{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02079272254710851, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009963179553822829, 'mean_word_length': 5.282993197278912, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comment on Abramson and Aldrich (Vol. 76, September 1982, pp. 502-521)

An article recently published in the Review (Abramson & Aldrich, 1982) purports to have solved Brody's (1978) much discussed "puzzle" of declining electoral participation. The authors conclude that two factors, declining strength of partisanship and declining perceptions of external efficacy, can account for almost 70% of the decline in voter turnout between 1960 and 1980. Ordinarily one would be pleased to learn that the solution to what was heretofore considered a complex puzzle has been found. And ordinarily one would be gratified to find that a simple, twovariable model could achieve this goal which has eluded researchers employing more complex, multivariate models. In this particular instance, however, the goal of identifying a simple and elegant model of declining participation has been perverted by statistical and ceteris paribus gymnastics which seek to maximize the explanatory power of this simple model at the expense of completeness and necessary complexity. Put simply, the authors of this article have fundamentally misspecified the model by carefully selecting two variables that admittedly contributed to the decline, while at once ignoring variables that either: a) also contributed to the decline; or, b) operated contrary to the decline, and hence, constitute the puzzle of declining participation. An example of the first category of missing variables is residential mobility. Scholars consistently have demonstrated that mobility depresses voter turnout; and during the time period considered by Abramson and Aldrich, residential mobility increased. It figures, therefore, that the increasing mobility of voters made a significant contribution to declining turnout, something we (Cassel & Hill, 1981) have demonstrated. Without a variable for voter mobility in the Abramson and Aldrich analysis, one does not know whether the apparent contribution of their two variables to the decline is undermined by spurious correlations. Thus, for example, we cannot be certain from the model that weakened partisanship made the claimed contribution to declining participation in that partisanship has weakened significantly among the growing cohort of young persons who are also among the most mobile. In the second instance, Abramson and Aldrich ignore variables such as education that offset some of the decline in voting, variables intrinsically fundamental to Brody's notion of a "puzzle." Why did turnout decline when factors such as the increased education of the electorate should have engendered an increase in voting? This reader of the Abramson and Aldrich article cannot help but wonder how much of the explanatory power of the authors' two-variable model would evaporate if the offsetting power of education were introduced into the model. Of course, the authors are not unmindful of these problems and seek to rationalize their strategy by pointing out that their model and methodology assumes "everything else being equal" (pp. 507 and 512). Furthermore, the authors argue that they are concerned only with variables that caused the decline, not those which may have merely retarded the decline (p. 504). This is fancy footwork, indeed, but knowing that all other things were not equal and that the retarding power of some variables was substantial makes the authors' assumptions and strategies somewhat puzzling. We and other electoral students would be pleased if the puzzle of participation could be untangled with such a simple model as that employed by Abramson and Aldrich. But plainly it is not. A proper model will take into account all variables that are theoretically relevant. Only by developing such a model will we be able to understand fully and interpret future fluctuations in voter turnout. In our rush to explain political phenomena such as this decline, let us not as political scientists devolve to employing models that rest on questionable assumptions and achieve statistical victories at the expense of theoretical rigor and good common sense. Otherwise, we will be adopting some of the very methods that occasionally undermine confidence in the science of economics. This is particularly important when political scientists like Abramson and Aldrich make tacit recommendations for political strategies, as they do in suggesting that leaders can increase turnout by engendering more positive attitudes toward the political system (p. 520). A ceteris paribus experiment like that of Abramson and Aldrich hardly seems the proper foundation for such a suggestion to leaders or anyone else.