UMass Lowell Center for Public Opinion

Report on Citizen Opinions about Voting & Elections
Results of 2 surveys
Conducted by YouGov
4/3/15-4/21/15&
10/1/14-11/3/14
Sample size for each survey is N=1,000 American Adults
Credibility Interval: +/-3.7% (+/- 3% adjusted for weights)
National Internet Panel Surveys matched to 2010 ACS

Survey Direction and Analysis by Joshua J. Dyck, Ph.D., Co-Director of the Center for Public
Opinion and Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Massachusetts Lowell
Survey was designed in consultation with UMass Lowell Students: Amanda Flores, Shane Foley andErika Raymond. Erika Raymond also aided in the writing of the analysis.

__________________________________________________________________HIGHLIGHTSIn April of 2015 and October of 2014, the UMass Lowell Center for Public Opinion completed two
separate surveys, each of 1,000 American Adults on their attitudes towards voting, elections, felon
enfranchisement and campaign finance reform. The surveys were designed to evaluate the current
state of elections in the United States, with the backdrop of the 50th Anniversary of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965.
Students of a course entitled Survey Research worked in conjunction with Center for Public Opinion
faculty members to revise and complete part of the survey and analysis. The survey was thenadministered by YouGov and fielded in April, 2014.
Examination of the data reveals three important themes. The first is that while the Voting Rights
Act promised to right historical inequities in the availability and exercise of the franchise, people ofcolor in America perceive higher barriers to voting and a greater acceptance of the idea of theuniversal franchise. Secondly, voting has become highly politicized. Whether or not the two parties
stand to gain anything from laws that make it harder or easier to vote, Republicans generally favorlaws that make voting more difficult, while Democrats favor laws that make voting easier. Lastly,
Americans hold a variety of sometimes incongruent attitudes towards campaign finance that include

a strong belief that money creates a great deal of inequity in the process, but also a large resistance toallowing the government to solve this problem through many legal sanctions or publicly funded
campaigns. Voting in the United States is as near of a universal right as we hold; however, thevaried perspectives represented among Americans in this survey highlight the enormity of thechallenge of implementing universal democratic values when so much is perceived to be at stake inelections.
ACCESS TO VOTING, PARTICIPATION AND FRAUD•Respondents were asked, “which is a bigger problem:” people who want to vote are not able to OR
people who should not be allowed to vote are able to vote. A narrow majority of respondents (51%)
agree that the bigger problem is access to the franchise, rather than voter fraud. Given
numerous studies over the past several years suggesting that voter fraud is a nearly nonexistent problem in American elections, it is somewhat striking that 49% of Americans
believe that fraud is a bigger problem than access. The story told by the cross-tabulations
suggests that the major differences emerge because of party identification, race/ethnicity andage.
o While 78% of Democrats view access to the franchise as a bigger problem, 76% ofRepublicans view fraud as a bigger problem. Independents also view fraud as abigger problem than access, 57-43 percent.
o Whites were more likely to view fraud as a problem (57%) than access (43%). This isa 45 point difference from African-Americans, who viewed access as a bigger
problem (88%) than fraud (12%). Latinos (57%) and those of other races (nonwhite, non-Black), who do not identify as Hispanic/Latino (60%) were also more
likely to view access as a problem.
o There is also a sizeable age difference. Sixty-five percent of those 18-29 view accessas a bigger issue, while the same number (65%) of those over 65 view fraud as abigger issue.

•Additionally, a gap emerges in attitudes by race on trust in the electorate. A majority ofAmericans (43%) think people can be trusted to make intelligent/informed decisions whenvoting in US elections as opposed to 39% who say “people cannot be trusted;” 18%answered “don’t know.” Among those, more than half (60%) of the African American
respondents felt this to be true. In comparison, less than half of white respondents (39%)

agreed. With an eight-point increase over white respondents, 47 percent of Latinos feel
people can be trusted at the voting booths. Interestingly, while the differences by race appear
to persist in this question, the responses are not nearly as partisan or ideological, with similar
numbers of Democrats/Republicans and Conservatives/Liberals expressing trust/distrust.
FELON ENFRANCHISEMENT•

During a given year there are roughly 1.3 million US citizens incarcerated in state prisons. In
2008, it was estimated that approximately 5.3 million American adults (about 1 in 40) areunable to vote because they are currently incarcerated or their state prevents former felons
or those on parole from voting. Felons who complete their sentences become eligible tovote as soon as they are released in 38 states and the District of Columbia. Other states havevarying rules that require a waiting period after release, while other states require ex-felons toapply to have their voting rights restored. Our survey posed a series of questions about felon
enfranchisement, specifically asking respondents whether (1) currently incarcerated felons
should be allowed to vote and (2) former felons should be allowed to vote.
o While 39% of respondents opposed felon enfranchisement while they are in prison
outright, only 18% opposed felon enfranchisement after ex-felons are released.
o A few interesting trends appear. African-Americans are the most supportive of
voting rights and the restoration of voting rights for felons/ex-felons. Additionally,
those with a college degree are much more likely than those with less education to
support restoration of voting rights. We also see large differences by ideology: 50%of liberals support voting rights restoration in every circumstance, while only 21% ofconservatives support those rights in every circumstance.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE
During the course of the Fall 2014 campaign, we fielded a survey that asked a robust battery ofquestions about attitudes regarding campaign finance. These data were collected as part of theCooperative Congressional Election Study project (http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/home).
In general, Americans are concerned about donors and money and elections, but also are receptive
to messaging that portrays campaign donations as free speech. However, posed in terms of tradeoffs, clear majorities are in favor of imposing donation limits to reduce corruption; they are not, tobe sure, in favor of publically financed campaigns. These results highlight the difficulty that
Americans have in reconciling individualism and free speech beliefs central to the American
democratic creed with the fact that majorities are clearly and overwhelmingly bothered by the role ofmoney in US elections.
o Asked how closely they have followed the debate over campaign finance, only 13%
report following this debate very closely, 31% somewhat closely, 35% not too closelyand 22% not at all closely. Women report paying much less attention (37% follow
closely compared to 50% of men). Younger voters, those with lower incomes, thosewith less education and those not registered to vote also report paying significantly
less attention.
o Asked whether donors to political campaigns have too much power, 87% of
Americans surveyed agreed with this statement (52% strongly agree, 35% somewhatagree). Furthermore, 91% of Americans surveyed agreed that wealthy Americans
have more of a chance to influence elections than other citizens (62% strongly agree;
29% somewhat agree). The biggest differences we observe in this question are
between Democrats and Republicans in the ‘strongly agree’ category.
o While the asymmetry of power granted to wealthy donors is seen as a problem acrossall categories, there is also a strong belief in individual liberty and freedom of speech
expressed in the data. A 53% majority (25% strongly agree; 29% somewhat agree)
also agrees that no one should be able to tell us how much money we can give to apolitical candidate and a large 71% majority (26% strongly agree; 45% somewhatagree) agrees that donating money is a protected right. Not surprisingly, there arelarge differences in answers to these questions by both party and ideology: 85% ofRepublicans, for instance view donating money as protected right compared to 67%of Independents and 63% of Democrats. There are also interesting differences byage 18-29 year olds (72%) and 40-49 year olds (75%) are the most likely to reportviewing donating money as a protected right, as well as the most ardent defenders of
the statement, “no one should be able to tell us how much money we can give to apolitical candidate.” While millennials are liberal on social issues, these findings alsosuggest a strong individualist streak in the youngest American adults.

o What these data all suggest is that multiple frames have power in influencing how
Americans think about campaign finance. Perhaps the most telling question in our
survey asked respondents to evaluate as a trade-off, “which of these statements
comes closer to your point of view…”: (1)contributing money to political candidates
is a form of free speech that must be protected, or (2) contributing money topolitical candidates can be a form of corruption that should be limited in order tomaintain fair elections. Posed as a trade-off, Americans are more than twice as likely
to agree with the point of view (67% to 33%) that campaign contributions can be aform of corruption as opposed to a form of free speech. Republicans are split
evenly on this question while 69% of Independents and 78% of Democrats viewmoney more as a form of corruption that speech.
o In addition, a large majority (69%) believes that the amount of money individuals
donate to campaigns should be limited, with only 31% preferring the perspective thatindividuals should be allowed to contribute as much money to political campaigns as
they would like. There are differences here by party and ideology, but majorities ofconservatives (56%) and Republicans (57%) still believe in limits. Moreover, amajority (52%) believe that campaign donation limitations work to prevent
corruption.
o There is less agreement, however, on how to proceed with reforms. A Majority(55%) believes that the current individual limit donations ($2,600 per candidate in2012) are appropriate; 19% think it should be more and 26% think it should be less.
Asked if they would favor a publically funded federal campaign finance system, 44%
reported being in favor, with 56% opposed. Republicans, not surprisingly are hugely
opposed to publically funded campaigns (73% opposed), but a surprising number ofDemocrats (43%) also oppose such a system.