Skip to main content

Is Voting Transformative? Expanding and Meta-Analyzing the Evidence

Political Behavior (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Voting is the foundational act of democracy. While thousands of studies have treated voting as a dependent variable, comparatively little research has studied voting as an independent variable. Here we flip the causal arrow and explore the effect of exogenous voting shocks on citizens’ broader attitudes and behaviors. To do so, we first use two waves from a uniquely large survey of young people in the United States, pairing this with a regression discontinuity design. We augment these results with a new meta-analysis of all causally-identified studies exploring whether voting is transformative. We find that—despite voting at much higher rates—individuals induced to vote, regardless of the mode used to mobilize, are (precisely) no different from all-else-equal individuals that are not. Our results illuminate the (non)consequences of a vitally important—and widely studied—political behavior and speak to the broader importance of voting as an object of study.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Data Availability

The ACT data is proprietary as it contains sensitive school records. In order to have access to this dataset, we have signed a data use agreement that does not allow us to share the data. Users interested in obtaining access to the data should contact Raeal Moore (raeal.moore@act.org) at the ACT. The code for the ACT analyses and the data and code for the meta-analysis, however, are posted on the Harvard Dataverse: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/JT5GGA. This project was marked as exempt by Duke IRB.

Notes

  1. The exceptions include the studies that have explored whether voting affects democratic representation (e.g., Anzia, 2013; Fowler, 2013; Griffin & Newman, 2005; Leighley & Nagler, 2013).

  2. We borrow this language from Druckman et al. (2011, p. 8), who defines a downstream effect as “subsequent outcomes that are set in motion by the original experimental intervention.”

  3. As a complement to their work, in Online Appendix (see Section VII) we outline the assumptions one needs to make to have our estimates apply to the effect of voting itself on attitudes and behaviors.

  4. Previous work confirms that voting eligibility markedly increases voter turnout (Coppock & Green, 2015; Gerber et al., 2003; Green & Shachar, 2000; Meredith, 2009.

  5. To be precise, the exogenous variation we use from the United States comes from (age-based) cutoffs in one’s eligibility to vote. We sometimes refer to this treatment as a “voting experience” as it is, in fact, a treatment administering the opportunity for individuals to experience voting.

  6. We replicate this pattern in Fig. A1 in Online Appendix.

  7. Previous work on the TVH by Holbein and Rangel (2020) has argued that “short-term fluctuations that ultimately fade away are, in our view, not transformative. If there were to be some long-lasting, durable, persistent effect on civic attitudes and behaviors, we would expect it to last until our downstream measures, like the effects of voting in one election on voting in elections many years later.” In this paper, we explore effects across a range of timelines and find systematic nulls.

  8. In the U.S., people become eligible to voluntary vote in federal elections on their 18th birthday.

  9. See “The ACT Technical Manual”, Fall 2019, V3.

  10. Political interest was measured using standard questions in this literature—how much respondents reported following the presidential election, how much thought they gave to the election, and how often they discussed politics at home, in school, and with friends. In 2018, an additional item was added that asked “Some people don’t pay much attention to political campaigns. How about you?”

  11. We readily admit that the news sources outcome probably has the weakest theoretical connection to voting experiences. We include it for the sake of transparency in our results. Simply omitting it, however, does not change our substantive conclusion—that voting experiences have null effects.

  12. The survey also included questions about individuals’ concerns over specific policy issues. We include the results for these in the Online Appendix. We do so in order to be transparent, but to also reflect the fact that the theoretical connection between voting experiences and these is weaker.

  13. Some may be concerned that focusing on a slightly more educated sample of young people, on average, means that we would have ceiling effects in our outcomes of interest. However, this is not the case. Among our sample, only 81% (roughly equivalent to a B- in letter grade terms) knew the correct answer to our political knowledge question. And our sample falls right near the middle of our political interest scale (scoring a 1.8 on the 1–3 scale). Both numbers are close to averages from nationally representative samples of 18-year-olds (67% for knowledge and 1.7 for interest).

  14. Holbein and Rangel (2020) discuss this issue thoroughly. Suffice it to say here, voting eligibility cutoffs are, in some respects, better situated to estimate the effects of voting on downstream outcomes. In comparison, if we were using a get-out-the-vote intervention that provided a large amount of information to voters as a means of increasing their turnout, we might attribute changes in downstream attitudes and behaviors not to the act of voting, but rather to the intervention itself.

  15. We focus on the reduced-form effects (i.e. the ITT), but provide IV estimates for the effect of voting on our downstream outcomes in the Online Appendix (see Fig. A5).

  16. Astute readers will note that the Bonferroni and Sidak corrections could be seen as overly conservative approaches to test the merits of the TVH because they favor the null hypothesis. Hence, we draw most of our attention to the unadjusted p-values.

  17. For published work, we looked in the prominent outlets that publish political behavior research, such as the American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, Journal of Politics, Quarterly Journal of Political Science, British Journal of Political Science, American Politics Research, Political Research Quarterly, Political Behavior, Political Psychology, Public Opinion Quarterly, Public Choice, Canadian Journal of Political Science, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, International Political Science Journal, European Journal of Political Research, Journal of European Public Policy, Comparative Political Studies, Perspectives on Politics, Electoral Studies, and the Election Law Journal, Political Analysis, the Journal of Political Economy, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic and Statistics, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Journal of Human Resources, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, and Public Administration Review.

  18. In performing our search for studies that met these criteria, we used what we understand to be the state of the art for collecting a corpus of studies for meta-analysis, though we acknowledge that this remains an active and ever-changing area of research (DerSimonian & Laird, 1986; Kalla & Broockman, 2018; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001; Valentine et al., 2010).

  19. Though our search revealed a substantial number of studies that met our criteria, we did have to exclude some (laudable) studies that came close to what we needed, but ultimately lacked certain desired criteria (see Online Appendix). (We discuss the results of excluded studies in the Online Appendix; if we could include these in the meta-analysis, it would not change our conclusions.)

  20. Some may wonder how many studies are needed to do a valid meta-analysis. Valentine et al. (2010, p. 245) show that “the answer is ‘two studies’.”

  21. The outcomes are measured as early as 1–7 days after the election to as long as 24 months after the election (and in-between that range too).

  22. Coppock and Green (2015) show the effect is large in both Midterm or Presidential elections and robust to using validated voter turnout.

  23. This is true also in our instrumental variable analyses provided in Fig. A5 in Online Appendix.

  24. Some may want us to look for heterogeneities by individuals’ vote propensity. This is not possible given that the treatment used is voting eligibility in youth’s first election. However, the fact that our null results hold across strong predictors of voting (e.g. SES) should give readers assurance that we are not masking meaningful heterogeneity.

  25. With these included, there is evidence of heterogeneity across studies (see the I2 and Cochran’s Q reported in Fig. 6 notes. However, virtually all of the heterogeneity in effects is being driven by the Bruce and Lima (2019) study, which is, itself, an outlier in that it gets distinct results from Holbein and Rangel (2020) and De Leon and Rizzi (2014). If we remove these outlier results from the meta-analysis, there is only moderate evidence (see Higgins & Green, 2011) of heterogeneity across studies according to the I2 (66.5%, 51.1%, and 51.1%) and Cochran’s Q (p = 0.01, p = 0.07, p = 0.07). If we remove both, there appears to be little evidence of heterogeneity—reinforcing the notion that these studies are the exception rather than the rule.

  26. Both the I2 and Cochran’s Q (reported in Fig. 6 notes) suggest that there is not an important amount of heterogeneity (see Higgins & Green, 2011) in study effects for political interest.

  27. Examining the TVH in underdeveloped democracies is worthwhile as the effects could (in theory) be positive, negative, or null. The voting experience in these contexts may elicit negative attitudinal and behavioral effects if there is violence around polling locations, for example. Or the effects could be positive if having all citizens collectively experience voting for the first time (as in a new democracy) produces social reinforcements requisite for a transformative effect. Whether or not these effects—or no effects at all—is an important question for future research to consider.

  28. It’s possible, for example, that positive transformative effects may require multiple doses. While one voting experience may not take enough time to produce a transformative effect (Holbein & Rangel, 2020), when one accumulates the time spent in multiple elections it may be sufficient to cross a threshold necessary for transformative effects. This too, however, is an open empirical question.

References

  • Anzia, S. (2013). Timing and turnout: How off-cycle elections favor organized groups. University Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, M., & Holbein, J. B. (2020). The participatory and partisan impacts of mandatory vote-by-mail. Science Advances, 6(35), eabc7685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bechtel, M., Hangartner, D., & Schmid, L. (2015). does compulsory voting increase support for leftist policy? American Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berelson, B., & Steiner, G. (1964). Human behavior: An inventory of scientific findings. Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blais, A. (2006). What affects voter turnout? Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blais, A., Feitosa, F., & Sevi, S. (2019). Was my decision to vote (or abstain) the right one? Party Politics, 25(3), 382–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braconnier, C., Dormagen, J.-Y., & Pons, V. (2017). Voter Registration costs and disenfranchisement: Experimental evidence from France. American Political Science Review, 111(3), 584–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 271–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brannick, M. T., Yang, L.-Q., & Cafri, G. (2011). Comparison of weights for meta-analysis of r and d under realistic conditions. Organizational Research Methods, 14(4), 587–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, R., & Lima, R. C. (2019). Compulsory voting and TV news consumption. Journal of Development Economics, 138, 165–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bueno De Mesquita, E., & Tyson, S. A. (2020). The commensurability problem: Conceptual difficulties in estimating the effect of behavior on behavior. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 375–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calonico, S., Cattaneo, M. D., & Titiunik, R. (2014a). Robust nonparametric confidence intervals for regression-discontinuity designs. Econometrica, 82(6), 2295–2326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calonico, S., Cattaneo, M. D., & Titiunik, R. (2014b). Robust data-driven inference in the regression-discontinuity design. The Stata Journal, 14(4), 909–946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. (2006). Why we vote. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cepaluni, G., & Hidalgo, F. D. (2016). Compulsory voting can increase political inequality: Evidence from brazil. Political Analysis, 24(2), 273–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppock, A., & Green, D. (2015). Is voting habit forming new evidence from experiments and regression discontinuities. American Journal of Political Science, 60(4), 1044–1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Leon, F. L. L., & Rizzi, R. (2014). A test for the rational ignorance hypothesis: Evidence from a natural experiment in Brazil. AEJ: Economic Policy, 6(4), 380–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denny, K., & Doyle, O. (2008). Political interest, cognitive ability and personality: Determinants of voter turnout in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 38(2), 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 7(3), 177–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 6(2), 135–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, J., Green, D., Kuklinski, J., & Lupia, A. (2011). Experimentation in political science. In Cambridge handbook of experimental political science (pp. 3–14). Cambridge University Press.

  • Dudoit, S., Shaffer, J. P., & Boldrick, J. C. (2003). Multiple hypothesis testing in microarray experiments. Statistical Science, 18(1), 71–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feitosa, F., Blais, A., & Dassonneville, R. (2019). Does compulsory voting foster civic duty to vote? Election Law Journal Rules, Politics, and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1089/elj.2018.0539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, S. (1985). Reciprocal effects of participation and political efficacy: A panel analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 891–913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkel, S. (1987). The effects of participation on political efficacy and political support: Evidence from a West German panel. The Journal of Politics, 49(2), 441–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornos, C. A., Power, T. J., & Garand, J. C. (2004). Explaining voter turnout in Latin America, 1980 to 2000. Comparative Political Studies, 37(8), 909–940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, A. (2013). Electoral and policy consequences of voter turnout: Evidence from compulsory voting in Australia. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 8(2), 159–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco, A., Malhotra, N., & Simonovits, G. (2014). Publication bias in the social sciences: Unlocking the file drawer. Science, 345(6203), 1502–1505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco, A., Malhotra, N., & Simonovits, G. (2015). Underreporting in political science survey experiments: Comparing questionnaires to published results. Political Analysis., 23(2), 306–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco, A., Malhotra, N., & Simonovits, G. (2016). Underreporting in psychology experiments: Evidence from a study registry. Social Psychological and Personality Science., 7(1), 8–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, M. N. (1996). Electoral participation. In L. LeDuc, R. Niemi, & P. Norris (Eds.), Comparing democracies: Elections and voting in global perspective (pp. 216–235). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gäbler, S., Potrafke, N., & Roesel, F. (2019). Compulsory voting and political participation: Empirical evidence from Austria. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 81, 103499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galston, W. A. (2004). Civic education and political participation. PS, 37(2), 263–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, A., & Carlin, J. (2014). Beyond power calculations: Assessing type S (sign) and type M (magnitude) errors. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 641–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, A., Green, D., & Shachar, R. (2003). Voting may be habit-forming: Evidence from a randomized field experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 47(3), 540–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, A., & Malhotra, N. (2008a). Do statistical reporting standards affect what is published? Publication bias in two leading political science journals. Quarterly Journal of Political Science., 3(3), 313–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, A. S., & Malhotra, N. (2008b). Publication Incentives and empirical research: Do reporting standards distort the published results? Sociological Methods and Research., 37(1), 3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, A. S., Malhotra, N., Dowling, C. M., & Doherty, D. (2010). Publication bias in two political behavior literatures. American Politics Research., 38(4), 591–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg, B. (1982). The consequences of consent: Elections, citizen control, and popular acquiescence. Addison Wesley Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, D., & Gerber, A. (2008). Get out the vote: How to increase voter turnout. Brookings Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. P., & Gerber, A. S. (2019). Get out the vote: How to increase voter turnout. Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. P., & Shachar, R. (2000). Habit formation and political behaviour: Evidence of consuetude in voter turnout. British Journal of Political Science, 30(4), 561–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, E. S. (1986). Workplace democracy: The political effects of participation. Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J. D., & Newman, B. (2005). Are voters better represented? The Journal of Politics, 67(4), 1206–1227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gronlund, K., & Milner, H. (2006). The determinants of political knowledge in comparative perspective. Scandinavian Political Studies, 29(4), 386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, J., Todd, P., & Van der Klaauw, W. (2001). Identification and estimation of treatment effects with a regression-discontinuity design. Econometrica, 69(1), 201–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, R. (2006). Ignorant democracy. Critical Review, 18(1–3), 179–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartman, E., & Hidalgo, F. D. (2018). An equivalence approach to balance and placebo tests. American Journal of Political Science, 6(2), 1000–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2007). Education and social capital. Eastern Economic Journal, 33(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Vol. 4). Wiley.

  • Hoffman, M., León, G., & Lombardi, M. (2017). Compulsory voting, turnout, and government spending. Journal of Public Economics, 145, 103–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbein, J. (2017). Childhood skill development and adult political participation. American Political Science Review, 111(3), 572–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbein, J. B., & Hillygus, D. S. (2016). Making young voters: The impact of preregistration on youth turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 60(2), 364–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbein, J. B., & Hillygus, D. S. (2020). Making young voters: Converting civic attitudes into civic action. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Holbein, J. B., & Rangel, M. A. (2020). Does voting have upstream and downstream consequences? Regression discontinuity tests of the transformative voting hypothesis. Journal of Politics, 82(4), 1196–1216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jackman, R. W., & Miller, R. A. (1995). Voter turnout in the industrial democracies during the 1980s. Comparative Political Studies, 27(4), 467–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaitman, L. (2013). The causal effect of compulsory voting laws on turnout: Does skill matter? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 92, 79–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakee, K., & Sun, G.-Z. (2006). Is compulsory voting more democratic? Public Choice, 129(1), 61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalla, J. L., & Broockman, D. E. (2018). The minimal persuasive effects of campaign contact in general elections: Evidence from 49 field experiments. American Political Science Review, 112(1), 148–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D., & Card, D. (2008). Regression discontinuity inference with specification error. Journal of Econometrics, 142(2), 655–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, D., & Lemieux, T. (2010). Regression discontinuity designs in economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 48, 281–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leighley, J., & Nagler, J. (2013). Who Votes Now? Demographics Inequality, and Turnout in the United States. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lemieux, T., & Milligan, K. (2008). Incentive effects of social assistance: A regression discontinuity approach. Journal of Econometrics, 142(2), 807–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1997). Unequal participation: Democracy’s unresolved dilemma. American Political Science Review, 91(01), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001a). Practical meta-analysis. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewen, P., Milner, H., & Hicks, B. (2008). Does compulsory voting lead to more informed and engaged citizens? Canadian Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 655–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundell, K. (2012). Civic participation and political trust: The impact of compulsory voting. Representation, 48(2), 221–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luskin, R. C. (1990). Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior, 12(4), 331–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, R. M. (1982). Participatory and workplace democracy: A theoretical development in critique of liberalism. Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meredith, M. (2009). Persistence in political participation. QJPS, 4(3), 187–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nosek, B. A., et al. (2015). Promoting an Open Research Culture. Science, 348(6242), 1422–1425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., & Beretvas, S. N. (2019). Using total sample size weights in meta-analysis of log-odds ratios. The Journal of Experimental Education, 87(3), 400–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Plutzer, E. (2002). Becoming a habitual voter: Inertia, resources, and growth in young adulthood. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 41–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G. B. (1986). American voter turnout in comparative perspective. American Political Science Review, 80(1), 17–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prior, M. (2018). Hooked: How politics captures people’s interest. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riker, W. H., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1968). A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review, 62(1), 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstone, S., & Hansen, J. (1993). Mobilization, participation and democracy in America. Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schochet, P., Cook, T., Deke, J., Imbens, G., Lockwood, J. R., Porter, J., & Smith, J. (2010). Standards for regression discontinuity designs. U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, S. (1981). A multivariate explanation of decreasing turnout in presidential elections, 1960–1976. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 68–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, J. (2015). Compulsory voting and political knowledge: Testing a ‘compelled engagement’ hypothesis. Electoral Studies, 40, 300–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherrod, L., Torney-Purta, J., & Flanagan, C. (2010). Handbook of research on civic engagement in youth. Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shineman, V. (2012). Isolating the effect of compulsory voting laws on political sophistication: exploiting intra-national variation in mandatory voting laws between the Austrian provinces. SSRN 2147871. http://www.papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2147871.

  • Shineman, V. (2018). If you mobilize them, they will become informed: Experimental evidence that information acquisition is endogenous to costs and incentives to participate. British Journal of Poolitical Science, 48(1), 189–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, S. (2015). Beyond turnout: The consequences of compulsory voting. PSA: Political Insight, 5(2), 22–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smets, K., & Van Ham, C. (2013). The embarrassment of riches? A meta-analysis of individual-level research on voter turnout. Electoral Studies, 32(2), 344–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiers, D., Hooghe, M., & Goubin, S. (2020). Are 16-year-olds able to cast a congruent vote? Electoral Studies, 63, 102107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D. (1970). The democratic citizen. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbatsch, R. (2012). The paradox of voting intelligently. Public Choice, 150(3–4), 511–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, J. C., Pigott, T. D., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010). How many studies do you need? A primer on statistical power for meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35(2), 215–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics (Vol. 4). Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Verba, S., & Nie, N. (1972). Participation in America. Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weissberg, R. (1975). Political efficacy & political illusion. The Journal of Politics, 37(2), 469–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who votes? Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeglovits, E., & Zandonella, M. (2013). Political interest of adolescents before and after lowering the voting age: The case of Austria. Journal of Youth Studies, 16(8), 1084–1104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This support was provided by the National Science Foundation (Grant No. #SES-1657821).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA

    John B. Holbein

  2. Duke University, Durham, USA

    Marcos A. Rangel

  3. ACT, Iowa City, USA

    Raeal Moore & Michelle Croft

Authors
  1. John B. Holbein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcos A. Rangel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raeal Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michelle Croft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed equally to this paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John B. Holbein.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

We wish to thank Michael Barber, Alexander Coppock, Charles Crabtree, Thomas Fujiwara, D. Sunshine Hillygus, Christopher Karpowitz, Vladimir Kogan, Stéphane Lavertu, Quin Monson, Matthew Pietryka, Marcos Nakaguma, Lindsay Nielson, Peter Loewen, Andre Blais, and Semra Sevi and participants at the APSA, MPSA, APPAM meetings, Princeton University, Duke University, the University of Virginia, Brigham Young University, University of Toronto and Université de Montréal for their thoughtful comments.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 4810 kb)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 10474 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Holbein, J.B., Rangel, M.A., Moore, R. et al. Is Voting Transformative? Expanding and Meta-Analyzing the Evidence. Polit Behav (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09746-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09746-2

Keywords

  • Transformative voting hypothesis
  • Voter turnout
  • Social capital
  • Civic engagement
  • Regression discontinuity
  • Meta-analysis