Voting in the 1992 General Election

Transcription

1 California Opinion Index A summary analysis of Voting in the 1992 General Election January 1993 Findings in Brief A total of 11,374,184 Californians voted in the 1992 Presidential election, representing a statewide turnout rate of 54.5% of all citizens eligible to vote, up just one percentage point from 53.5% in the 1988 Presidential election. In contrast to the last Presidential election, those voting in 1992 included a somewhat larger proportion of independents, political moderates, baby boomers age 30-49, Hispanics, Catholics, and upscale residents with household incomes of $60,000 or more. Voting in somewhat smaller proportions were Republicans, conservatives, residents of Los Angeles County and persons with annual household incomes of less than $20,000. Nearly 9.5 million Californians who were eligible to vote last November did not cast a ballot, either because they were not registered or did not turn out to vote. Compared to voters, higher proportions of nonvoters are found among these segments: Los Angeles County residents, those not identifying with either the Democratic or Republican parties, younger citizens under the age of 30, members of racial or ethnic minorities, those with annual household incomes of less than $40,000, non-college graduates, and those with no stated religious affiliation. While 45% of the state s nearly 31 million residents are Hispanic, Asian, black or a member of another racial minority, just 21% of all votes in the November 1992 election were cast by minority voters. Conversely, whereas 55% of all California residents are white Anglos, this group accounted for 79% of the total votes cast last November. The number of absentee ballots cast in California reached a record 1,950,179, comprising 17.1% of the total statewide vote. There were significant differences between the vote choices of those who voted at their local precincts and those who voted by mail. For example, while Democrat Bill Clinton held a 15 percentage point advantage over Republican George Bush among precinct voters in the Presidential race, absentee voters were about evenly divided. In addition, whereas Democrat Barbara Boxer led Republican Bruce Herschensohn by 7 percentage points among precinct voters in the full-term U.S. Senate race, Herschensohn was preferred by 8 percentage points among absentee voters. Compared to precinct voters, absentee voters were more likely to be older, to identify with the Republican Party and to consider themselves conservative in politics. In addition, larger proportions of voters in San Diego County and the Central Coast cast absentee ballots, whereas Los Angeles County included proportionately fewer absentee voters. Voting participation increased slightly in 1992 The long term decline in voting participation in California Presidential elections stabilized in 1992, with the turnout rate increasing slightly from A total of 11,374,184 votes were cast in California in the 1992 general election. When compared to the estimated 20,863,687 million citizen-eligible adults living in the state, the 1992 turnout rate was 54.5%, up one percentage point from 53.5% in the 1988 Presidential election. The table below compares the citizen participation rates in all previous California Presidential elections since It shows that voting participation increased significantly between 1924 and 1940, reflecting the steady increase in voting by women following the passage of the 19th Amendment. Participation peaked in 1940 at 78.3% and has trended downward ever since. The size of the citizen-eligible voting population was increased in 1972 when the minimum voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. This development has had the effect of depressing voting participation rates in subsequent years because the proportion of year old citizens who vote tends to be lower than the rest of the electorate. The one percentage point rise in the 1992 participation rate over 1988 may indicate that the long term decline in voting has bottomed out. However, a similar uptick in 1984 turned out to be short-lived, as participation declined in the following election. Table 1 Proportion of Citizen-Eligibles Participating in California Presidential Elections ( ) 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% Copyright 1993, Volume 1 by The Field Institute. This report may not be photocopied or reproduced without written permission. (ISSN )

2 Changes in the shape of the California vote Table 2 summarizes the demographic and regional characteristics of the California vote in the 1992 Presidential election compared to turnout in the 1988 Presidential election. This comparison reveals the following: Los Angeles County s share of the total statewide vote declined 1.9 percentage points from 1988 from 26.8% to 24.9%. On the other hand, voters in the Desert Counties of Riverside, San Bernardino and Imperial along with voters in the Central Valley each increased their share of the statewide vote by almost a full percentage point in There were fewer self-identified Republicans and more political independents in 1992 than in The proportion of voters identifying with the Republican Party (37%) declined 4 percentage points from The proportion of those who identify themselves as political independents (22%) rose by 5 percentage points, even though many are actually registered with one of the political parties. The proportion of self-described Democrats in 1992 (41%) remained about the same as in The 1992 California turnout was less conservative and more moderate in political ideology. The proportion of voters last November describing themselves as conservative in politics (29%) declined 3 points from On the other hand, half of the state s voters (49%) considered themselves moderates, up 2 points from The proportion of liberals voting (22%) remained about the same. Baby boomers age comprised a larger share of voters in 1992 than Almost half of all California voters (48%) in 1992 were in age, up 4 percentage points from Women comprised 53% of all California voters in 1992, up 2 percentage points from Voters of Hispanic descent constituted 10% of all California voters in 1992, up 3 percentage points from On the other hand, the proportions of white Anglos (79%) and blacks (6%) each declined 2 points in Three in ten California voters in 1992 (31%) reported annual household incomes of $60,000 or more, up 6 points from On the other hand, voters reporting incomes of less than $20,000 (19%) declined by 4 percentage points. Catholics increased their share of the total California vote in 1992 to 28%, up 3 points from Meanwhile, the proportion of voters with no religious preference (13%) declined by 3 points in Table 2 Regional and Demographic Characteristics of the California Electorate 1992 vs Change vote vote (in % pts) Region Los Angeles County 24.9% 26.8% 1.9% San Francisco Bay Area Central Valley San Diego County Orange County Desert Counties Central Coast North Coast/Sierras Party identification Democrat 41% 42% 1 Republican Independent Political ideology Conservative 29% 32% 3 Moderate Liberal Age % 20% or older Gender Male 47% 49% 2 Female Ethnicity White (Anglo) 79% 81% 2 Hispanic Black Asian 4 4 Other 1 * +1 Annual household income Under $20,000 19% 23% 4 $20,000 $39, $40,000 $59, $60,000 or more Education High school grad or less 26% 25% +1 Some college/trade school College graduate Post graduate work Religion Protestant 45% 45% Catholic Jewish 5 5 Other 9 9 No preference (Regional vote comes from the Secretary of State s official Statement of Vote. All other demographic characteristics are derived from polls conducted by Voter Research and Surveys and The Field Poll.) * less than 1/2 of 1% 2

3 Characteristics of non-voters According to the California Secretary of State, 20,863,687 Californians were eligible to vote in the November 1992 elections. Yet, just 54.5% of those eligible cast ballots, while 45.5% did not. This means that nearly 9.5 million Californians who were eligible to participate did not, either because they were not registered to vote or, if they were registered, chose not to vote in this election. Table 3 compares the regional and demographic characteristics of non-voters to those of voters. This comparison reveals the following: Three in ten eligible non-voters (30%) live in Los Angeles County, but just 25% of the vote came from L.A. County. More non-voters than voters do not identify with either of the two major political parties. One-third of all eligible non-voters (33%) consider themselves independent in politics. This compares to just 22% of the state s voters in 1992 who called themselves independent in politics (even though many register with one of the political parties). Almost half (46%) of non-voters term themselves moderates, about three in ten conservative and less than one in four liberal. This distribution is similar to the ideological leanings of voters in the last election. There is a gender gap between California s voters and nonvoters. A majority of the state s non-voters are men (52%). Among voters in November, 53% were women. Non-voters tend to be younger than voters. One-third (33%) of the state s non-voters are age On the other hand, just 19% of voters in this age group. Non-voters are much more likely than voters to include ethnic minorities. Greater than one-third of eligible nonvoters (37%) are members of racial or ethnic minorities, compared to just 21% among voters. Non-voters are more likely to have lower incomes than voters. Seven in ten eligible non-voters (70%) have annual household incomes of less than $40,000. Among 1992 voters 45% had household incomes in this range. Non-voters have less formal education than voters. Greater than four in ten (42%) eligible non-voters have no more than a high school education, while just 26% of voters have this level of education. Non-voters are more likely than voters to have no formal religious ties. Greater than one in four non-voters (28%) have no religious preference, while among 1992 voters just 13% were unaffiliated with an organized religion. 3 Table 3 Characteristics of California Voters and Eligible Non-Voters in 1992 Voters in 1992 Eligible General Election non-voters Region Los Angeles County 25% 30% San Francisco Bay Area Central Valley San Diego County 9 9 Orange County 9 8 Desert Counties 8 9 Central Coast 7 5 North Coast / Sierras 5 3 Party identification Democrat 41% 35% Republican Independent Political ideology Conservative 29% 30% Moderate Liberal Gender Male 47% 52% Female Age % 33% or older Ethnicity White (Anglo) 79% 63% Hispanic Black 6 8 Asian 4 6 Other 1 1 Annual Household Income Under $20,000 19% 26% $20,000 $39, $40,000 $59, $60,000 or more Education High school grad. or less 26% 42% Some college / trade school College graduate 25 9 Post graduate work 17 8 Religion Protestant 45% 38% Catholic Jewish 5 1 Other 9 7 No preference (Characteristics of voters in the 1992 General Election come from survey estimates of VRS and The Field Poll. The profiles of eligible non-voters are Field Poll estimates and were derived by factoring out characteristics of the population of voters from the population of all citizen-eligible adults for each demographic subgroup.)

4 Wide ethnic and racial differences between California s overall population and its voters Of the state s roughly 31 million residents, approximately 17 million or 55% are white (Anglos). The approximate 14 million members of racial or ethnic minorities account for 45%, up from 33% as recently as While white Anglos now comprise 55% of all residents, they accounted for nearly four in five (79%) of the state s voters in the November 1992 election. Conversely, whereas racial and ethnic minorities now represent about 45% of the state s population, in the November 1992 elections they comprised just 21% of the vote. Some of the reasons for this disparity are: California s racial and ethnic minority population is generally much younger than their white Anglo counterparts. Because of this, racial/ethnic minorities account for a smaller share of the state s 23 million adults (41%) than they do of the state s total population (45%). Disproportionately more of the state s Hispanic or Asian adults are not citizens and are therefore not eligible to vote. Among the state s citizen-eligible population The Field Poll estimates that just 28% are racial/ethnic minorities. Hispanic and Asian citizens are also less likely than white Anglos and blacks to be registered to vote. Thus, their share of all registered voters in the state is less (24%). Among Californians registered to vote, disproportionately fewer minorities actually turned out to vote in the 1992 Presidential election than did their white Anglo counterparts. Because of this lower interest in voting, racial/ethnic minorities accounted for just 21% of all voters. Table 4 California Population and Voting Participation by Ethnicity Citizen- Voters Total Adult Eligible Regist. in 1992 pop. pop. Adults Voters Election White (Anglo) 55% 59% 72% 76% 79% Hispanic Asian Black Other (Total and adult population estimates come from the California Dep t. of Finance for January 1, All other percentages are 1992 Field Poll estimates.) Voting by mail continues to grow in popularity For more than a decade there has been a continuing growth in both the percentage and absolute number of California voters who choose to vote by mail using an absentee ballot. In the 1992 Presidential election, a record 1,950,179 absentee votes were cast in California, comprising 17.1% of the total statewide vote. A review of recent Presidential elections in California illustrates the increasing popularity of voting by mail. Between 1960 and 1976 absentee voting varied only slightly ranging from 3.9% to 4.7% of all votes cast. But, as the table below shows, voting by mail has increased in each successive Presidential election in California since 1976 starting from 4.5% in 1976, increasing to 6.3% in 1980, 9.3% in 1984, 14.1% in 1988 and 17.1% in Table 5 Precinct and Absentee Voting in Recent California Presidential Elections Precinct Voters Absentee Voters ,424,005 (82.9%) 1,950,179 (17.1%) ,759,686 (85.9%) 1,434,853 (14.1%) ,882,801 (90.7%) 913,574 (9.3%) ,226,382 (93.7%) 549,077 (6.3%) ,770,508 (95.5%) 366,694 (4.5%) Source: California Secretary of State Varied reasons for growth in absentee voting Some of the reasons for the growing popularity of absentee voting in California are: A change in state election law in 1977 allows any registered voter the right to vote by mail using an absentee ballot. Previously, absentee voting was restricted only to those who were unable to vote at their precinct due to physical disabilities, illness or travel away from home. Voting by mail extends the window of voting from just one day to a 3-4 week period, permitting the electorate a greater opportunity to participate. Voting by mail provides a way to cope with longer, more complex ballots which have become increasingly common in California. Absentee voting enables voters to avoid precinct-related inconveniences such as bad weather, long lines or fears of going into a strange place or neighborhood to vote. 4

5 State and local political groups parties, candidates, campaign organizations and special interests now encourage and organize supporters to vote by mail as part of their get out the vote effort. There is evidence that suggests that once a person votes by mail, he or she is more likely to use this form of voting again in subsequent elections. Characteristics of precinct and absentee voters tracked With voting by mail becoming such a large proportion of the total vote, it is now possible through polls and surveys (along with official election returns) to more accurately compare the differences in candidate preferences and the demographic makeup between precinct and absentee voters. In the November 1992 elections, The Field Poll teamed with Voter Research and Surveys (VRS), which conducts exit polls for the leading television networks, to retrieve reliable estimates of both the precinct and absentee voter components of the California vote. Estimates of the precinct vote were retrieved from VRS s exit poll of 2,268 California voters leaving their voting precincts on Election Day. Estimates of the absentee vote were obtained through a separate preelection telephone survey conducted by The Field Poll. The survey was conducted October among 404 voters who had either already voted by absentee ballot or said they intended to vote absentee. The vote choices and demographic information obtained from each data source were then combined and provide a composite view of all those who voted. Voting differences between precinct and absentee voters Table 6 compares how precinct and absentee voters voted in California s November 1992 elections on the six statewide contests covered by both the VRS exit poll of precinct voters and The Field Poll s survey of absentee voters. It shows the following: The Democratic Presidential ticket of Bill Clinton and Al Gore was preferred over the Republican ticket of George Bush and Dan Quayle by a 15 percentage point margin among precinct voters, but by just 3 percentage points among absentee voters. While Democrat Barbara Boxer defeated Republican Bruce Herschensohn by 5 points overall in the election for California s full term U.S. Senate seat, precinct and absentee voters held different preferences. Among precinct voters Boxer won by 7 points, 49% to 42%, while among absentee voters Herschensohn was preferred by 8 points, 51% to 43%. Democrat Dianne Feinstein defeated Republican John Seymour in California s short term U.S. Senate race by a 54% to 38% margin among all voters. Feinstein s victory margin among precinct voters was 18 points, 55% to 37%, whereas among absentee voters it was a narrower 5 percentage points, 50% to 45%. Proposition 161, the Physician-Assisted Death initiative, was defeated by a 54% to 46% statewide. Precinct voters rejected the initiative 55% to 45%, while absentee voters favored it slightly, 51% to 49%. Proposition 164, the Congressional Term Limits initiative, passed by an overwhelming 64% to 36% margin statewide. Both precinct and absentee voters were highly supportive. Proposition 165, the Welfare/Budget Process initiative, was defeated 53% to 47% overall. Precinct voters rejected Prop. 165 by 10 points, 55% to 45%. On the other hand, absentee voters favored the initiative by 2 points, 51% to 49%. Table 6 Precinct and Absentee Vote Preferences in the 1992 General Election Total Precinct Absentee vote voters voters President Clinton-Gore 46% 47% 41% Bush-Quayle Perot-Stockdale U.S. Senate (full term) Boxer 48% 49% 43% Herschensohn Other U.S. Senate (short term) Feinstein 54% 55% 50% Seymour Other Proposition 161 (Physician-Assisted Death) Yes 46% 45% 51% No Proposition 164 (Congressional Term Limits) Yes 64% 63% 66% No Proposition 165 (Welfare/Budget Process) Yes 47% 45% 51% No (Total vote percentages are from the California Secretary of State s official Statement of Vote. Precinct vote estimates come from the VRS exit poll in California, while absentee vote estimates are from a pre-election survey of absentee voters conducted by The Field Poll.) 5

6 Precinct and absentee voters differ demographically Comparing the results from the VRS exit poll of California precinct voters to The Field Poll s survey of absentee voters reveals a number of differences. For example, About one in three absentee voters (32%) were age 60 or older, a much larger proportion than was found among precinct voters (18%). Half of all precinct voters (50%) were baby boomers age 30-49, while fewer (40%) absentee voters were in this age range. Greater than four in ten absentee voters (41%) identified with the Republican Party, 35% described themselves as Democrats and 24% were self-described independents. By contrast, precinct voters were more apt to be Democrats, with 42% identifying with the Democratic Party, 36% with the GOP and 22% as independents. Absentee voters were more likely than precinct voters to consider themselves conservative in politics. On the other hand, precinct voters included proportionately more moderate and liberal voters. Absentee voters included a somewhat larger proportion of persons with annual household incomes of $20,000-$39,999. Precinct voters, on the other hand, included proportionately more voters with annual household incomes of $40,000-$59,999. There were some significant regional differences in the composition of the state s precinct and absentee vote. Whereas Los Angeles County comprised more than onequarter (25.9%) of the precinct vote in the November 3 election, its share of the absentee vote was less (19.9%). By contrast, San Diego County represented 12.5% of the state s absentee vote, but just 8.0% of the precinct vote. There were no significant differences between absentee voters and precinct voters by sex or ethnicity. About The Field Institute The Field Institute is a non-partisan, not-for-profit research organization devoted to the study of public opinion on a variety of social, economic and political issues. The Institute s revenues come from a variety of sources which include: (1) media sponsors of The Field Poll, (2) an Academic Consortium of UC and CSU campuses, and (3) underwriters of ad hoc studies. Individuals or organizations can obtain a subscription to the Institute s Field Poll and California Opinion Index publications for an annual fee of $250 per year. Mervin Field is President of The Field Institute and Mark DiCamillo is Associate Director. Table 7 Characteristics of Precinct and Absentee Voters in the 1992 General Election Total Precinct Absentee vote voters voters Region Los Angeles County 24.9% 25.9% 19.9% San Francisco Bay Area Central Valley San Diego County Orange County Desert Counties Central Coast North Coast/Sierras Party identification Democrat 41% 42% 35% Republican Independent Political ideology Conservative 29% 27% 37% Moderate Liberal Gender Male 47% 47% 48% Female Age % 20% 18% or older Ethnicity White (Anglo) 79% 79% 78% Hispanic Black Asian Other 1 1 * Annual household income Under $20,000 19% 19% 19% $20,000 $39, $40,000 $59, $60,000 or more Education High school grad or less 26% 25% 28% Some college/trade school College graduate Post graduate work Religion Protestant 45% 44% 47% Catholic Jewish Other No preference (Regional vote comes from the California Secretary of State s official Statement of Vote. All other voter characteristics are derived from VRS and Field Poll estimates.) * less than 1/2 of 1% The Field Institute 234 Front Street San Francisco, California (415)