Geo-Economics and Politics

The surprising relationship between the weather and voting

A woman inserts her ballot into an intake machine in the garage of Tom and Carol Marshall, which was made into a polling location in the neighborhood, during the U.S. presidential election in Los Angeles, California November 6, 2012. REUTERS/Fred Prouser (UNITED STATES - Tags: USA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION POLITICS ELECTIONS) - GM1E8B70AYA01

“We found that for every 10C increase in temperature, voter turnout increased by 1.4%.” Image: REUTERS/Fred Prouser

Tania FitzGeorge-Balfour
Share:
Our Impact
What's the World Economic Forum doing to accelerate action on Geo-Economics and Politics?
The Big Picture
Explore and monitor how Internet Governance is affecting economies, industries and global issues
A hand holding a looking glass by a lake
Crowdsource Innovation
Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale
Stay up to date:

Internet Governance

Political rebellions and riots have been associated with warmer weather, but until now, there has been little research on its potential influence on peaceful and democratic political behavior. A new study, published in the open-access journal Frontiers in Psychology, has uncovered a connection between changes in temperature and voting behavior in the United States of America.

“We found that increases in state-level temperatures from one election to another are related to increases in state-level voter turnout, and increases in votes for the incumbent party,” says Jasper Van Assche, who completed this research in the Department of Developmental, Personality and Social Psychology at Ghent University, Belgium.

“Voter behavior data from each state was collected for all the U.S. presidential elections from 1960 to 2016 and compared to the difference between maximum temperature on voting day and that of the previous election day,” explains Van Assche. “We found that for every 10C increase in temperature, voter turnout increased by 1.4%.”

The study also revealed that a rise in temperature motivated some citizens to cast their vote for the smaller political parties (Greens, Libertarians, Independents). Counteracting this, was the finding that warmer weather was a stronger motivator for some citizens to vote for the government currently in power.

“Although these effects are rather small compared to the ‘usual suspects’ that predict voting, they might play a role in close races,” says Van Assche.

The study details one such case; the 2000 presidential election. Applying the findings of the study, Van Assche and his co-authors suggests a mere 10C (1.8oF) increase in temperature may have made Al Gore the 43rd U.S. President instead of George W. Bush, as Gore would have won in Florida.

Van Assche is keen to explain that his results were not affected by other factors that can influence voter behavior.

“Importantly, the relationship between voter behavior and turnout remained true even when we took into account the ‘usual suspects’ that can have an effect – the president being available for reappointment, the incumbent president being elected or not (Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford were Vice Presidents), presidential approval ratings, whether the president’s party had a majority in Congress during the two last years, and change in state gross domestic product (GDP), amongst others.”

The study analyzed changes in temperature (an increase or decrease in temperature on voting day, when compared to the previous election day), rather than absolute temperature because of the latter’s potential effects on the results. An absolute temperature of 30oC would be a normal temperature for California, but hot in Alaska. Moreover, absolute temperature can be linked to other factors that may affect voting behavior. For example, poverty is generally higher in countries with hotter climates.

It is hoped that future studies will delve deeper and increase our knowledge of what can influence voter behavior.

“There is a large amount of research on voter behavior, but little attention has been paid to the seemingly illogical factors that can influence the way people vote. Future studies could expand our understanding by tapping into smaller levels of analyses (e.g., cities or counties) or by including emotions (such as anger) which might explain some of the effects,” concludes Van Assche.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

Sign up for free

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:
Geo-Economics and PoliticsGlobal Cooperation
Share:
World Economic Forum logo
Global Agenda

The Agenda Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

Subscribe today

You can unsubscribe at any time using the link in our emails. For more details, review our privacy policy.

Japan and the Middle East: Japan can be a bridge in an era of global fragmentation and conflict

Kiriko Honda

April 25, 2024

About Us

Events

Media

Partners & Members

  • Join Us

Language Editions

Privacy Policy & Terms of Service

© 2024 World Economic Forum