As more of these races became uncontested or were won by very large margins of victory, the trend in voter turnout was falling.
Utah historically has had a high voter turnout rate. Throughout the first half of last century, it was well above the national average. However, it has declined substantially over the past several decades, and is now not only well below the national average, but in the 2010 mid-term election was one of the lowest in the country.1 Which begs the question, what has caused this decline in turnout?
One explanation is that as the Republican majority in Utah has become stronger, and political races have become less competitive, voters may feel that their votes don’t matter and are less likely to turn out on Election Day. The idea that a voter’s perception that his or her vote makes a difference is important to participation harkens back to Anthony Downs’ calculus of voting, and may provide important insight to Utah’s declining voter turnout.
Makeup of Utah State Legislature by Party 1935-2012
Since 1979, Republicans have held a strong majority in the Utah State Legislature. This majority peaked in 1985 at 81%, and has never fallen below 60%. These super-majorities coincide with the decades in which Utah’s voter turnout has been declining. This has gone in tandem with an increase in uncompetitive races in Utah. Utah’s voter turnout was high in the 1970s, when more political races seemed competitive. As more of these races became uncontested or were won by very large margins of victory, the trend in voter turnout was falling. The level of uncompetitive races reached a peak in 1996, which also coincided with the largest drop in voter turnout during this period. Since then, voter turnout has leveled, while the number of uncompetitive races is not following a discernible trend.
Margin of Victory and Voter Turnout
There are of course other factors that can play into voter turnout, such as costs to vote as well as feelings of gratification or duty people get out of voting. Utah Foundation addresses some of these in a recent report on partisan politics and voter participation, and I will explore them in further detail in follow-up blog posts as well. However, the relationship between uncompetitive races and super-majorities in the legislature and declining voter turnout rates seems to be one of great importance.
About Morgan Lyon Cotti: Morgan Lyon Cotti is the Research Director at the Utah Foundation. She holds a PhD in political science from George Washington University.
67.5% said they did not trust the media to cover the Church fairly, and after the diatribes of the Lawrence O’Donnells of the world, who can blame them?
The 2012 presidential candidacy of Governor Romney has shined a spotlight on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As the first member of the LDS Church to win a major party nomination, his candidacy has inspired both favorable and unfavorable coverage of the LDS faith.
What do members of the LDS faith generally think about his candidacy? Are they excited to see it? Do they believe the media will portray their faith accurately?
A recent statewide survey of voters conducted in cooperation with Key Research, a survey and market research company in Utah, sheds some light on these questions. While it is not a national survey, members of the LDS faith in Utah share many similarities with those outside of the state.
When asked to reflect on Governor Romney’s accomplishment of securing the Republican nomination, members of the LDS faith overwhelmingly said it was a good thing.
“Governor Mitt Romney is the first LDS (Mormon) candidate in history to win the presidential nomination of a major political party. Reflecting on this accomplishment, do you think it is overall a good thing or a bad thing for the LDS (Mormon) Church?”
Percent
A Good Thing
77.4%
A Bad Thing
2.4%
Don’t Know
20.2%
N
341
It would be difficult to tell whether they believed it was a good thing because of his politics or because of the shared faith, but either way, the belief is that his candidacy is a positive event.
When asked how excited they are for his candidacy, Mormons once again express positive emotions. 83% of Mormons say that his candidacy makes them “very excited” or “somewhat excited.”
“Governor Mitt Romney is the first LDS (Mormon) candidate in history to win the presidential nomination of a major political party. Does this accomplishment make you feel excited or unexcited?”
Percent
Very excited
37.2%
Somewhat excited
46.6%
Somewhat unexcited
12.9%
Very unexcited
3.2%
N
341
The publicity brought to the LDS faith by his candidacy is evaluated much more as a mixed bag. When asked what kind of publicity they thought the LDS Church will receive, a large majority said the candidacy would result in “both good and bad publicity.”
“Overall, what kind of publicity do you think that the LDS (Mormon) Church will receive during the 2012 presidential campaign?”
Percent
Mostly good publicity
19.9%
Both good and bad publicity
68.0%
Mostly bad publicity
7.3%
Don’t know
4.7%
N
341
Part of the ambivalence for the kind of media coverage may stem from the low levels of trust in the media. 67.5% said they did not trust the media to cover the Church fairly, and after the diatribes of the Lawrence O’Donnells of the world, who can blame them?
“Overall, do you generally trust the media to cover the LDS (Mormon) Church fairly?”
Percent
Yes, I trust the media to cover the LDS Church fairly.
23.2%
No, I do not trust the media to cover the LDS Church fairly.
68.0%
Don’t know
8.8%
N
341
Many in the media have dubbed 2012 the “Mormon Moment.” Members of the LDS faith seem to appreciate the historic dimensions of Governor Romney’s candidacy. But they remain wary of what the publicity might bring.
The sample was drawn from the publicly available file of Utah registered voters. A model of general election turnout was estimated using age, party registration status, length of registration, and past election turnout. This model was used to estimate a probability of voting in the 2012 general election. A Probability Proportionate to Size (PPS) sample was drawn using this turnout estimate such that voters with a higher probability of voting have a higher probability of being selected in the sample. For a detailed explanation of a similar model used with PPS sampling in an online survey, see Michael Barber, Chris Mann, J. Quin Monson, and Kelly D. Patterson. “Online Polls and Registration Based Sampling: A New Method for Pre-election Polling.” The sample was then matched to a database of telephone numbers and sampled voters were administered a questionnaire over the telephone by Key Research. The survey field dates were June 12, 2012 – June 19, 2012. The full sample of 500 produces a margin of error of 4.4%. The analysis in this post is limited to self-identified Mormons (n=341) with a margin of error of 5.3%.
While the vote estimates vary depending on the assumptions you make, the outcome is the same across the board. Senator Hatch is very likely to win, the uncertainty is by how much.
Barring a last minute “June surprise” that dramatically shifts preferences, Senator Orrin Hatch is likely to win the Republican U.S. Senate primary over Dan Liljenquist next Tuesday. Now that we can’t be accused of burying the lead, let’s walk through how we arrive at such a conclusion.
Predicting the outcome of elections with a preelection poll is a tricky business. Essentially what you’re trying to do is draw a sample for a population that doesn’t exist because the event hasn’t happened yet. The quick and dirty way that many political pollsters get at this problem is to simply ask people if they plan to vote in the upcoming election and then base their analysis on those who say they are certain to vote or fall above some similar threshold. That can work reasonably well for a general election, but asking survey respondents to tell you if they are going to vote or not can be unreliable because people are not always accurate predictors of their own behavior. This is especially true for something we feel like we are supposed to do but is inconvenient (because it comes in the middle of the summer vacation) or easy to forget or ignore (in the case of a relatively quiet primary in June). Asking people about something they should do but don’t is what social scientists call the “social desirability” problem. We know we’re supposed to vote (it’s our civic duty, right?) so we report our intention to vote in a survey but then we don’t follow through. This can wreak havoc with preelection poll estimates in a low turnout primary election.
But the difficulty of the task doesn’t prevent us from trying. Over the past week we (myself, Kelly Patterson, and Chris Karpowitz) cooperated with Key Research, a survey and market research company in Provo, to analyze the results of a statewide survey they conducted of Utah voters. We consulted on the questionnaire and sample design and Key Research collected all of the data. Ed Ledek and his staff at Key Research have been great.
The sample was drawn from a list of active registered voters. Using the voter list for sampling allows us to use the information in the file to make the sampling more effective and efficient. We know from much research in political science, that voting in an election (especially a partisan primary) is strongly related to voting in past elections, age, and party registration status. We used all of this to draw a sample of likely Utah voters for a telephone intended to be comparable to our own Utah Voter Poll.
So, what are the results for the Senate election? Rather than give a single prediction, I’m going to give several scenarios. While the vote estimates vary depending on the assumptions you make, the outcome is the same across the board. Senator Hatch is very likely to win, the uncertainty is by how much.
“In the June 26, 2012 Republican Primary for U.S. Senator will you vote for…”
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Dan Liljenquist
22
23
25
Orrin Hatch
51
53
56
Don’t Know/Someone Else
26
24
18
Scenario 1 simply shows the results for all survey respondents eligible to vote in the Republican primary (registered Republicans and unaffiliated voters). Remember that the sampling method relies on a statistical model that uses past turnout behavior to estimate turnout in an upcoming general election, so this is NOT just a sample of registered voters. We could call them “likely general election voters eligible to vote in the primary” or “eligible voters” for short.
Scenario 2 shows a traditional self-reported likelihood of voting in the upcoming primary election used by typical preelection polls. Check out this footnote for the full question wording.1 Notice that when you narrow the pool down from eligible voters to only those who give an 8, 9, or 10 on the scale, the estimated results barely change.
Scenario 3 shows a first attempt to model a “likely primary electorate.” Again, the full sample for this survey is supposed to represent a general election voter using a statistical model that incorporated age, registration status, and past vote history. But we also created a statistical model to estimate the probability of voting in the primary election for each person in the sample. This model is very similar to the general election one (using age, vote history, and registration status) but it is geared toward the primary and produces estimates that are much smaller than the general election. This scenario gets a “likely primary electorate” by using the primary turnout probability from our statistical model as a “weight.” In short, the weight creates an estimate that counts voters in proportion to their probability of voting in the primary. Two things jump out here: 1. The “Don’t Know” percentage goes down among voters with a higher probability of turning out in the primary. One reason voters may decide not to vote in an election is that they don’t see a clear difference between the two candidates or they just lack enough information to make up their minds. 2. Hatch’s lead increases a few points among those most likely to vote.
“In the June 26, 2012 Republican Primary for U.S. Senator will you vote for…”
Scenario 4
Scenario 5
Scenario 6
Scenario 7
Dan Liljenquist
30
31
42
39
Orrin Hatch
70
69
58
61
Don’t Know/Someone Else
NA
NA
NA
NA
Scenarios 4, 5, 6, and 7 all make some attempt to allocate the “Don’t Know” voters. In Scenarios 4 and 5, these undecided voters are allocated in the same proportion as those who have made up their minds already (using scenarios 1 and 3). Basically, this means throwing out the undecided voters and recalculating the percentages only for those who have stated a choice. In both cases, Hatch’s lead balloons upward. But the equal allocation assumption is probably unfair. If after 36 years, these voters are unsure about Hatch, they are probably more likely to go to the challenger, or not vote at all. To account for this, scenarios 6 and 7 reallocate them (again using scenarios 1 and 3) assuming that 75% will go to Liljenquist and 25% to Hatch. But even with this generous assumption Liljenquist’s high water mark is 42%.
The bottom line is that no matter how the estimates are made, Orrin Hatch is always above 50%. The 4.4% “margin of error” for the survey means that it is possible that in some of the scenarios, Hatch actually falls below 50%, but the problem is that Liljenquist is so far behind. At no point do the estimates for Hatch and Liljenquist overlap. In some of the scenarios, he is running behind “Don’t Know.” The problem for Liljenquist is that these high don’t know numbers point to a lack of visibility and familiarity with his candidacy. Communicating with voters to convince them to dump an incumbent and vote for you requires repetition and resources. Apparently Liljenquist’s efforts have been too small to break through.
But what about the Tea Party? Won’t they pull this out for Liljenquist? The Tea Party had a large influence on the Republican primary outcome in 2010. Back then 72% of the Republican primary voters viewed the Tea Party strongly or somewhat favorably and they voted heavily against Senator Bennett. However, in this survey it is only 45% of eligible voters. Hatch is losing only among the 19% of Republican voters that view the Tea Party as “strongly favorable” and yet he is still getting 43% of this group. He is overwhelmingly ahead among all favorability categories. In other words, during the past two years, the Tea Party has weakened among Republicans and Hatch had simultaneously made inroads. The story among primary voters regarding the Tea Party is very similar to the one we found in the Republican state delegate data.
This has been mostly bad news for Dan Liljenquist, so let’s end on a hopeful note. When Liljenquist is able to connect with voters, as was possible with a much smaller group of Republican delegates, he is perceived favorably. Even though Hatch won the convention vote pretty decisively, it wasn’t because delegates didn’t like Liljenquist. When you look carefully at the delegate data you see that when the delegates were asked to rate both Hatch and Liljenquist, they rated them equally high. Dan Liljenquist has a future as a statewide elected official, just not yet.
The sample was drawn from the publicly available file of Utah registered voters. A model of general election turnout was estimated using age, party registration status, length of registration, and past election turnout. This model was used to estimate a probability of voting in the 2012 general election. A Probability Proportionate to Size (PPS) sample was draw using this turnout estimate such that voters with a higher probability of voting have a higher probability of being selected in the sample. For a detailed explanation of a similar model used with PPS sampling in an online survey, see Michael Barber, Chris Mann, J. Quin Monson, and Kelly D. Patterson. “Online Polls and Registration Based Sampling: A New Method for Pre-election Polling.” The sample was then matched to a database of telephone numbers and sampled voters were administered a questionnaire over the telephone by Key Research. The survey field dates were June 12, 2012 – June 19, 2012. The sample of 500 produces a margin of error of 4.4%.
Differences between the two parties begin with questions about human nature and the good society.
Differences between political parties reflect differences in how individuals view the world. These views can be traced back to philosophical questions that have concerned political theorists for centuries.
One of the most important debates in political theory involves the writings of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. These two seminal thinkers articulated starkly different ideas about humans, the purpose of government, and the relationship of citizens to government.
To grossly oversimplify, Hobbes saw humans as less than perfect and in need of a strong state to mediate between the disputes that would arise. Rousseau believed humans were naturally good but had been corrupted by man-made institutions. The state, for Rousseau, should help humans to fulfill their natural potential.
In the midst of the French presidential election, the magazine Philosophie commissioned a poll to gauge whether the French electorate tilted more toward the thinking of Hobbes or Rousseau. The debate matters because it illustrates the kind of society individuals want: more competition or less, less government services or more, an individualistic society or communal.
Similar divisions exist in the United States. With the cooperation of the Utah Democratic and Republican parties, we replicated some of the philosophical questions on the surveys sent to delegates to the Democratic and Republican state conventions.
We asked the delegates to place themselves on a scale between the two possibilities presented by Hobbes and Rousseau. The numbers in the table are the averages for each party on a scale from 1 to 5. The higher the average, the closer the average is to the position in the right-hand column. (Numbers in parentheses indicate how many people from each party answered each question.)
Following roughly the thinking of Rousseau, the Democratic delegates want a society based more on equality and a government that can meet the needs of the people. Republican delegates, more closely aligned with Hobbes, want a society where individuals can get ahead if they want and a government that occupies itself only with the security and safety needs of the population.
In the other areas, both parties mix Rousseau and Hobbes. Democratic delegates are slightly more likely to believe that humans are selfish and also to believe that laws stipulate what is right and wrong, but not by much. Furthermore, the average delegate from both parties believes in a balance between trusting and supervising representatives, a position that straddles the positions of the philosophers.
Democratic Delegates
Republican Delegates
1
5
Humans are good by nature.
2.62
(575)
2.54
(1220)
Humans are selfish.
Humans want to live in a society of equality.
2.80
(577)
3.57
(1214)
Humans want to climb the social ladder.
Government should meet the needs of the people.
2.51
(577)
4.23
(1220)
Government should assure security.
Humans must trust their heart to know what is right.
2.50
(578)
2.44
(1211)
The law states what is right and wrong.
The people must watch representatives carefully.
2.86
(578)
2.88
(1219)
The people should trust representatives to do their job.
Valid N Listwise
572
1201
Differences between the two parties begin with questions about human nature and the good society. These questions have been part of western society for centuries and they continue to shape modern politics.
The delegates have given both party chairs remarkably high overall job approval.
Recently we wrote up a few results from surveys of Utah Republican convention delegates. We conducted surveys of the Republicans and Democrats. More analysis will follow, but it’s time to release publicly the full methodology and topline results. Normally we’d post this kind of thing on the web site of BYU’s Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy, but it’s been a tough week for IT at BYU. The server hosting the CSED website has been down all week. Rather than wait, we’ve decided to post links to the reports here.
Many thanks are due to the party chairs and executive directors for both parties: Jim Dabakis and Matt Lyon for the Utah Democratic Party and Thomas Wright and Ivan Dubois for the Utah Republican Party. They deserve kudos for allowing us to conduct these surveys with their cooperation. When you download the reports, you’ll see that the delegates have given both party chairs remarkably high overall job approval.
For those new to the Utahdatapoints blog, please note that over to your right you can follow us on Twitter, set up an RSS feed, sign up to receive an email update when we post something new, or even “like” us on Facebook.
For Democratic Delegate Survey Methodology and Topline Results Click Here.
For Republican Delegate Survey Methodology and Topline Results Click Here.
In 2010, Tea Party supporters dominated the Utah Republican convention. About 86% of the 2010 delegates expressed a favorable attitude toward the Tea Party movement. Fast forward two years. Now only 57% of Republican delegates express a favorable impression of the Tea Party—a decline of 28 percentage points.
The figure below breaks down the shift in sentiment toward the Tea Party along all of the categories in the question. Although there is still a large cohort of Republican delegates that has “Somewhat Favorable” attitudes toward the Tea Party, the decrease in “Strongly Favorable” is striking.
Percent of Republican delegates with a favorable opinion of the Tea Party
This decline carries over to active Tea Party support as well. As the figure below shows, in 2010 more than four in ten Republican delegates reported that they were “active” Tea Party supporters (43%). In 2012, this group of active supporters declines to 19% – less than half of what it was just two years earlier. Similarly, those who donated money declined from 11% to 5% and those who attended a rally declined from 26% to 10%.
Percent of Republican Delegates who consider themselves "active supporters" of the Tea Party
Tea Party support among delegates played a large role in three-term Senator Bob Bennett’s loss to Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater at the 2010 GOP convention.1 Bennett’s favorability among Tea Party supporters was about 28%, while Bridgewater’s favorability was 77% and Lee’s was about 80%. Of the 43% of delegates who considered themselves “active” Tea Party supporters, 92% voted for Lee or Bridgewater at the convention. It’s no wonder that Bennett lost. The only group with a majority that supported Bennett in 2010 was the 14% of delegates who had an unfavorable view of the Tea Party.
2012 was quite different for Senator Orrin Hatch. On the final ballot at the convention, 65% of active Tea Party supporters voted for Dan Liljenquist compared to 34% for Orrin Hatch – a 31 percentage point gap. This sounds like a big loss for Senator Hatch until you consider that the gap for Bob Bennett was 83 percentage points among active Tea Party supporters (92% for Lee/Bridgewater vs. 8% for Bennett). While Senator Hatch didn’t get a majority of support from active Tea Party supporters, he did manage to close the gap substantially. Similarly, Hatch’s favorability among Tea Party supporters was 50% – 19 percentage points lower than his support among non-Tea Party supporters (but much better than Bennett’s 28% in 2010).
Thus, the Tea Party played a much-diminished role in the 2012 Republican convention, no matter how you measure it. Why were Tea Party supporters so few in number at this year’s convention compared to two years ago? This year, many groups and candidates, including Hatch’s campaign, the Republican Party, and even the LDS Church targeted citizens to attend their caucuses. This increased turnout may have diluted the influence of Tea Party supporters. We’ll tackle the mobilization question in a future blog post.
Notes about survey methodology
This analysis is based on the Utah Voter Poll survey of Utah GOP Convention delegates administered in two waves in both 2010 and 2012, pre-convention (May 3-7, 2010 and April 17-21, 2012) and post-convention (May 12-19, 2010 and April 30- May 10, 2012). The 2010 pre-convention wave of the survey had 1,331 complete responses, for a response rate of 40.7% and a margin of error of about ± 2.11%. The 2012 pre-convention wave of the survey had 1,241 complete responses, for a response rate of 42.7% and a margin of error of about ± 2.3%.
To measure sentiment toward the Tea Party in both years, delegates were asked: “Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of the political movement known as the Tea Party?” Response options were displayed on a five-point favorability scale, shown in the figures above.
In both years, delegates were asked: “Do you consider yourself to be an active supporter of the Tea Party movement, or not?” Possible responses were “Yes,” “No,” or “Don’t Know/No opinion.”
To the delegates that responded “yes” to the previous question, the following question was asked: “Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following: Given money to any organization associated with the Tea Party movement, Attended a rally or meeting held by any organization associated with the Tea Party movement, Took any other active steps to support the Tea Party movement, either in person or through email or on the internet.” Response options were “Yes” or “No.”
The 2010 candidate favorability question was worded as follows: “Please rate how favorably you feel toward each of the U.S. Senate candidates on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 is completely unfavorable, 100 is completely favorable, and 50 is neutral. To rate each candidate place your cursor on the slider bar at the midpoint for each candidate and drag the indicator to the desired position. A number will appear to the right of the slider bar to show you where you are at on the scale.”
The 2012 candidate favorability question was worded as follows: “Please rate how favorably you feel toward each of the following politicians on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 is completely unfavorable, 100 is completely favorable, and 50 is neutral. To rate each candidate place your cursor on the slider bar at the midpoint for each candidate and drag the indicator to the desired position. A number will appear to the right of the slider bar to show you where you are at on the scale.”
Legislators today stick around longer than legislators in the past.
Bob Bernick reports today that retirements and nomination upsets will bring 15 freshmen to the 75-member Utah House of Representatives. November may bring us even more freshmen. I reported last year that the Utah legislature has fewer freshmen these days than in past decades. After reading Bernick’s column, I took a look at how long Utah legislators tend to stick around.
Legislators serve for more terms
If you looked around the Utah House on opening day of the 2011 session, the average Representative was entering into his or her sixth legislative session. Meanwhile, the average Senator was beginning a tenth year of cumulative legislative service, with 2.8 years served in the House and 7.1 in the Senate.
These averages have risen steadily since 1900, as seen in the graph below. From 1900 through 1940, the average Utah Representative was in his second year of service at any given time, while the average Utah Senator was in his third year in the Senate (blue line) and fourth year overall (red line). These numbers rose over the next 60 years. Legislators today stick around longer than legislators in the past.
Average tenure in the Utah legislature
Freshmen are an endangered species
The flip side is that there are fewer freshmen at any given time than used to be the case. The figure below shows the percentage of legislators in each chamber that were in their first term at any given time. (The percentage is consistently lower in the Senate than the House, partly because many “new” Senators served previously in the House, so they aren’t really “freshmen” when they arrive in the Senate.) Bob Bernick’s column today identifies 15 Representatives who definitely won’t return next year. If another 5 lose in June or November, then 26% of the House will be freshmen–only slightly higher than usual for recent years.
Percent of legislators in their first year of service
Who serves the longest?
Right now, the senior Senator is Lyle Hillyard, who just completed his 28th session in the Senate. Because he also served 4 years in the House, he now has 32 years of combined experience in the Utah legislature.
Only two other legislators have served longer. Mike Dmitrich served 24 years in the House and 16 in the Senate for a combined 40 years of service. Haven Barlow served 3 years in the House and 38 in the Senate for a combined 41 years of service.
This table shows the legislators who have served 25 years or more. There is a four-way tie for sixth place, which Gene Davis will break next January.
Rank
Legislator
House years
Senate years
Total Years
Final year
1
Haven Barlow
3
38
41
1994
2
Mike Dmitrich
24
16
40
2008
3
Lyle Hillyard
4
28
32
running
4
Omar Bunnell
0
28
28
1992
4
Alonzo Hopkin
1
27
28
1961
6
Brent Goodfellow
21
5
26
2010
6
Lorin Pace
22
4
26
1990
6
Michael Waddoups
10
16
26
retiring
6
Gene Davis
12
14
26
current
10
Wilford Rex Black
0
25
25
1997
10
LeRay McAllister
8
17
25
1997
Why?
Maybe you’re wondering why legislators are sticking around longer than they used to, or why there are fewer freshmen than used to be the case. For discussion, see my previous post.
I encourage voters to use these statistics to supplement other information, not to supplant it.
I calculate a lot of statistics about the Utah legislature. Lately, I’ve noticed various statistics being used in some of the nomination battles that are happening right now. Incumbent legislators are being confronted by challengers over their party support scores, their ideology scores, their absentee rates, their bill sponsorship activity, and so on.
I have mixed feelings about this politicized use of these statistics. On the one hand, I’m pleased to provide useful data that can serve as one additional tool in assessing legislators’ performance. On the other hand, I would encourage people not to focus so much on any particular statistic that they overlook nuance. It’s probably more important to ask your legislator what they think about specific issues than to base your decision on one of my statistics.
Let’s take an example that is being used in at least a couple different races right now: Absenteeism.
Certainly, casting votes is the defining aspect of a legislator’s job. At the same time, we have decided as a state (through our state constitution) to have a part-time legislature. Our state constitution limits the legislative session to 45 days. The result is that bills are heard rapidly on the floor, especially near the end of the session. Taking an urgently needed bathroom break can, at times, cause a legislator to miss a dozen votes. Serving in leadership, sponsoring a large number of bills, or sponsoring a single high-impact bill can also force a legislator to leave the floor at times in order to fulfill all their duties as a legislator. Thus, it would be silly to look only at a legislator’s absentee rate without also considering the reasons for that absentee rate.
I think it’s valuable to calculate absentee rates and other statistics to learn more about how our legislature works. That’s why I do it–to help us understand trends and such.
But here’s the punchline: I encourage voters to use these statistics to supplement other information, not to supplant it. If my statistics didn’t exist, then delegates would be asking legislators about their views on the issues, and they would base their votes on that. Maybe my statistics can supplement those sorts of discussion in some useful way, but they should not supplant it. Delegates should still ask legislators their views on issues, rather than neglecting that duty and focusing instead on some isolated statistic.
Near the end of the recent legislative session, the Utah legislature’s approval rating among voters was about 48%. We often hear in the news about approval ratings such as these, but what do they mean really? What about the legislature do Utahns approve or disapprove? Based on a Utah Voter Poll conducted near the end of the legislative session, it turns out that people judge the legislature based on their personal views on policy and how well the legislature’s actions represent those views. While some personal characteristics like age and partisanship do also play a role, we found that opinions about school funding and sex education are the best predictors of overall approval of the Utah legislature once other factors are taken into account.1
Our poll also asked about other issues, including health care, taxes, gay marriage, environmental protection, jobs, public lands, liquor reform, and bringing the Olympics back to Utah. Liquor reform and the Olympics had a modest correlation with overall evaluations of the legislature, but none of the other issue questions did (once partisanship, age, and other demographics were taken into account).
In the last session, at least, issues related to schools seem to be driving what people think about the legislature. The table below compares the results of two separate questions from our poll. The first question asks whether Utah spends too little, too much, or the right amount on education. The second asks whether the respondent approves or disapproves of the legislature overall. Those who thought the state spent too much or about the right amount on education approve of the legislature by about a 2 to 1 margin. The exact opposite is true of those who think the state spends too little on education.2
Regarding education, Utah spends…
Disapprove of legislature
Approve of legislature
Too Little
61%
39%
About Right
32%
68%
Too Much
34%
66%
Another issue related to schools that plays a role in Utahns’ evaluation of the legislature is the issue of sex education. Those who don’t think contraceptives should be taught in schools were much more likely to approve of the legislature than those who held the opposite opinion.3
Public schools in Utah should teach about the use of contraceptives
Disapprove of legislature
Approve of legislature
Strongly Disagree
25%
75%
Disagree
22%
78%
Neither Agree nor Disagree
48%
52%
Agree
43%
57%
Strongly Agree
87%
13%
For the 2012 session, it looks like education issues were on everyone’s minds. Utahns seem to evaluate the legislature mostly on their performance regarding these issues. This is not to say that the legislature or state policy is right or wrong either way, but it does suggest that Utahns use their own views of what is right for the state’s schools to judge the legislature.
Methodological notes
The Utah Voter Poll (UVP) is a sample of actual Utah voters who were invited to join an online panel as part of the Utah Colleges Exit Poll. Like all exit poll participants, UVP panel members were selected via a probability sample of Utah voters who vote at a polling place on election day. This version of the UVP was fielded online from February 27th to March 11th. 504 respondents answered the questions addressed here, producing a margin of error of roughly 4 percentage points. The margin is larger when looking at a subgroup; when looking only at Republicans, for example, the margin of error is about 7 percentage points. The margin of error is also affected by the complex sampling design and is actually different for each question, depending on the distribution of answers.
Following is the exact question wording used along with results in parentheses:
“Do you approve or disapprove of how the Utah State Legislature is handling its job?”: Strongly approve (2.1%), approve (45.6%), disapprove (29.1%), strongly disapprove (23.2%).
“For each of the categories below, do you think the government of the state of Utah spends too much, too little, or about the right amount? (K-12 Education)”: too much (6.9%), about right (24.6%), too little (68.5%).
“Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements about issues the state government has recently considered. -Public schools in Utah should teach about the use of contraceptives.”: strongly agree (13.6%), disagree (15.7%), neither agree nor disagree (12.1%), agree (25.6%), strongly agree (33.1%).
To focus this a bit, I’ll only look at those state senators who actually served with Dan Liljenquist. Senators Weiler, Anderson, and Osmond didn’t begin their legislative service until after Liljenquist had stepped down; they replaced Senators Liljenquist, Stowell, and Buttars. If we ignore these three, that leaves 19 Republican state senators who (a) served with Liljenquist and (b) are still in the senate.
Of these 19 Republican senate colleagues, 10 have endorsed Dan Liljenquist (according to the list of endorsers at Liljenquist’s website), implying that 9 have declined to do so.
This table shows the name of each of the 19 Republican state senators and whether they have endorsed Dan Liljenquist (according to Liljenquist’s website). The table also gives each senator’s 2011 ideology score (where a more conservative voting record produces a higher score; most Senate Democrats have scores well below zero). The table is sorted by ideology score. Take a look:
Senator
Liljenquist endorsement
Ideology score (2011)
Hillyard, Lyle W.
Yes
57.9
Van Tassell, Kevin T.
No
61
Christensen, Allen M.
No
66.8
Hinkins, David P.
Yes
68.2
Knudson, Peter C.
No
71.4
Bramble, Curtis S.
No
74.1
Okerlund, Ralph
Yes
74.1
Adams, J. Stuart
Yes
77.8
Reid, Stuart C.
Yes
78.2
Urquhart, Stephen H.
Yes
79.6
Niederhauser, Wayne L.
Yes
79.8
Thatcher, Daniel W.
No
80
Stevenson, Jerry W.
Yes
81
Waddoups, Michael G.
No
84
Valentine, John L.
No
85.5
Madsen, Mark B.
No
90.7
Stephenson, Howard A.
Yes
93.8
Dayton, Margaret
Yes
97.3
Jenkins, Scott K.
No
99.5
For comparison, Dan Liljenquist’s ideology score in 2011 was 84.9.
What’s striking is that there is no pattern at all when it comes to ideology scores. The average ideology score of those endorsing Liljenquist (78.8) is roughly the same as the average of those not endorsing him (79.2).
Of the two Republican Senators with the highest ideology scores (Dayton and Jenkins), one endorsed him and one did not. Of the two Republican Senators with the lowest scores (Hillyard and Van Tassell), one endorsed him and one did not.
Liljenquist’s former colleagues are evenly split on his candidacy, but it’s hard to explain the split using ideology. 10 have endorsed him and 9 have not, but the reason for this split is not clear.
We are professors of political science sharing academic research relevant to Utah. Posts are not peer reviewed and may discuss work in progress that is subject to future revision. Learn more. Each post reflects only its author’s views.
I encourage voters to use these statistics to supplement other information, not to supplant it.
I calculate a lot of statistics about the Utah legislature. Lately, I’ve noticed various statistics being used in some of the nomination battles that are happening right now. Incumbent legislators are being confronted by challengers over their party support scores, their ideology scores, their absentee rates, their bill sponsorship activity, and so on.
I have mixed feelings about this politicized use of these statistics. On the one hand, I’m pleased to provide useful data that can serve as one additional tool in assessing legislators’ performance. On the other hand, I would encourage people not to focus so much on any particular statistic that they overlook nuance. It’s probably more important to ask your legislator what they think about specific issues than to base your decision on one of my statistics.
Let’s take an example that is being used in at least a couple different races right now: Absenteeism.
Certainly, casting votes is the defining aspect of a legislator’s job. At the same time, we have decided as a state (through our state constitution) to have a part-time legislature. Our state constitution limits the legislative session to 45 days. The result is that bills are heard rapidly on the floor, especially near the end of the session. Taking an urgently needed bathroom break can, at times, cause a legislator to miss a dozen votes. Serving in leadership, sponsoring a large number of bills, or sponsoring a single high-impact bill can also force a legislator to leave the floor at times in order to fulfill all their duties as a legislator. Thus, it would be silly to look only at a legislator’s absentee rate without also considering the reasons for that absentee rate.
I think it’s valuable to calculate absentee rates and other statistics to learn more about how our legislature works. That’s why I do it–to help us understand trends and such.
But here’s the punchline: I encourage voters to use these statistics to supplement other information, not to supplant it. If my statistics didn’t exist, then delegates would be asking legislators about their views on the issues, and they would base their votes on that. Maybe my statistics can supplement those sorts of discussion in some useful way, but they should not supplant it. Delegates should still ask legislators their views on issues, rather than neglecting that duty and focusing instead on some isolated statistic.