Disclaimer. Don't rely on these old notes in lieu of reading the literature, but they can jog your memory. As a grad student long ago, my peers and I collaborated to write and exchange summaries of political science research. I posted them to a wiki-style website. "Wikisum" is now dead but archived here. I cannot vouch for these notes' accuracy, nor can I even say who wrote them. If you have more recent summaries to add to this collection, send them my way I guess. Sorry for the ads; they cover the costs of keeping this online.
Kirchgaessner and Schulz. 2004. Expected closeness or mobilisation: Why do voters go to the polls? Empirical results for Switzerlan. CESifo Working Paper No. 1387.
We have heard it argued that turnout goes up when elections are expected to be close. But K&S argue that this overlooks a key intervening variable: Mobilization. Close contests generate intensive efforts at mobilization (advertising, etc). It is this mobilization that boosts turnout, not the contest's closeness per se.
K&S study 142 Swiss referenda and initiatives from 1981-1999. They show that including mobilization variables renders closeness variables insignificant.
Several of K&S's operationalizations seem questionable:
The authors examine 142 Swiss referenda and initiatives spanning 18 years. These proposals are clustered--several proposals were voted on at any particular election. Clearly high turnout for one proposal will increase turnout for other proposals on the same ballot. K&S use good statistical techniques to control for this clustering, but is their effective N (the number of election days) high enough to produce reliable results?
The authors find what they expected: Closeness does not affect turnout once mobilization efforts are controlled for.
They never present evidence that closeness actually boosts mobilization, only that closeness is insignificant when mobilization is in the equation. So based on their findings, is it really appropriate to dismiss evidence that closeness boosts turnout?
How do we know that mobilization really increases turnout? Perhaps interesting bills prompt both spending and turnout, creating a spurious correlation between spending and turnout. []
Research on similar subjects