Skip to content
Subscribe

Why Gallup May Be Wrong About Voter Turnout in 2014

Published:

On Monday, August 25, Gallup published a report on why a historic-low congressional approval rating could result in an increase in voter turnout in November. According to Gallup, there is a correlation between lower congressional approval and higher voter turnout, looking at midterm elections dating back to 1994.

Gallup currently has congressional approval at 13 percent, which would be the lowest approval rating in a midterm election. In fact, only 19 percent of Americans think most members of Congress should be re-elected. And perhaps for the first time in modern U.S. history, a plurality of Americans don't approve of the job their own representative is doing.

If Gallup's hypothesis about voter turnout is correct, these three things combined should boost voter turnout in the general election by a notable degree.

congressional-approval-voter-turnout

Between 1994 and 2010, voter turnout ranged from 38.1 percent and 41.1 percent. The highest turnout was in 1994 when Republicans took control of both chambers of Congress and congressional approval was at 23 percent. In 2002, when congressional approval was at 50 percent, nationwide turnout during the general election was 39.5 percent.

Looking at it from this perspective, Gallup certainly has numbers to support its hypothesis.

However, interestingly enough, the next highest turnout (40.9 percent) was in 2010 when Republicans once again took control of the House of Representatives (but didn't acquire the Senate). Congressional approval at the time of the election was at 21 percent. The approval rating and voter turnout were both slightly lower than they were in 1994.Between 1998 and 2002, both the congressional approval rating and voter turnout increased. In fact, congressional approval jumped from 44 percent to 50 percent before plummeting again ahead of the 2006 election.

Between 2006 and 2010, voter turnout rose from 40.4 percent to 40.9 percent. That isn't much of an increase and 2010 was when conservative grassroots mobilization was at its peak with the rise of the tea party.

Gallup could just as easily make the case that voter turnout in 2014 could be higher because voter turnout in congressional elections has risen slightly every midterm election since 1998. It is another correlation between the two figures, but that is all Gallup is looking at -- correlations, not causation.

To the polling group's credit, it does acknowledge that voter turnout may not rise depending on voter perception:

"If many voters see little possibility of changing the partisan makeup of government after this fall's elections -- given that a divided government is already in place and almost certainly will be after the elections -- there could be no increase in turnout this year despite Americans' frustration with Congress."

What happens when a majority of Americans no longer feel either major party represents America? What happens when Americans are so disenchanted by a system that has produced hyperpartisanship, they don't believe their vote matters anymore? What happens when after several election cycles of thinking they can change government for the better, voters realize that the system is rigged to maintain the status quo?Instead of examining possible correlations, we need to start asking the right questions to determine the cause of low turnout. Why, in two decades, have we not seen a voter turnout in a midterm election higher than 41.1 percent?

Gallup argues that when voters feel more empowered to change the makeup of government, they are more likely to vote in greater numbers. I believe this to be true as there is evidence to support it. In 2008, voter turnout broke records in states across the country because the masses were drawn in by the promise of "hope and change."

The sad truth, however, is that a majority of Americans -- even in the midterm elections with the highest turnouts -- don't seem to feel empowered by the current election system. Instead of looking at the 40.9 percent of the electorate who did vote in 2010, why don't we take a closer look at the 59.1 percent who didn't.

Photo Credit: Tanarch / shutterstock.com

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Why Gallup May Be Wrong About Voter Turnout in 2014

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us