Show simple item record

Files in this item

Cover for Abortion, Gay Rights, and Redistricting: How Midterm Voters Are Persuaded (Or Not) To Vote
dc.contributor.advisorWise, Andrew Sen
dc.creatoren
dc.date.accessioned2016-05-27T17:49:59Zen
dc.date.available2016-05-27T17:49:59Zen
dc.date.created2016en
dc.date.issueden
dc.date.submitted01/01/2016en
dc.identifier.otherAPT-BAG: georgetown.edu.10822_1040784.tar;APT-ETAG: eb3568f36212cd9a6fdf4b68d64b7fc2; APT-DATE: 2017-02-15_10:13:59en
dc.identifier.urien
dc.descriptionM.P.P.en
dc.description.abstractUsing a 2014 poll that showed midterm voters were more motivated to vote against a candidate they viewed would endanger their rights as a guide, this study uses data from the Current Population Survey, a joint project of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census, as well as calculated turnout rates from the United States Elections Project to estimate the effect of contentious ballot measures on voter turnout. Ballot measures that would restrict legal abortion were designated as “endangering,” while similarly controversial measures related to same-sex marriage and redistricting were used as a basis of comparison. This study finds a statistically significant positive correlation between the presence of a measure that would restrict abortion on the ballot and voter turnout, suggesting that, as with candidates, midterm voters are more motivated to vote for ballot measures they view as a danger their rights.en
dc.formatPDFen
dc.format.extent60 leavesen
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherGeorgetown Universityen
dc.sourceGeorgetown University-Graduate School of Arts & Sciencesen
dc.sourcePublic Policy & Policy Managementen
dc.subject.lcshPublic policyen
dc.subject.otherPublic policyen
dc.titleAbortion, Gay Rights, and Redistricting: How Midterm Voters Are Persuaded (Or Not) To Voteen
dc.typethesisen


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record