicians become too wrapped up in their own self-preservation to consider adopting such immediate reform. And even if this were not the reality, the Voting Rights Act requires federal review of all New York statewide election changes, which makes it impossible to reform the process in the limited remaining time available to draw new lines.
But such bad news may end up being the best thing that could happen to New York in the long run if the governor can use the current political wrangling over district lines to delay gratification and produce meaningful reform for next decade's redistricting and beyond.
What might such reform look like?
I support the creation of independent redistricting commissions that are removed from the legislature's self-interest, and I have worked with non-partisan groups, Democrats, and Republicans to promote this reform in other states. But in those other states, the reform path has been voter initiatives, since legislatures are not keen on relinquishing redistricting power. Voter initiative is not an option in New York, and therefore neither is a reasonable prospect of creating an entirely independent redistricting commission.
If reform occurs, it will likely take a shape similar to that in other states where the legislature must enact it. In states like Iowa, a commission draws districts according to a well-defined set of criteria, and forwards those plans to the legislature and governor for approval. In a state like Maine, a super-majority is required for adopting a plan. While not an ideal reform, the virtue of such a system is that party conflicts are handled through the political process rather than in the courts or by other extraordinary means, such as the recent high-profile impeachment of the Arizona redistricting commission chairperson by the Republican state government. Such reform should also include restrictions on partisan gerrymandering and improve transparency of the line-drawing process to allow citizens to critique the commission's lines and draw their own suggested maps.
Real redistricting reform can come to New York. However, the practical reality is that a protracted veto battle will be counter-productive to that goal. Such reform may fall short of reformers' initial expectations based on states with voter initiatives, but New York should take a step in the right direction if the opportunity presents itself.]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/redistricting-gratificati_b_1305598.htmlThey're Just Not That Into You, Mitttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12468962012-02-01T11:00:51-05:002012-04-02T05:12:01-04:00Michael P. McDonaldhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/
Mitt Romney needs only to look in the mirror -- or better yet, the graph below -- to see who is to blame for the decline in turnout. The fact is, they're just not that into you, Mitt.
In the graph I've plotted by county the percent vote for Gingrich against the percent change in turnout from 2008 to 2012. The graph tells a clear story. In counties where Gingrich did better, Republican turnout was up over 2008. In counties where Romney dominated, turnout was lower.
Romney draws his strength from urban counties and Gingrich draws his from rural counties. The suburbs appear to the the battleground region with Romney winning suburbia in two of the three truly contested races so far.
The Florida turnout pattern was also evident in Iowa and South Carolina. Turnout was at least on par with 2008, if not higher, in Iowa and South Carolina because these states have more rural voters that were excited to vote for someone other than Romney. (Turnout was slightly down in New Hampshire, but I do not read too much into the decline because Romney was expected to win easily.)
This turnout insight provides a chance to evaluate the campaign strategies of the candidates in the primary and general elections.
As the Republican primary progresses, we may expect to see similar patterns emerge in contested states. Who wins or loses a state may be attributed at least in part to the demographic composition of the state. Fortunately for Romney, there are a string of favorable states lined up for him in the next month -- states with significant Mormon communities or more moderate voters. Gingrich's challenge is to survive the inevitable punditry calls for him to drop out as Romney racks up wins. If Gingrich can make it to the March 6th super-Tuesday primary, he will likely do well in some of these states and he can change the media narrative. The fly in Gingrich's ointment will be Ron Paul, who is targeting the smaller states that hold caucuses.
What will happen in the general election if Romney is the nominee is anyone's guess. I suspect that Republican conservatives will line up behind Romney, but they will not do so enthusiastically. And while Romney does well among moderate, urban and suburban voters, the lack of enthusiasm exhibited by these voters should caution Romney that he may not continue to do as well among these voters when his opponent is Barack Obama. This would not matter in deep red states, but could matter in some battlegrounds like Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia -- states where the Obama campaign appears to be targeting and where he can rely on enthusiastic African-American voters.]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/theyre-just-not-that-in-t_b_1246896.htmlSecond Place in NH Democratic Primary Goes to...Ron Paul?!tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12132192012-01-18T12:01:36-05:002012-03-19T05:12:01-04:00Michael P. McDonaldhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/Obama only won 79.5% of the vote. Second place in the New Hampshire Democratic primary went to Ron Paul, with 3.7%, Mitt Romney was third with 2.9% of the vote, and Jon Huntsman was fourth with 2.0%. Yes, you heard me right, Ron Paul came in second in the New Hampshire Democratic primary.
How can this happen? New Hampshire allows registered independents to choose which party's primary they want to vote in. The catch is that when they select a party primary to vote in, they change their registration to that party. If they want to be an independent with the option of exercising a similar choice in future primary elections, they must change their party registration back to independent. Some people forget to change their registration back to independent, and when they show up to vote find that they must vote in the primary of the party they are registered with.
In 2008, quite a few independents chose to vote in the Democratic primary and apparently forgot to change their registration by 2012. Still wanting to express their preference in the only meaningful contest, these persons decided to cast a write-in vote for their preferred Republican candidate, even though their vote would not be counted towards the outcome.
Now, for the most part this is merely a fun oddity, but it actually matters to the ordering of the official fourth and fifth place finishers in the Republican primary. Newt Gingrich officially came in fourth with 23,421 votes and Rick Santorum came in fifth with 23,405 votes. However, Santorum received 303 votes in the Democratic primary and Gingrich received 276. When these uncounted votes are factored in, Santorum beat Gingrich by a nose, 23,708 to 23,697 votes.
Meaningful? Perhaps. The post-New Hampshire narrative might have been different if Santorum was perceived to have beaten Gingrich -- there might have been added pressure for Gingrich to drop out. In some ways, you have to feel sorry for Santorum. Not only did he really come in fourth in New Hampshire, he also likely beat Romney in Iowa due to a miscount of votes.]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/second-place-in-nh-democr_b_1213219.htmlThe Tea Party Fever Has Brokentag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.11837942012-01-04T13:02:10-05:002012-03-05T05:12:02-05:00Michael P. McDonaldhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/
Participation in the Iowa Republican caucuses was strong. Over the past four years, participation in the Iowa Republican caucuses only slightly outpaced the state's population growth. Four years ago, 118,696 people participated in the Iowa Republican caucuses compared to 122,252 in 2012, an increase of 3.0%. Over this same period, the eligible population increased from 2.20 million to 2.25 million, an increase of 2.4%.
Not unexpected, turnout for the 2012 Democratic caucuses was significantly lower than 2008. The Iowa Democratic Party reports that "more than 25,000" people participated in the 2012 Democratic caucuses, compared to 236,000 in 2008.
But, participation in the Iowa Republican caucuses should have been stronger. If the Tea Party was still in full swing, we should have seen higher turnout propelled by their enthusiasm.
Instead, it was Independents who participated in the Democratic caucuses four years ago that enabled turnout in this year's Iowa Republican caucuses to keep pace with the 2008 levels. These Independents preferred spending their evening participating in an actual election contest rather than in a party organizing meeting. A pre-caucus PPP poll indicated that 15% of prospective Republican caucusgoers reported participating in the Democratic caucus in 2008. With 236,000 people voting in the Democratic caucus, that means the Republican caucus were inundated with 35,400 more participants that were active on the Democratic side four years ago.
The media entrance polls further support that some people who participated in the Democratic caucuses in 2008 participated in the Republican caucuses in 2012 -- although the pollsters did not directly ask this question. In 2008, only 13% of polled caucusgoers reported being an independent. In 2012, this percentage of independents increased to 23%. (These folks predominantly supported Ron Paul, followed by Mitt Romney.) Without these crossover Independents, turnout in the Iowa Republican caucuses would have declined. And without them, Romney would not have won his squeaker victory.
Politicians running for office this November should take notice. The extraordinary Tea Party enthusiasm that buoyed Republican candidates in 2010 is unlikely to repeat itself. And on top of weakening Tea Party enthusiasm, we are assured that November turnout will be higher for pro-Democratic groups, such as young people.
Of course, it ain't over until it's over. This is only a single state to draw inferences from. The upcoming primaries will likely provide a better picture of the levels of Republican enthusiasm at this stage in the election cycle. Without a contested Democratic nomination, we have no clear indication of Democratic enthusiasm levels. It may be that a general malaise will overtake supporters of both parties come November, or one or both sides will catch fire as the campaign shifts from a choice among Republican candidates to a choice between Obama, the eventual Republican nominee and other potential third party candidates lurking in the wings.
CORRECTION: The estimated number of Independents who participated in the 2008 Democratic caucuses who participated in the Republican caucuses has been revised from 59,000 to 35,400.]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/the-tea-party-fever-has-b_b_1183794.htmlFirst Votes Cast in New Hampshire Primarytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11324232011-12-06T15:44:00-05:002012-02-05T05:12:01-05:00Michael P. McDonaldhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/
The first absentee overseas ballots have been returned for the New Hampshire presidential primary. The Pew Center on the States reports that 25 of the 163 ballots sent to overseas military and civilian voters have been returned. By federal law, 45 days must be allowed for overseas ballots to make the trip from domestic election officials to overseas voters and back.
The question is, how many voted for Herman Cain?]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/first-votes-cast-in-new-h_b_1132423.htmlFederal Court Rejects Texas Redistricting Planstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.10826382011-11-08T16:35:56-05:002012-01-08T05:12:01-05:00Michael P. McDonaldhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/
They had a strategy that turns out to have backfired badly.
As required by the Voting Rights Act, states such as Texas that are covered under Section 5 of the Act must demonstrate that their redistricting plans do not have a retrogressive effect on minority representation. These states must have the Department of Justice or the District Court of DC render a judgment. If the judgment is in the positive, the state can proceed with holding elections under the newly adopted districts. If the judgment is in the negative, then the redistricting plans cannot take effect.
Earlier this year, Texas Republicans passed heavily partisan Republican gerrymanders for Congress and the state legislature. (Full disclosure: I served as an expert witness for the Democratic Party of Texas on partisan gerrymandering claims in a case sitting before a San Antonio federal court three-judge panel).
Former Bush Department of Justice attorneys argued that the Obama Department of Justice could not be trusted with the decision. As J. Christian Adam writes,
Sources also tell me every statewide redistricting submission for Congress, state house, and state senate will be stuck in a red file automatically by order of the Obama political appointees. That means redistricting plans in states like Florida, South Carolina, New York, California, Arizona, Georgia, South Dakota, and others will all suffer politicized scrutiny. If this isn't enough reason for states to bypass the DOJ entirely and submit plans directly to the federal court for approval, then nothing is.
Weighing this advice, Texas Republicans -- and Republicans in other states -- decided to take a much less frequently traveled route by asking a three-judge panel from District Court of DC for a ruling. In these proceedings, the Department of Justice is the defendant. Traditionally, the District Court of DC allows the Department of Justice to do a retrogression analysis and follows their advice. The Department of Justice concluded that the Congressional and state House of Representatives plans had a retrogressive effect on Latino representation, but did not find fault with the Senate plan.
Texas Republicans hoped that the three-judge panel from the District Court of DC would ignore the Department of Justice, weigh favorably the evidence provided by the state, and give the green light to the two (of three) redistricting plans the Department of Justice objected to. What they did not consider was that a number of other groups -- including prominent voting rights organizations -- would also submit testimony before the federal court. The court weighed all the evidence and ruled all three redistricting plans negatively affected minority representation.
Having carefully considered the entire record and the parties' arguments, the Court finds and concludes that the State of Texas used an improper standard or methodology to determine which districts afford minority voters the ability to elect their preferred candidates of choice and that there are material issues of fact in dispute that prevent this Court from entering declaratory judgment that the three redistricting plans meet the requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. See 42 U.S.C. 1973c.
Obviously, the former Bush Department of Justice lawyers gave bad advice in the high stakes game of redistricting. The Department of Justice gave Republicans a more favorable ruling than the District Court of DC. If Texas Republicans had ignored the advice, at least the Senate plan would have proceeded. Every Texas Republican state Senator should be infuriated at the bill of goods they were sold.
Where do we go from here?
Usually, the state government gets another bite at the apple to rectify any deficiencies. However, with a very compressed schedule before candidate primary filing deadlines -- also a consequence of entering the slow moving federal court system -- there may not be enough time for the state to act and the new plans to be checked for voting rights violations.
Concurrently, a three-judge federal court in San Antonio is weighing federal claims against the same redistricting plans. Federal courts do not have to have their plans checked for voting rights violations, so the San Antonio court has a little more time to act. The most likely outcome is then that they will hire a special master to draw redistricting plans for the Congress and state legislature to be used for the 2012 elections. While I do not expect the court to draw a Democratic gerrymander, I suspect that the redistricting plan will not be as much as a partisan gerrymander as the plans passed by the Texas government.
How about the big picture? With Ohio Democrats refusing to compromise on a referendum on the Republican map, now federal courts in two important states are likely going to draw plans where Republicans controlled redistricting. Congressional Democrats have to be increasingly feeling better about their chances of taking the House of Representatives despite the historic success of Republicans at taking control of key state governments in 2010. But do not mistake me, Democrats are still likely going to be at a disadvantage due to redistricting, just not as bad of a one as they might have feared. ]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/federal-court-rejects-tex_b_1082638.htmlOhio Democrats Move to Block Republican Congressional Gerrymandertag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.10144422011-10-16T18:41:58-04:002011-12-16T05:12:01-05:00Michael P. McDonaldhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/Cincinnati.com reports that Friday evening, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that Democrats can proceed with a petition gathering drive to place a referendum on the November 2012 ballot that would overturn the state's Republican congressional gerrymander. (The Court is composed of 6 Republicans and 1 Democrat.) If the petition drive is successful, it would be up to a court to decide if the state government's adopted Republican gerrymander will be used for the 2012 congressional elections.
Ohio Democratic Party actions have important consequences for the battle to control the House of Representatives in 2012. Working with Draw the Line Ohio, I enabled an analysis of the partisan consequences of the Republican map indicating that Republicans would be favored to win in 12 of the 16 congressional districts. The Ohio Republican gerrymander is of similar caliber to those adopted by Republicans who control the redistricting process in other key states by virtue of their 2010 victories in state government elections. For the most part, these Republican gerrymanders seek to lock in Republican gains in the 2012 election. Blocking the Ohio Republican gerrymander will move the needle in the Democratic direction for control of the House of Representatives, perhaps by as much as four seats if a court institutes a fair map.
Here is how the situation will likely play out. Republicans can negotiate with Democrats over the map as Democrats gather their signatures. If they decide not to and Democrats gather enough signatures to place the referendum on the ballot, a court will decide which districts the congressional elections will be held under. The Republican redistricting law cannot automatically take effect since that law's legality is being challenged at the voting booth, a tactic Democrats are also using to block a change in Ohio's early voting law. The court could order elections proceed using the Republican gerrymander or it may very well enact one drawn by a court-appointed special master. Perhaps the special master will consider incorporating elements from one of the 53 plans submitted to the Ohio Redistricting Competition -- all of which scored better on compactness, minimizing county splits, partisan fairness, and district competition than the Republican gerrymander.
What started out as a promising round of redistricting for the Republicans to shore up their vulnerable incumbents through gerrymandering may turn ultimately turn out to be a disappointment. Republicans are complaining about maps put forth by the Arizona and California citizen redistricting commissions. Court action -- either potential or underway -- in Colorado, Florida, New York, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia may cost the Republicans seats in places they thought they would protect their own or expand their congressional majority. There are still a lot of uncertainty, so while Democrats may not by uncorking the champagne, they have at least a little to be cheered about from what initially looked to be a dismal round of redistricting from their standpoint.]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/ohio-democrats-move-to-bl_b_1014442.htmlThe Changing Face of Americatag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9249982011-08-11T19:37:54-04:002011-10-11T05:12:01-04:00Michael P. McDonaldhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/Fly Like an Eagle, The Steve Miller Band
What a difference a decade makes. A new online tool from the Center for Urban Research at the City University of New York visualizes the changes in demography that have occurred between the 2000 and 2010 censuses in local communities situated in fifteen of the country's largest urban areas: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Orlando, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Francisco, and Washington D.C.
The tool is simple to use, as described by the folks behind the site. The racial and ethnic composition of census blocks -- which are about the size of city blocks in urban areas -- are displayed by different colors. There are three ways to view the maps. My favorite employs a divider in the center of the screen which separates a view created from 2000 census data with a view from the 2010 data. Dragging the mouse moves the map across the divider and reveals a decade of population change.
When I use the tool to visualize the Washington D.C. area and my home county of Fairfax, Virginia; I see patterns that are playing out in a similar manner as other urban areas. Latinos and Asians -- who are experiencing population growth -- are forming new communities. In Northern Virginia, new Latino communities are emerging in Manassas and Woodbridge and new Asian communities near Fair Lakes and Reston.
Countervailing the Latino and Asian growth trends are decreasing concentrations of African-American in their communities. Demographers that I have spoken with attribute this to two factors: gentrification and children seeking job and housing opportunities outside their neighborhoods when they come of age.
As African-Americans disperse into the suburbs and Latinos and Asians move in, the percentage of Whites is decreasing throughout the entirety of Fairfax County. This is likely a contributing factor to how the region has been drifting from Red to Blue politically in recent elections, which has profound political implications for the region, the state, and the country.
The "Real Virginia" -- as George Allen infamously described it -- is giving way to the Real America, a racial and ethnic melting pot where no one race or ethnicity dominates. The Census Bureau projects by 2050, Whites -- who currently are about two-thirds of the population -- will constitute the slimmest majority in the country as a whole. So, over the next decade, expect the face of the nation to continue to evolve in a similar direction.
Try out the tool. I'm sure that you will be fascinated -- and perhaps surprised -- at how your favorite urban area is changing. ]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/the-changing-face-of-amer_b_924998.htmlThe Age Gap and What It Portends for 2012 and Beyondtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8077462011-01-11T22:20:10-05:002011-05-25T18:25:24-04:00Michael P. McDonaldhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/
You see, in midterm elections, the youth do not vote. In presidential elections, they do. According to the Census Bureau, the turnout rate of citizens age 18-29 was 25.4% in 2006 and doubled to 51.1% in 2008. (The 2010 statistics are not available yet, but should be similar to 2006.)
While turnout rates are lower for the elderly in midterm elections compared to presidential elections, they do not drop off nearly as much as they do not the youth. According to the Census Bureau, the turnout rate of citizens age 65 and older was 63.1% in 2006 and 70.8% in 2008.
This would not make much of a difference if the youth and the elderly held the same political preferences. They do not. The media's exit polls report that the youth and elderly are now more polarized than in any recent election. I call this an age gap, and I illustrate it in the figure which shows the support for Democratic House candidates among the young (age 18-29) and old (age 65 and older) as they vary around 50%. From 1992 to 2002, the age gap was never more than 6 percentage points. In 2004, the age gap widen to 10 percentage points, slightly decreased to 9 percentage points in 2006, and increased to 13 percentage points in 2008.
Support for Democratic House Candidates, 1992-2010
In 2010 the age gap was 16 percentage points, the largest on record. Now, because the youth tend to vote at low rates in midterm elections, this is a part of the Republican success in the 2010 election. It would be foolish to think that they will stay home in 2012. If we hypothetically apply support for Democratic House candidates in the 2010 election among various ages to the age distribution of the 2008 electorate, Democratic candidates would have received one percentage point more of the total vote. Some of those nail-biter contests won by Republican candidates would have likely been won by the Democratic candidates.
Smart politicians know that the 2010 electorate is unlikely to repeat itself in 2012. Expect them to adjust their policies and rhetoric accordingly if they plan to be reelected to another term in office. And to look beyond, expect the electorate to shift back towards the Republicans in 2014. If this age gap persists, and there is no reason to suspect it will not in the short run, we should observe a regular ebb and flow to the electoral fortunes of the political parties as young people move in and out of the electorate.
For those interested in this commentary and more, read "Voter Turnout in the 2010 Election" published in the on-line journal The Forum.
]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/the-age-gap-and-what-it-p_b_807746.htmlDid Arizona Shoot Itself in the Foot?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.8017042010-12-27T16:01:38-05:002011-05-25T18:20:30-04:00Michael P. McDonaldhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/results from the 2010 census. As of April 1, 2010, there were 308.7 million people in the United States. Census Bureau Director Bob Groves also announced state population totals that are used to determine how many congressional seats each state gets. This story dominated the news headlines, but these numbers have other purposes, too.
The federal government uses these population counts to distribute federal dollars to the states. According to Andrew Reamer at the Brookings Institution, in 2008 the federal government distributed $866.5 billion in funds to the states based on the census population counts. Your state gets its share of the federal pie based on the number of people that are counted by the census. If there were $866.5 billion in funds to disperse in 2010, each person would be worth $2,807 in federal money to your state.
Note that I say "people" not "citizens." This is where Arizona may have lost as much as three-quarters of a billion dollars annually in federal funding. The Arizona state government could have easily put this money to good use, as according to the New York Times, the state faced a $2.6 billion shortfall in fiscal year 2011.
I come to this conclusion by comparing what the Census Bureau expected Arizona's population to be and what it really was -- or at least who was counted. Throughout the decade, the Census Bureau demographers estimate each state's population. The most recent estimates give a sense of what the Census Bureau thought the April 1, 2010, population of Arizona would be.
So, the Census Bureau demographers projected Arizona's population to be 6,668,079 but the actual number was 6,392,017 or 276,062 fewer people than what the Census Bureau expected to find. This was the largest shortfall of any state in absolute numbers. Since Arizona is a mid-sized state, as a percentage of the population this shortfall was nearly twice that of the next nearest state, Georgia.
So why was the Census Bureau wrong? Or were they wrong? It is not unreasonable to surmise one of two things were contributing factors: Either Arizona's undocumented population did not want to stick around in the state or they did not think it was wise to fill out a government form -- even if their confidentiality is strictly guarded by the U.S. Census Bureau. If the shortfall was due to the latter, then at $2,708 a person, Arizona lost out on $775 million in federal grants per year.
I suspect that this lost revenue is a high estimate. Likely the true number lies somewhere between zero and $775 million, as reluctance to fill out a census form was one among many contributing factors to the difference between what the Census Bureau demographers expected and what the actual number was. But, we will never know for sure since it is impossible to go back in time and count again.]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/did-arizona-shoot-itself_b_801704.htmlWho Voted in 2010, and Why It Matters for 2012tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7788422010-11-04T10:22:10-04:002011-05-25T18:10:25-04:00Michael P. McDonaldhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/
That helps explain a lot of what happened this year and what may be in store for candidates in 2012.
The 2010 midterm election experienced the highest turnout for a midterm election in the past 30 years. An estimated 41.5 percent of those eligible to vote participated, which appears to have topped the 41.1 percent in the 1994 midterm elections -- another good year for Republicans.
There were only slight changes in who voted in 2010 compared with the last midterm election in 2006. According to the exit polls, 79 percent of 2006 voters were white and 78 percent of 2010 voters were white. The youngest people were less slightly less likely to vote, with 12 percent of those under age 30 voting in 2006 compared with 11 percent in 2010. The electorate noticeably grayed, with people age 65 and older increasing from 19 percent of voters in 2006 to 23 percent in 2010.
Interestingly, those most affected by the economic downturn were a smaller share of the electorate; those with household incomes less than $50,000 were 40 percent of the 2006 electorate, but were only 37 percent of the 2010 electorate.
These changes in who voted are interesting, but they are not enough to explain the dramatic Republican House of Representatives victories. Those who voted in 2010 simply favored Republicans more across the board. The changes were starkest among the elderly. In 2006, they evenly split their votes between Democratic and Republican House candidates. In 2010, they favored Republican House candidates 59 percent to 38 percent. Independents flipped their allegiances, with 57 percent supporting Democratic House candidates in 2006 and 56 percent supporting Republican House candidates in 2010.
To understand what the 2010 elections may mean for 2012, one has to appreciate that presidential electorates are much different than midterm electorates. For one, turnout is higher; 61.6 percent of those eligible to vote did so in 2008 -- the highest turnout since the 62.8 percent who voted in 1964. Who votes in presidential elections but skips midterm elections? They are the youth: 18 percent of the 2008 electorate was under age 30. They are minorities: Only 74 percent of the 2008 electorate was white. And they are Democrats and independents. Whereas 32 percent of 2008 voters identified themselves as Republicans, 38 percent of 2010 voters did so.
So what do all these numbers tell us?
First, we have entered a time of extreme volatility in the electorate, with dramatic swings possible from one election to the next. Second, we are almost certain to see at least a slightly more Democratic-friendly electorate in 2012 as traditional members of the Democratic coalition engage again.
Cross-posted at AOL News.]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/who-voted-in-2010-and-why_b_778842.htmlPost-Election Turnout Rate Estimatestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7780962010-11-03T04:07:58-04:002011-05-25T18:10:25-04:00Michael P. McDonaldhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/I forecasted a national turnout rate among those eligible to vote of 41.3%. Now with actual election results available, I estimate the national turnout rate is 41.4%.
These post-election turnout rate estimates are based on the number of votes counted as of 3am Wednesday Nov. 3rd and an Associated Press projection of the remaining ballots to be counted. These estimates may be off for states that are anticipated to count significantly more ballots, such as Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington. I will update these numbers as warranted.]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/post-election-turnout-rat_b_778096.htmlMyth-Busting Election Night Coveragetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7776392010-11-02T11:36:10-04:002011-05-25T18:10:25-04:00Michael P. McDonaldhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/ MYTH 1: Exit Polls Are Used to Call Elections. The primary purpose of exit polls is to help explain why people voted the way they did. If an exit poll confirms pre-election polling predicting a wide victory margin for a candidate, they may sometimes be used to call a race at poll closing. For any of the competitive races, actual election results are used to call the election outcome.
MYTH 2: Early Exit Polls Provide a Sense How the Election Will Unfold. In the vacuum of time before races are being called, the media may report some cross-tabulations from the exit polls. This may give an impression as to how the election may play out if a key demographic group is breaking in one direction or another. While exit polls are useful because they are known to sample from the universe of voters -- unlike "likely voter" models -- there are numerous survey methodology issues beyond statistical sampling error that may affect exit poll results. The direction and magnitude of these errors are revealed when actual election results from the exit poll precincts are compared to the survey results. This error is known as "Within-Precinct Error" or WPE. Once election results are reported, the exit polls are weighted to the election results. Take any exit poll results released before election results are reported with a boulder of salt. The early exit poll results will likely change once the exit polls are weighted to the election results.
MYTH 3. The Speed of Calling a Race is an Indicator of a Close Race. This is one of my pet peeves. Pundits will tell us that we will know the overall direction of the election on how quickly a particular race is called. The premium is making the right call, not making it quickly. The folks in the boiler rooms wait for hard election data to call the high profile races, with a good cross-section of election results from throughout a state. If a heavily Democratic or Republican area of a state is not reporting, the race-callers will wait until that region reports. Sometimes a region takes their time to report their election results -- for whatever reason -- and races within that state cannot be called until they do. So, while it is true that close races are not called early, it is not true that all uncalled races are close.
Because reporting of election results may not be consistent across a state, it is possible that a candidate may jump to an early commanding lead. Yet, the media will not call the election. It may be that only results from a candidate's stronghold are being reported by election officials. If the media are not calling a race, it is likely that there is a lot of votes yet to be counted in areas that may not be as favorable to the leading candidate. I have seen many times candidates jump out to early leads only to see that lead evaporate. Be careful in interpreting what early vote tallies mean, especially if a race is not being called.
MYTH 4. The Election Can Be Called Election Night. All states will not count all of their ballots on election night. Some states count significantly less than others, particularly states with a high volume of mail ballots. States that have traditionally counted 90% or less of their ballots on election night are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington. If a race is close and the forecasted number of outstanding ballots is large, no call will be made. I flag Washington in particular since a little more than 50% of the ballots have been counted on election night in the past. If the Washington Senate race is close as it appears to be, do not expect the media to immediately call a winner.
A call in the Alaska U.S. Senate race may be further delayed. Mail ballot voters in Alaska may postmark their ballots by Election Day, with the deadline for receipt of domestic mail ballots of Nov. 12th and overseas ballots of Nov. 17th (many states require mail ballots to be returned by Election Day, so please check with your local election officials if you have a mail ballot still in hand). Alaska election officials will determine the number of write-in votes early Wednesday morning, East coast time. They will only begin counting these write-ins if the number of write-in votes exceeds the vote for a candidate on the ballot. If the election is close, we may not know who "won" the vote for weeks. And then there will be the inevitable litigation.
As a corollary, a race that may fall within the range of a recount will not be called.
Myth 5. The Media Calls Elections Before the Polls Are Closed. No race will be called before the polls are closed within a state. This is most important for states or districts that straddle two time zones. If you want to beat the press, localities within the earlier time zone will often begin reporting their numbers on the web before the polls close in the other time zone.
Myth 6. Early Bellwether Races Tell Us How the Election Will Unfold. Early in the night when there are only a few states that have closed their polls, the pundits will opine about the importance of these races and what they mean to the larger outcome. As Tip O'Neil famously said, all elections are local. Local circumstances may better explain who wins or loses in a particular race than a national wave. I suspect that the Republican wave may not wash ashore at the same height everywhere in the country, so please discount generalizations drawn from a few races early in the night.
]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/myth-busting-election-nig_b_777639.html2010 Turnout and Early Voter Forecaststag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7770642010-11-01T13:02:51-04:002011-05-25T18:10:25-04:00Michael P. McDonaldhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/state-by-state and national forecasts here.
These forecasts are based on the number of early votes cast so far and a comparison to recent similar elections. This forecast is more of an art than a science, since I am juggling multiple factors that may influence turnout. On the early voting side, the total number of early votes is fairly firm since most states have concluded in-person early voting -- though not all. The remaining question is how many people will vote on Election Day, from which an early-voting percentage can be calculated.
I strongly encourage anyone holding a mail ballot to check their state's deadlines. In many states, today or tomorrow is the last day for a mail ballot to be received by election officials. If you have not mailed your ballot in these states, you may still be able to return your ballot to your local election office or your polling place on Election Day. For other states -- notably Alaska and Washington -- mail ballots must be postmarked by tomorrow. If these Senate elections are close, as expected, we may not know who won for weeks. And if these elections are really that close, unleash the recount lawyers.
My best advice is always to check with your local election officials about your voting options.
Of course, if there is a larger turnout on Election Day than I am forecasting, my forecasts will be off. I am always pleased with higher turnout by all eligible voters, so I hope that my forecasts prove to be wrong.
]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/2010-turnout-and-early-vo_b_777064.html
