Images loading, please wait . . .
You are at the HOOT Front Page Stories Archive, welcome.
HOOT recently began archiving their cover stories
so people like you could read them whenever you want. With this new HOOT site, we are able to provide them to the world.
No matter who you are, where you work, or how you spend your free time, chances are you've heard a thing or two about the upcoming national elections on Nov. 4. Over the course of the fall, the election has brought various inevitable effects: presidential candidates have dominated the news, saturated the airwaves, and political signs have suddenly sprouted all across the nation—even here in a deep red state like Oklahoma. One other likely inevitable effect that we'll be seeing as the election draws near is pundits on the news speculating about how the weather on election day will affect turnout, and perhaps even change the outcome of various races.
It has been a long accepted piece of conventional wisdom in American politics that bad weather will drive down voter turnout, as people who otherwise would have gone to the polls choose not to brave icy roads, drifting snow, pouring rain, or whatever other unpleasantness Mother Nature dishes out. Until recently, though, there had been little in the way of hard scientific data to back up or refute this conventional wisdom. This changed with a study done by Gomez et al. (Journal of Politics, Aug. 2007). What were their results? Let's dive into the interface between meteorology and politics to find out.
Gomez et al. collected meteorological data recorded at weather stations across the lower 48 United States for presidential election days between 1948 and 2000, and interpolated these data to get rain and snowfall totals for each election day for each county in the entire nation. They then compared these rain and snowfall data with voter turnout for each county, and performed statistical regressions to determine whether or not rain and snow (bad weather) had a negative impact on voter turnout. What they found was that each inch of rain experienced on election day drove down voter turnout by an average of just under 1%, while each inch of snow knocked 0.5% off turnout. Though the effect of snow is less on a “per inch” basis, since multiple-inch snowfall totals are far more common than multiple-inch rainfall events, we can conclude that snow is likely to have a bigger negative impact on voter turnout.
Furthermore, Gomez et al. noted that when bad weather did suppress voter turnout, it tended to do so in favor of the republican candidate, to the tune of around 2.5% for each inch of rainfall above normal. In fact, when they simulated the 14 presidential elections between 1948 and 2000 with sunny conditions nationwide, they found two instances in which bad weather likely changed the electoral college outcome – once in North Carolina in 1992, and once in Florida in 2000. The latter change is particularly notable, as it would have resulted in Al Gore rather than George Bush winning the presidential election that year.
What does this hold in store for the upcoming 2008 elections? If we look at the long-range GFS weather model predictions for election day (available under the “Models” tab on the HOOT pages), we currently see a strong low-pressure system moving through south-central Canada, bringing precipitation to Minnesota, Iowa, and eastern Nebraska. Also, a shortwave trough entering the Pacific Northwest is predicted to bring showers and storms to Oregon and Washington, some of which might fall as snow at higher elevations. Warm, fair weather is predicted across much of the south, central, and eastern US, meaning relatively little weather disruption in key swing states like Missouri, North Carolina, and Florida.
Of course, as with all long-range weather predictions, subsequent model runs could paint a different picture, so stay tuned to the HOOT model pages. And no matter who you support, get out there and vote on Nov. 4th!
Story is ©
Nate Snook, 2008
