<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>01379nam a2200181   4500</leader>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">509687</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">509687</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <controlfield tag="008">190520b           ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">McGregor, R. Michael</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">5810</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Voters who abstain: explaining abstention and ballot roll-off in the 2014 Toronto municipal election</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">2018</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">p.1081-1106.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">This article explores the correlates of ballot roll-off in the 2014 Toronto municipal election. While turnout in the mayoral contest was comparatively high, roughly 4.3% of voters abstained from council races. Using data from the Toronto Election Study, a large-N survey of electors conducted around the time of the 2014 Toronto Election, this study identifies a series of factors related to roll-off from mayoral to council elections. These variables include a number of sociodemographic characteristics and attitudinal factors commonly associated with turnout, measures of attachment to the city, and a series of election-specific factors. Results reveal that many factors commonly associated with abstention similarly drive roll-off, but that the experiences of individual voters also have an impact upon roll-off rates. - Reproduced.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Local government </subfield>
    <subfield code="9">5811</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Absenteeism</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">Voting</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Municipal elections</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">5981</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Urban Affairs Review</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="906" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Elections</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="942" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="2">ddc</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="2">ddc</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="7">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">383622</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">IIPA</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2019-05-20</subfield>
    <subfield code="h">54(6), Nov, 2018: p.1081-1106.</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">AR119800</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">2019-05-20</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">AR</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
