Pennsylvania's Swing 1932-1936

[WI_Dem]

Okay. This is bothering me. Between 1932 and 1936, PA went from voting for Herbert Hoover to voting for FDR by a huge margin and it appears to be driven largely by a large increase in voters across the state, particularly in Philadelphia county that flipped from being + 70,000 votes for Hoover in '32 to being +200,000 for FDR in '36. Between the two elections, the number of voters increased by nealy 300,000. In PA as a whole, the number of voters between the two elections increased by nearly 1.3 million, roughly 20% of the increase in the total national vote. Clearly, there was some change in the voting law, but I have no idea what it was and I have been researching this for some time and can't find anything. Can somebody help me out?

[Alcon]

I would guess maybe same-day registration, but that can't be right.  Was there a population boom of some type?

Welcome to the forum, by the way!  Enjoy your stay.

[WI_Dem]

I've actually been registered before, but I forgot my name and password since I hadn't used the forums in well over a year.

I already looked into the population issue and found that PA population growth was virtually nonexistant in the 1930s.

[The Dowager Mod]

The Pennsylvania voting act was 1937 so that's not it.
maybe they dropped poll taxes or something like that?

[WI_Dem]

Poll taxes? Hmmm...That would make sense since lower income voters would have voted for FDR in droves, particularly in areas like Philadelphia. It will take some time to research, but that's interesting.

[WI_Dem]

I think I found it on a webstie:

"Also updated was the juvenile court system and repeal of requiring voters to present tax receipts as a quasi poll tax."

http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/bah/dam/governors/pinchot.asp?secid=31

That makes sense. Such a system would have depressed turnout previously. Thanks much for the idea.

[2952-0-0]

Texasgurl, you said your husband had an account here. Is this guy him?

[WI_Dem]

No. I'm single. ;-)

[The Dowager Mod]

My husband has a Texas avatar

[Alcon]

Oops, sorry aobut the same-day registration thing.  I saw your avatar and thought stupidly this topic was about Wisconsin.  Pennsylvania doesn't have any such thing.

[Max Power]

My husband has a Texas avatar

Is your husband the guy who had that funny KFC 'Hillary Special' sign in his sig?

[Speed of Sound]

I know that PA Socialist vote dropped 3% from 32 to 36, so that might have had a part in it.

[WI_Dem]

The biggest factor appears to be the new voters being brought in by that quasi-poll tax being removed. While the Republican vote is relatively steady, the Democratic vote surges and gives FDR a big edge in the state. The Republican vote share in the state dropped from about 51% to 41% in a single cycle(1932-1936). The Democratic vote surged by 1.1 million while the Republican vote only increased by 200,000 or thereabouts. This was obviously tied to the total increase in voters in PA from 2.8 million to 4.1 million.

This will definitely be part of a political history project that I am undertaking examining the trends in the electorate since the Civil War.

[minionofmidas]

Very interesting by the way, I'd been wondering why the Reps held Pa. in 1932.

[WI_Dem]

Very interesting by the way, I'd been wondering why the Reps held Pa. in 1932.

It is interesting. Part of it is that there was a very corrupt Republican machine in Philadelphia as well, but that actually wasn't fully broken until a little later. In addition, there was just somewhat of a knee-jerk Republican vote in PA that was very difficult for Democrats to overcome. PA was kind of like the Republican version of VA during that time period.

[jimrtex]

The elimination of the quasi-poll tax may be the key.  The 1934 Senate election had slightly higher turnout than the 1932 presidential vote, while 1930 election had a senate race with turnout under 2 million.

Other factors:

The 1932 turnout was depressed relative to 1928.  More persons may have been displaced because of the Depression.  Residency requirements were probably longer; absentee voting if possible, much harder (the 1st time I voted absentee, I needed a notary for the application).   Or voters may have been discouraged.   The GOP vote was down 600,000; while the Democrat vote was only up 200,000.  By 1936, people who had moved for employment might have become more settled, and more people may have been willing to support Roosevelt.

Voting age growth.  The native-born population over 21 appears to have grown about 30% between 1930 and 1940.  You would have seen children of pre-WWI immigrants reaching majority.  Any child immigrants from that era, may have naturalized with their family, and grown up as Americans.  A goal of American education was to teach citizenship.

Increased participation rates.  Even with female suffrage, older women might not have voted.  Over time it would become more of the norm to vote.  Since spouses usually voted the same way, wives could have been encouraged to vote, effectively doubling your household's voting power.   Labor unions would have encouraged workers (and their families) to vote.

Increased literacy.  Universal elementary education would have made an increasing share of the voters literate in English.  Even if there was no formal literacy requirement, illterates would be less likely to vote.  Persons less proficient in English would be less likely to vote.

End of Probhibition.  If bars were open on election day, the traditional trading of votes might have occurred.  If bars were closed on election day, drinkers would have been made aware the day was special.

Radio.  Voters would have become more aware of political issues, especially among those who could not read newspapers, and were dependent on word of mouth.

[jimrtex]

Very interesting by the way, I'd been wondering why the Reps held Pa. in 1932.

The Democrats had invaded Pennsylvania during the Civil War.

[WI_Dem]

Very interesting by the way, I'd been wondering why the Reps held Pa. in 1932.

The Democrats had invaded Pennsylvania during the Civil War.

I once wrote a paper in school about just how long states held a grudge from the Civil War on both sides. My teacher said, "Come on, they didn't hold it against (Democrats or Republicans) for that long.".

That said, I think you're right that there's more than just one factor at play in a result change that big. The part about the voting age demographic change was something I had considered, but hadn't looked into yet and that is interesting. Thanks for the information.

[jimrtex]

That said, I think you're right that there's more than just one factor at play in a result change that big. The part about the voting age demographic change was something I had considered, but hadn't looked into yet and that is interesting. Thanks for the information.

The following has queryable census data from past censuses.  It is sometimes hard to use because the questions varied from census to census.

Historical Census data

[12th Doctor]

It has way more to do with it than just the tax.  Pennsylvania was one of the last places to really feel the Depression.  Even in Pittsburgh, the steel industry was one of the last ones to feel the effects, because every other industry needed steel to function.

Also, Philadelphia remained relatively prosperous, throughout the period.

[WI_Dem]

It has way more to do with it than just the tax.  Pennsylvania was one of the last places to really feel the Depression.  Even in Pittsburgh, the steel industry was one of the last ones to feel the effects, because every other industry needed steel to function.

Also, Philadelphia remained relatively prosperous, throughout the period.

That has nothing to do with the increase in voters at all. There is an enormous percentage increase in voters that must have been caused by a change in the law. The economy was terrible in PA, certainly bad enough to be felt by 1932.