Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Residential Mobility and Turnout: The Relevance of Social Costs, Timing and Education

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Residential mobility has substantial negative effects on voter turnout. However, existing studies have been unable to disentangle whether this is due to social costs, informational costs or convenience costs that are related to re-registration. This article analyzes the relevance of the different costs by studying the effect of moving and reassignment to a new polling station in an automatic registration context and using a register-based panel dataset with validated turnout for 2.1 million citizens. The negative effect of moving on turnout does not differ substantially depending on the distance moved from the old neighborhood and it does not matter if citizens change municipality. Thus, the disruption of social ties is the main explanation for the negative effect of moving on turnout. Furthermore, the timing of residential mobility is important as the effect on turnout declines quickly after settling down. This illustrates that large events in citizens’ everyday life close to Election Day can distract them from going to the polling station. Finally, residential mobility mostly affects the turnout of less educated citizens. Consequentially, residential mobility increases inequalities in voter participation, which can be viewed as a democratic problem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Citizens who move to a new municipality within nine days before the election need to have registered their new address with the authorities to be able to vote in their new municipality. It is normal practice to register a new address ahead of changing residence, as it is the basis for a large number of public service provisions. Changing one’s address is done online and takes only a few minutes. In case citizens miss this date, they will be registered to vote in their old municipality.

  2. Voters can cast an early vote up to 3 months ahead of the elections by going to a pre-election polling place (e.g. a library). Citizens’ cannot use mail-in voting. In the 2013-elections, 5.3 % of the votes were cast as early votes (Bhatti et al. 2014b). The early voters are included in the analysis and it does not make any substantial difference if the analysis is conducted without these voters.

  3. In Denmark, voting lists are normally destroyed shortly after the election. However, in 2009 and 2013, all municipalities were allowed and encouraged to send the lists in digital form to a team of researchers. In 2009, 44 municipalities delivered the voter files for almost all of their citizens, and all municipalities delivered the information in 2013 (for a more detailed description, see Bhatti and Hansen 2010; Bhatti et al. 2014b).

  4. The data are stored on servers at Statistics Denmark. Due to security and privacy reasons, the data cannot be made available on the Internet. Researchers interested in replicating the findings are welcome to visit and work under supervision. Also, a number of other researchers from Danish research institutions have access to the data and can be helpful if questions arise. Please ask the author for references.

  5. One noteworthy exception is Squire et al. (1987), in which a part of the analysis is based on the Current Population Survey (CPS), a dataset containing residential mobility information at a monthly level for app. 115,000 citizens. Unfortunately, the same dataset contains a limited number of politically relevant variables, and the authors do not have access to validated turnout for the sample. Knack and White (2000) uses CPS data as well but does not present results at a more detailed level than whether citizens have changed residence within a year before the election.

  6. One might object that moving entails a number of practical tasks that take away focus from the election, which the reassigned citizens do not have to cope with. While this point most likely is correct and is in line with the idea of a distraction effect, it is not really on target regarding this part of the analysis, as the timing of residential change is included as a control variable (cf. Table 1 in Appendix). The question of timing and the potential distraction effect is explored under the next heading.

  7. Breaking the moving variable into the three residential groups that were used in the previous part of the analysis results in the same pattern as presented in Fig. 4 (as shown in the Online Resource Figure A.1).

References

  • Aldrich, J. H., Montgomery, J. M., & Wood, W. (2011). Turnout as a habit. Political Behavior, 33(4), 535–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansolabehere, S., Hersh, E., & Shepsle, K. (2012). Movers, stayers, and registration: Why age is correlated with registration in the U.S. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 7(4), 333–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatti, Y. (2012). Distance and voting: Evidence from Danish municipalities. Scandinavian Political Studies, 35(2), 141–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatti, Y., & Hansen, K. M. (2010). Valgdeltagelsen ved kommunalvalget 17. november 2009. Beskrivende analyser af valgdeltagelsen baseret på registerdata. Arbejdspapir Københavns Universitet, Institut for Statskundskab, 2010(3).

  • Bhatti, Y. & Hansen, K. M. 2013. The effect of co-residence on turnout. MPSA Annual Conference 2013. Chicago.

  • Bhatti, Y., Hansen, K. M., & Wass, H. (2012). The relationship between age and turnout: A roller-coaster ride. Electoral Studies, 31(3), 588–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhatti, Y., Dahlgaard, J. O., Hansen, J. H., & Hansen, K. M. (2014a). Kan man øge valgdeltagelsen? Analyse af mobiliseringstiltag ved kommunalvalget den 19. november 2013 København: Institut for Statskundskab, Københavns Universitet.

  • Bhatti, Y., Dahlgaard, J. O., Hansen, J. H., & Hansen, K. M. (2014b). Hvem stemte og hvem blev hjemme? Valgdeltagelsen ved kommunalvalget 19. november 2013. Beskrivende analyser af valgdeltagelsen baseret på registerdata. København: Institut for Statskundskab, Københavns Universitet

  • Bhatti, Y., Dahlgaard, J. O., Hansen, J. H., & Hansen, K. M. (2015). How voter mobilization from short text messages travels within households and families: Evidence from two nationwide field experiments. Midwest Political Science Association’s Annual Meeting 2015. Chicago.

  • Blais, A. (2000). To vote or not to vote?: The merits and limits of rational choice theory. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blais, A., Young, R., & Lapp, M. (2000). The calculus of voting: An empirical test. European Journal of Political Research, 37(2), 181–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, J. (2004). Does moving disrupt campaign activity? Political Psychology, 25(4), 525–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, H., & Mcnulty, J. (2011). Turning out to vote: The costs of finding and getting to the polling place. American Political Science Review, 105(1), 115–134.

    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(02), 271–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppock, A., & Green, D. P. (2015). Is voting habit forming? New evidence from experiments and regression discontinuities. American Journal of Political Science. doi:10.1111/ajps.12210.

  • Cutts, D., Fieldhouse, E., & John, P. (2009). Is voting habit forming? The longitudinal impact of a GOTV campaign in the UK. Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties, 19(3), 251–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    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(02), 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowding, K., John, P., & Rubenson, D. (2012). Geographic mobility, social connections and voter turnout. Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties, 22(2), 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyck, J. J., & Gimpel, J. G. (2005). Distance, turnout, and the convenience of voting. Social Science Quarterly, 86(3), 531–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elklit, J., Møller, B., Svensson, P., & Togeby, L. (2005). Gensyn med sofavælgerne. Valgdeltagelse i Danmark, Århus: Århus Universitetsforlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenster, M. J. (1994). The impact of allowing day of registration voting on turnout in US elections from 1960 to 1992 a research note. American Politics Research, 22(1), 74–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fieldhouse, E., & Cutts, D. (2012). The companion effect: household and local context and the turnout of young people. The Journal of Politics, 74(3), 856–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, M. N. (2004). Voter turnout and the dynamics of electoral competition in established democracies since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Larimer, C. W. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 33–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gronke, P., Galanes-Rosenbaum, E., Miller, P. A., & Toffey, D. (2008). Convenience voting. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 437–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, D., & Mckee, S. C. (2009). The participatory effects of redistricting. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 1006–1023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Highton, B. (1997). Easy registration and voter turnout. The Journal of Politics, 59(02), 565–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Highton, B. (2000). Residential mobility, community mobility, and electoral participation. Political Behavior, 22(2), 109–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Highton, B. (2009). Revisiting the relationship between educational attainment and political sophistication. The Journal of Politics, 71(04), 1564–1576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Highton, B., & Wolfinger, R. E. (2001). The first seven years of the political life cycle. American Journal of Political Science, 45(1), 202–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, W. R., Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2014). Widowhood effects in voter participation. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Idea 2015. Voter Turnout Database. I: Idea, I. (ed.). Stockholm: The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA).

  • Keele, L., & Kelly, N. J. (2006). Dynamic models for dynamic theories: The ins and outs of lagged dependent variables. Political Analysis, 14(2), 186–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klofstad, C. A. (2007). Talk leads to recruitment: How discussions about politics and current events increase civic participation. Political Research Quarterly, 60(2), 180–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knack, S., & White, J. (2000). Election-day registration and turnout inequality. Political Behavior, 22(1), 29–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, R. E. (1959). Political life: How and why do people get involved in politics. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leighley, J. E., & Nagler, J. (2013). Who votes now?: Demographics, issues, inequality, and turnout in the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, A. (1997). Unequal participation: Democracy’s unresolved dilemma. American Political Science Review, 19, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, A. D. (1947). The modern democratic state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, P. S. (2003). Voting’s rewards: Voter turnout, attentive publics, and congressional allocation of federal money. American Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 110–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcnulty, J. E., Dowling, C. M., & Ariotti, M. H. (2009). Driving saints to sin: How increasing the difficulty of voting dissuades even the most motivated voters. Political Analysis, 17(4), 435–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, D. W. (2015). Do voter registration drives increase participation? For whom and when? The Journal of Politics, 77(1), 88–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panagopoulos, C. (2013). Extrinsic rewards, intrinsic motivation and voting. The Journal of Politics, 75(01), 266–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, M. (2014). Social network position mediates the effect of education on active political party membership. Party Politics, 20(5), 724–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plutzer, E. (2002). Becoming a habitual voter: Inertia, resources, and growth in young adulthood. American Political Science Review, 96(01), 41–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Touchstone.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rhine, S. L. (1995). Registration reform and turnout change in the American states. American Politics Research, 23(4), 409–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riker, W. H., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1968). A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review, 62(01), 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstone, S., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstone, S. J., & Wolfinger, R. E. (1978). The effect of registration laws on voter turnout. American Political Science Review, 72(01), 22–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, B. (2012). The social citizen: Peer networks and political behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  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 

  • Squire, P., Wolfinger, R. E., & Glass, D. P. (1987). Residential mobility and voter turnout. American Political Science Review, 81(01), 45–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank the editor, the anonymous reviewers and workshop participants at the Centre for Voting and Parties at the University of Copenhagen in October 2014 and at the Midwest Political Science Association’s Annual Meeting 2015 for their useful comments. I have furthermore received valuable comments from Barry Burden, Benjamin Highton, Hanna Wass, Jørgen Elklit, Kasper Møller Hansen and Yosef Bhatti. The project has received funding from the Danish Council for Independent Research (Grant No. 12-124983).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1353, Copenhagen K, Denmark

    Jonas Hedegaard Hansen

Authors
  1. Jonas Hedegaard Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonas Hedegaard Hansen.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 161 kb)

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 1, 2 and 3.

Table 2 Logistic regressions using residential change, timing and polling station assignment to predict turnout (full model behind Fig. 3)
Full size table
Table 3 Logistic regression and predicted probabilities of voting including interaction term between residential status and education (full model behind Fig. 4)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hansen, J.H. Residential Mobility and Turnout: The Relevance of Social Costs, Timing and Education. Polit Behav 38, 769–791 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9333-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9333-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation