While this may sound counterintuitive, extending the franchise to 18-year olds has in fact decreased measured voter turnout in terms of a percentage. In other words—and I’m completely making these numbers up—pretend that voter turnout was  in 1950s. Further pretend that in 1971, when the 26th Amendment passed, voter turnout dropped to . What could possibly be the reason for this? Well, essentially, it’s just a problem of simple mathematics. If you increase the denominator of a fraction by a drastic amount (millions) but you only add nominal amounts to the numerator, you’re going to have a percentage decrease. This is exactly what happens after the passage of the 26th Amendment. The number of eligible voters increased dramatically, while the number of people actually voting went up far less (young people don’t tend to vote very often). 

This question also involves mathematics—whichever of these has the smallest denominator will have a larger percentage, and vice versa. Thus, we can safely eliminate “Voting Age Population/Population” from the answers; by definition, “population” is a much LARGER denominator than “voting age population,” thus the percentage yield from “population” must be SMALLER than the percentage yield from “voting age population.”

That leaves us with the other two (viable) answers—Voting Age Population yielding a smaller turnout percentage than Voting Eligible Population, or vice versa. In order to apply the principles we just discussed above (larger denominator = smaller percentage), we have to determine which of these encompasses a greater amount—eligibility or age.

Voting Age Population (VAP) encompasses EVERYONE that is 18 and up. Everyone. In other words, VAP includes in its parameters people who can’t even vote (e.g. convicted felons, illegal aliens, etc). Voting Eligible Population (VEP), however, encompasses a much smaller group—only those who are both of age and legally able to vote. In other words, in order to be counted among VEP you must be at least 18, and not restricted from voting.

Thus, applying the principles we discussed above, we can see that VEP is less than VAP, thus when VAP is the denominator (and the numerator remains constant) it yields a smaller turnout percentage than when VEP is the denominator.

The voter described in this problem is most likely to vote for a Republican candidate. That is not to say that he would never vote for a Democrat (or any of the other listed parties), it’s simply asking you to pick the most likely/best answer. Because the voter in question is white, male, and a college graduate, he is more likely than not going to vote for the Republican Party. In other words, race, gender, and education all tend to be reliable indicators of political choice (i.e. whites tend to be more republican than minorities, men more than women, and college graduates more so than, say, a PhD  who, interestingly enough, tend to be more liberal)).

As a purely factual matter, younger voters are less likely to vote than are older voters. This is due to a variety of factors—some of them intertwined with other socioeconomic factors that increase voting. Older people, for example, tend to be more educated than an 18 year old (one of the obvious reasons being that, with some exceptions, it’s not possible to be a college graduate at 18) and more educated people vote more often than non-educated people. Additionally, older people are more keyed-in to issues such as Social Security as any change will directly affect them, whereas any change in social security is unlikely to have a direct effect on an 18 year old. 

Negative campaigning involves a candidate targeting his opposition through ‘attack ads’ rather than focusing on why the candidate himself is a good leader. In other words, take the negative ads run against Michael Dukakis when Bush Sr. ran for President; Bush effectively portrayed Dukakis as soft on crime and thus not fit to be President. Thus, in that particular (negative) ad, Bush focused on Dukakis rather than highlighting his own qualities.

While negative campaigning can be both brutal and entertaining, it works. Negative ads focus on flaws in campaigns, on weaknesses that have been voiced by the public as concerns. 

Incumbents enjoy several advantages over challengers—which, combined, explain (at least in part) why incumbents enjoy such high reelection rates. Name recognition is exactly what it sounds like—even though your average citizen often is not involved in politics, she can still generally remember her Senator’s name (or at least recognize the name) when voting. This is an advantage because if a voter knows nothing at ALL about the election or the candidate, she’s more likely to vote for the candidate she’s at least heard of before. “War chest” financing involves candidate taking in money from, say, every election cycle. Even though a candidate may solicit donations, there’s no guarantee that the candidate will use all of the money donated to him (perhaps the challenger is so weak there’s no need to spend quite as much money this year). Thus, the candidate can sit on the money he doesn’t use, and build a so-called “war chest.” In the event that a credible challenger comes along, the incumbent has reserves so that he can massively outspend the challenger. Finally, members of Congress do not have to pay for postage (the “franking” privilege), thus they can send out solicitations for free, whereas other candidates must pay.

On average, the more educated you are, the more likely it is that you will vote. Thus, a college graduate is more likely to vote than a high school dropout, and anyone with a PhD is almost certainly going to vote. Education is one in a series of socioeconomic factors that influence whether and how people vote.

The voter described in this problem is likely to be a Democrat as race, gender, and education all tend to be reliable indicators of political choice. Here, the voter is black, female, and highly educated—all of which indicate that she is more likely than not to be a Democrat. Since this is the case, it is also more likely that the voter would support decreased abortion regulations (that is, increased access to abortions) as the Democratic Party tends to view abortion access and availability more favorably than then Republicans.

Wedge issues are those policy standpoints on which the members and/or voters of a party disagree (important modern wedge issues include abortion and gun control). The lack of consensus caused by wedge issues makes a political party vulnerable because dissenting voters (especially those who feel strongly about the issue at hand) are susceptible to influences from the opposition. An astute opposition politician is sometimes able to take advantage of the divide caused by these wedge issues, using them as leverage to lure dissatisfied or concerned voters away from their preferred party to vote for the opposing side.

These two questions – Do I vote? And if yes, how? – may seem basic, but they are deceptively so. After all, voter turnout has decreased over the past several decades, with many people choosing not to vote at all. So, before any candidate and/or political party can even be considered, the first key question confronting any citizen is whether the act of voting would be rational or helpful. If an individual feels that voting is not likely to have much of an impact on his or her life, then they become much less likely to show up on Election Day.