Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Procedural Information Costs on Voting: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Chile

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

Abstract

This paper uses a natural experiment to identify the effect of a procedural information cost on the electoral registration of young first-time voters. We exploit the fact that information about when the minimum age eligibility requirement is due, either at registration or election-day, is only meaningful for those turning 18 after registration closing day. Using a national dataset on Chilean registration over four elections, we provide evidence of a sharp discontinuity in the registration rate of those youngsters turning 18 at closing date. The effect is both sizable and robust, persists over time, and is similar across income groups.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The relation between political information and turnout has received broad theoretical (Matsusaka 1995; Feddersen and Pesendorfer 1996; Ghirardato and Katz 2006) and empirical, attention (Thomas and Poole 1987; Lassen 2005; Larcinese 2007; Morton et al. 2015).

  2. Wolfinger and Rosenstone (1980). In 37 out of 90 countries other than the US, registration is self-initiated (http://aceproject.org).

  3. For instance, the correlation across municipalities between the number of registrations and votes, for the 2009 Presidential election, was 99%.

  4. “Data” Section informs about the sources for data on the number of registrations and births.

  5. See Rosenstone and Wolfinger (1978), Highton (2004), and Burden and Neiheisel (2013).

  6. This principle underlies the “motor voter” programs in the US, which reduce the impact of administrative costs by bundling two different activities.

  7. From the Arizona voter guide in http://www.azvoterguide.com/faqs/. We found similar FAQ in registration websites of other ten states in the US, as well as registration websites in the UK, South Africa and Hong Kong.

  8. This unusual combination is unique in the world: most countries have either automatic registration with voluntary voting (e.g., Germany, Britain), both voluntary registration and voluntary voting (the United States), or automatic registration and compulsory voting (Belgium).

  9. As a matter of fact, many individuals moved to other counties without updating their registration addresses. A survey in 2013 showed that 11% of the population was “misregistered”; that is, registered in a county other than the one they lived in (Centro de Estudios Públicos, CEP, survey N 69 2013).

  10. We found evidence of this in the discussion of the 17,824 Electoral Law in 1970.

  11. In the next section, narrow bandwidths are selected to implement local estimations.

  12. The polynomial order is 4.

  13. All results are robust to the use of other bandwidths, as Imbens and Kalyanaraman (2012).

  14. We combine data of several elections in order to have more observations in each of the days close to the discontinuity.

  15. As in Table 2, we notice that the ratio between R0 and the constant is lower for presidential elections, when compared to the coefficients of municipal ones.

  16. The values of the coefficient for T = 0 and T = 6 are, in absolute values, 132.25 and 47.35, respectively.

  17. See Mitchell and Wlezien (1995); Timpone (1998); Knack and White (2000); Nickerson (2015).

  18. A related variable is “occupation” at the time of registration, but almost all young first-time voters were “students” when their registration was performed.

  19. We use the latest CASEN because socioeconomic variables change very little over time. We tried different survey years, obtaining similar results.

  20. See Corvalan and Cox 2013; Contreras et al. 2016.

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braconnier, C., Dormagen, J. Y., & Pons, V. (2014). Voter registration costs and disenfranchisement: Experimental evidence from France. Mimeo.

  • Brady, H. E., & McNulty, J. E. (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 

  • Burden, B. C., & Neiheisel, J. R. (2013). Election administration and the pure effect of voter registration on turnout. Political Research Quarterly, 66(1), 77–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contreras, G., Joignant, A., & Morales, M. (2016). The return of censitary suffrage? The effects of automatic voter registration and voluntary voting in Chile. Democratization, 23(3), 520–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppock, A. & Green, D. P. (2015). Is voting habit forming? New evidence suggests that habit-formation varies by election type. American Journal of Political Science, In press.

  • Corvalan, A., & Cox, P. (2013). Class biased electoral participation: The youth vote in Chile. Latin American Politics and Society, 55(3), 47–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feddersen, T. J., & Pesendorfer, W. (1996). The Swing voter’s curse. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 408–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, A., & Imbens, G. (2014). Why high-order polynomials should not be used in regression discontinuity designs. w20405. National Bureau of Economic Research.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghirardato, P., & Katz, J. (2006). Indecision theory: Weight of evidence and voting behavior. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 8(3), 379–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Highton, B. (2004). Voter registration and turnout in the United States. Perspectives on Politics, 2(3), 564–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, D. J. (2011). Translating into votes: The electoral impacts of Spanish-language ballots. American Journal of Political Science, 55(4), 814–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imbens, G. W., & Kalyanaraman, K. (2012). Optimal bandwidth choice for the regression discontinuity estimator. Review of Economic Studies, 79, 933–959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imbens, G. W., & Lemieux, T. (2008). Regression discontinuity designs: A guide to practice. Journal of Econometrics, 142(2), 615–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larcinese, V. (2007). Does political knowledge increase turnout? Evidence from the 1997 British General Election. Public Choice, 131(3–4), 387–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassen, D. D. (2005). The effect of information on voter turnout: Evidence from a natural experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 49(1), 103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leon, G. (2015). Turnout, political preferences and information: Experimental evidence from Peru. BREAD Working Paper No. 376.

  • Matsusaka, J. (1995). Explaining voter turnout patterns: An information theory. Public Choice, 84, 91–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meredith, M. (2009). Persistence in political participation. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 4(3), 187–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, G. E., & Wlezien, C. (1995). The impact of legal constraints on voter registration, turnout, and the composition of the American electorate. Political Behavior, 17(2), 179–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton, R., Muller, B., Page, D., & Torgler, B. (2015). Exit polls, turnout, and bandwagon voting: Evidence from a natural experiment. European Economic Review, 77(1), 65–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstone, S. J., & Wolfinger, R. E. (1978). The effect of registration laws on voter turnout. American Political Science Review, 72(1), 22–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skovron, C., & Titiunik, R. (2015). A practical guide to regression discontinuity designs in political science. working paper.

  • Thomas, P., & Poole, K. T. (1987). The relationship between information, ideology, and voting behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 31(3), 511–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timpone, R. J. (1998). Structure, behavior, and voter turnout in the United States. American Political Science Review, 119, 145–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfinger, R. E., Highton, B., & Mullin, M. (2005). How post-registration laws affect the turnout of citizens registered to vote. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 5(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Loreto Cox, Eduardo Engel and Alfredo Joignant for their helpful comments and suggestions. We thank Pedro Cayul for outstanding research assistance. Corvalan acknowledges financial support from the Millennium Institute for Research in Market Imperfections and Public Policy, ICM IS130002, Chile. We thank Florencia Torche for sharing birth rates data with us.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Economic Department, Universidad Diego Portales, Santa Clara 797, Huechuraba, Santiago, Chile

    Alejandro Corvalan

  2. Banco Central de Chile, Santiago, Chile

    Paulo Cox

Authors
  1. Alejandro Corvalan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paulo Cox
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alejandro Corvalan.

Additional information

Replication data may be accessed at Political Behavior Dataverse: https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/HRUGSI.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Corvalan, A., Cox, P. The Impact of Procedural Information Costs on Voting: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in Chile. Polit Behav 40, 3–19 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-017-9389-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-017-9389-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation