One of the things that make Google so powerful is that the sheer amount of data the search engine gathers allows us to explore what people as a whole are interested in.
Google gives in-depth results when it has the exact answer to a question. The company has increasingly been using these to supply information directly, as opposed to presenting users with links to sources that may have the right information.
Here's what happens right now, for instance, when you plug in "how to vote" from here in Washington:
You can try it from where you live, too.
What will be the practical outcome of all this information? Since Google accounts for roughly two-thirds of the U.S. search market, according to the research firm comScore, it seems reasonable to conclude that equipping all those people with better resources may encourage them to vote at greater rates. That's backed up by years of political science research that shows a link between ease of voting and voter turnout.
"When people have access to more information about an election, they tend to be more likely to turn out," said Danny Hayes, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University. "But I'd expect any effects to be small."
For instance, as far back as 1997 scholars were studying the effect of lowered registration barriers on elections.
"It is well established that a substantial reduction in registration barriers such as a state's adoption of election day registration (EDR) increases turnout, although the exact magnitude of the effect remains in some dispute," wrote Craig Brians of Virginia Tech and Bernard Grofman of the University of California at Irvine. The researchers went on to examine a 20-year stretch of voting data and concluded that same-day registration had a remarkable impact on the likelihood of "medium education and medium income" Americans to vote.
This is a timely debate. Courts across the country have been striking down voter-ID laws, making it easier for Americans to exercise their civic rights. But given the changes in the law, voters may be more confused about what they need to do. The in-depth results from Google spell things out clearly.
Whether higher turnout tends to benefit Democrats or Republicans is a perennial question for scholars. One 2007 study by New York University found that nonvoters tend to identify more with liberal causes than with conservative ones. Other research suggests that higher-income Americans are more likely to vote. The Atlantic has a pretty good rundown from last year on this topic, with lots of charts, as well as an explanation for why everyone should hope for better turnout, regardless of which party it benefits.
There's been lots of breathless reporting on the potential for Google or Facebook to tilt an election just by giving people certain search results or by structuring social news feeds to prioritize certain information. It's not an idle concern, particularly as these online services come to dominate how we work, play and socialize. But, Hayes said, most elections won't be decided by small changes in turnout. More importantly, he said, Google's potential influence on electoral behavior would not be much different from the League of Women Voters facilitating civic participation.
"Anything that encourages people to vote could in theory affect an election, but that doesn't mean that it's done with some partisan intent," Hayes said.
Providing people with the information they need to enjoy their political freedoms — information they're already looking for — is a little bit different from "tilting" a contest. What's more, it stands to give Americans greater faith in an institution that's critical to the healthy functioning of the republic.
