Why Don't People Vote?

gbain — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:30:42 -0800

It's just weeks away from the first round of presidential caucuses and primaries here in the US, and in coming months we will hear more about how low voter participation typically is in US presidential elections—and whether it matters.

I thought that I'd start by writing about why people don't vote in US presidential elections. That is, why don't those American citizens who are registered to vote turnout? In later essays I'll take up related questions, like why eligible citizens don't register to vote, a question on which there is considerable research.

Voter participation has been one of the most heavily studied questions for decades. In fact, some of the earliest empirical studies of voting behavior were studies of participation and mobilization: Harold Gosnell's 1927 book, Getting Out The Vote, still is a classic in the field. And these same questions continue to be studied: one of my recent Ph.D. students here at Caltech, Ines Levin, has just completed a wonderful Ph.D. these on voter participation, A New Approach to the Study of Political Participation. So after more than eight decades of research, voter participation is something that researchers know a lot about.

Election Integrity - Past, Present & Future

gbain — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 07:29:11 -0700

This event is to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the First National Symposium on Security and Reliability of Computers in the Electoral Process, held in Boston, Massachusetts in 1986. This event was co-chaired by Eva Waskell and Kurt Hyde.

The date that this event will take place:

Location: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Stata Center, Kirsh Auditorium, Room 32-123, 32 Vassar St., Building 32, Cambridge, MA
Sponsor: Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project
Date: Saturday, October 1, 2011
Admission: Free. Donations accepted.
Register at: http://www.eventbrite.com/event/2127905623
For questions, contact: eippf2011@lists.csail.mit.edu

Free weekend parking in the MIT lot at 21 Haywood Street, Cambridge

http://en.parkopedia.com/parking/lot/mit_hayward_street_lot/02142/cambri...

also seen on

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.moz...

Attached is the agenda for the event, which includes a link for registration.

http://shass.mit.edu/news/news-2011-election-integrity-past-present-and-...

http://sentinelsource.com/content/tncms/live/sentinelsource.com/opinion/...

Following are various links to election administration in the United States:

Election Administration in the United States by Joseph P. Harris, Ph.D, 1934
http://www.nist.gov/itl/vote/josephharrisrpt.cfm

Effective Use of Computing Technology in Vote-Tallying by Roy G. Saltman, March 1975, Final Project Report
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/NBS_SP_500-30.pdf

Accuracy, Integrity and Security in Computerized Vote-Tallying by Roy. G. Saltman, August 1988
http://www.itl.nist.gov/lab/specpubs/500-158.htm

Computerized Systems for Voting Seen as Vulnerable to Tampering by David Burnham, special to The New York Times, July 29, 1985
http://www.thelandesreport.com/1985.htm

Annals of Democracy: Counting Votes by Ronnie Dugger, The New Yorker, November 7, 1988
http://www.newsgarden.org/columns/dugger.shtml

Making Very Vote Count: Security and Reliability of Computerized Vote-Counting Systems by Lance J. Hoffman, (the original Markle Foundation report), December 1987
http://www.seas.gwu.edu/~lanceh/making.pdf

http://techtv.mit.edu/collections/vtp

Voting Technologies

gbain — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:50:37 -0700

A renewed, energetic interest in voting technologies erupted in political science following the 2000 presidential election. Spawned initially by the recount controversy in Florida, the literature has grown to consider the effects of voting technologies on the vote choice more generally. This literature has explained why localities have the voting technologies (lever machines, punch cards, etc.) they use. Although there are racial differences in the distribution of voting technologies used across localities, the strongest explanations for why local jurisdictions use particular technologies rest on legacies of past decisions. The bulk of the voting technology literature has focused on explaining how voting technologies influence residual votes, that is, blank, undervoted, and overvoted ballots. With the relative homogenization of voting technology since 2000, prospects for research that examines the effects of different machines on residual votes seem limited. However, opportunities exist to study the effect of voting machines historically, the effect of voting technologies on down-ballot rates, and the role of interest groups in affecting which voting technologies are made available to voters.

Needed -- a 21st century voter registration system for California

gbain — Tue, 31 May 2011 09:29:04 -0700

The world looks to California for 21st century innovation, especially for the application of technology that makes life less costly and more efficient.

Californians are well into the 21st century, working in the cloud, using smart phones and tablet computers, and getting their entertainment on-demand by satellite. But when it comes to voter registration, California seems to be stuck in the 18th century. State law won't allow eligible citizens in our state to register online until at least 2015 -- and maybe much later.

Fortunately, Californians may not need to wait much longer. A bill that would allow for online voter registration as soon as 2012 is making its way through the state Senate. SB397 would allow counties throughout the state to implement online voter registration systems for eligible citizens who already have a valid California driver's license or state identification card. In order to be available to eligible Californians before the next major election cycle, however, SB397 would need to be passed immediately. The bill's fate rests in the hands of the state Senate.

Online voter registration will not only increase the number of Californians who are registered to vote but, if done well, might also increase voter turnout in future elections. At this time, there are approximately 6.4 million eligible Californians who are not registered to vote. Allowing online registration will vastly simplify the registration process for those individuals. Permitting online registration in California will also generate significant cost savings -- a boon to state and local governments struggling with dwindling budgets.

States like Arizona and Washington have successfully adopted proposals similar to SB397. Both states have realized significant cost savings: Washington estimated a savings of $176,000 in its first year after implementing online voter registration, and Maricopa County, Ariz., reported saving more than $1 million since implementing online registration five years ago. There is no doubt that California counties will experience similar savings once online registration is put in place for voters.

Finally, online registration will enhance the security of the existing registration process. Only eligible citizens with a driver's license or state identification card would be able to register online. These eligible citizens would provide their information securely online, and then county election officials would verify that information using an independent state-run database matched against the DMV records. Once a DMV record is located for the registrant, the same signature that the eligible citizen provided to the DMV would be used by the election official as the registration signature for the voter registration record.

California needs online registration in time for the 2012 elections. We cannot wait any longer to elevate our 18th century registration system to one that can serve the needs of voters in the 21st century. We urge legislators to put California on the track of innovation and election modernization. Pass SB397.

Charles Stewart III and Jonathan Katz elected fellows of the American Association of Arts and Sciences

gbain — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:48:59 -0700

Congratulations to Charles Stewart III and Jonathan Katz who were elected to membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Charles and Jonathan join one of the nation’s most prestigious honorary societies and a leading center for independent policy research. Members contribute to Academy studies of science and technology policy, global security, social policy and American institutions, the humanities, and education.

Following are links to both press releases from MIT and Caltech:

http://www.amacad.org/news/pressReleaseContent.aspx?i=133
http://features.caltech.edu/features/163

The other people who have been part of the project who are already fellows are Ansolabehere, Palfrey, and Rivest.

What Hath HAVA Wrought? Consequences, Intended and Not, of the Post-Bush v. Gore Reforms

gbain — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:37:08 -0700

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA)1 is the most important direct federal response to the 2000 electoral fiasco in Florida. HAVA had many provisions, some directly inspired by the controversy, others that came along for the ride. In addition to mandating certain changes in how states conducted federal elections, HAVA appropriated $3b for the improvement of voting systems, most of which went to purchase new voting machines.

It is natural to ask whether this was money well spent. More broadly, it is natural to ask whether elections are better administered in the United States, and whether the shortcomings targeted by HAVA have improved. It is the purpose of this paper to help address these questions.

Partisan Bias in Evaluating U.S. Elections during the HAVA Decade: A Natural Experiment

gbain — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:58:21 -0700

Controversies over the conduct of elections prompted a variety of reform efforts during the last decade, notably The Help America Vote Act. HAVA and state-level measures like California's Voting Modernization Bond Act allowed local governments to replace obsolete election equipment with more technologically advanced voting machines. The machinery of democracy appears to affect voter confidence in elections. However, these judgments are also associated with party identification and other voter characteristics. We anticipate partisan attachments substantially affect how voters react to changes in election technology over time. We argue that these judgments should also be conditioned by the particular technology adopted, given elite signaling about partisan costs and benefits associated with various voting systems. Using surveys of California residents conducted in 2004 and 2008, we construct a dynamic investigation of confidence in elections. Consistent with our expectations, California Democrats gained confidence in elections during the last decade while Republicans experienced a substantially greater loss in confidence. We exploit differences in county implementation of new technology as a natural experiment to examine whether patisan reactions are driven by local or state-level reform. We find voters are more influenced by state-level changes in voting equipment.

Assessing Electoral Performance in the New Mexico 2010 General Election

gbain — Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:46:07 -0700

The 2010 New Mexico Election Administration Report represents a systematic examination of New Mexico's November 2010 General election. It is the third election report in a series that we began unintentionally in 2006 with our academic partners R. Michael Alvarez, professor at the California Institute of Technology, and Thad E. Hall, associate professor at the University of Utah. To our knowledge, no other state has had the kind of sustained and independent analysis over multiple elections. But New Mexico is a unique environment culturally, politically, and electorally and project partners, the Secretary of State's office, and the broader electoral community, made up of a variety of activists organizations, have supported and encouraged our efforts. Moreover, feedback on our work from regular voters, poll workers as well as responsiveness by local election administrators has made our efforts productive and helpful as New Mexico continues to reform its electoral processes.

In this report, we combine qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze the New Mexico election landscape. We think the key to improving elections is to collect and analyze the experiences of voters, poll workers, and administrators systematically. Together these data provide a portrait of the election experience from which problems and successes can be identified and confirmed from multiple players. Our research design is a multi-pronged evaluation strategy. Combining data from different electoral actors provides multiple perspectives from key players and groups to assess how well the election was run and how the management of the election can be improved in future elections.

In 2007, we released our research on the 2006 New Mexico Election Administration Report. At the beginning of 2010, we released our 2008 Ecosystem report. The 2006 and 2008 reports provide points of comparison for how the system is evolving since the implementation of a statewide optical scan paper ballot system in 2006. We use these data wherever possible to assist us in determining where improvement or deteriorations have occurred.

MPSA 2011 Conference - Presentations by VTP Faculty, Affiliates and Students

gbain — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:04:37 -0700

Our Voting Technology faculty, affiliates and students will be presenting papers/posters, and several of our faculty will be sitting on panels at this year's Midwest Political Science Association Conference. Please visit the website for specific locations. Following are dates and times of the sessions for each VTP team member:

> Paper: The 17th Amendment and the Partisan Composition of the U.S. Senate, by Charles H. Stewart III, MIT and Wendy J. Schiller, Brown University. March 31, 2011/4:35pm

> Roundtable: Using Political Science to Understand the Democrats Surge and Decline: Charles Stewart will be a panelist. April 2, 2011/10:25am

> Charles Stewart will be Chairing the following session: Proximity Models: Moving beyond One Dimension on April 2, 2011/12:45pm

> Paper: Deciphering Declining: California's Decline to State Voters, by John Andrew Sinclair and Michael Alvarez, Caltech. March 31, 2011/2:40pm

> Roundtable: Graduate Methods Training in the Potential Outcomes Era: Moving Beyond Regression?. Michael Alvarez will be one of the Chairs on April 1, 2011/12:45pm

> Paper: Voter Choice under Instant Runoff Voting: An Empirical Analysis of the Rationality and Dimensionality of Candidate Rankings, by Ines Levin, Michael Alvarez, Caltech and Thad Hall, University of Utah. April 1, 2011/4:35pm

> Paper: How Emotional Reactions Alter Survey Responses, presented by Peter Foley, Ralph Adolphs and Michael Alvarez, Caltech. April 2, 2011/10:25am

> Paper: Uncertainty and Importance in Vote Choice, presented by David Peterson, Iowa State University and Michael Alvarez, Caltech. April 2, 2011/12:45pm

> Paper: Overseas Voter Satisfaction in 2010, presented by Clair M. Smith, Overseas Vote Foundation and Thad Hall, University of Utah. March 31, 2011/10:25am

> Paper: Voter Choice under Instant Runoff Voting... presented by Ines Levin, Michael Alvarez, Caltech and Thad Hall, University of Utah. April 1, 2011/4:35pm

> Paper: Measuring Changes in Voter Turnout and mobilization Patterns: The 2004 and 2008 U.S. Presidential Elections, presented by Morgan Llewellyn, IMT, Lucca. April 2, 2011/10:25am

> Paper: Uninformed but Opinionated Voters, presented by Peter Foley, Caltech. March 31, 2011/8:30am

> Paper: Optimal Defense Policy Under Domestic Constraints, 1815-1914, presented by John Andrew Sinclair, Caltech. March 31, 2011/10:25am

http://www.mpsanet.org/Conference/ConferenceProgram2011/tabid/583/Defaul...

Research Note on Footnote 24 of the 6th Circuit Hunter Decision

gbain — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 10:13:54 -0800

The decision issued by the three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in the matter of Hunter v. Hamilton County Board of Elections2 contains a very interesting analysis of problems with Ohio’s law about counting provisional ballots when they are cast in “the right church, wrong pew” (RCWP).

On the whole, the appeals court opinion contains a strong argument against the Draconian effects of the Ohio law, which allows — indeed, mandates — disenfranchisement of voters who have followed the instructions of a poll worker.

However, the decision makes what appears to be an empirically questionable assumption in its footnote 24, which reads as follows:

It is also discomforting that Ohio’s rule that all provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct must be excluded may fall—at least in this instance—unevenly on voters depending on where the Board directs them to vote. In single-precinct polling places there is less room for error than at the multiple precinct locations that have caused so much difficulty in this case. As a result, fewer provisional ballots are likely to be counted in multiple-precinct polling places than in those that serve only a single precinct. This disparate impact might not be of constitutional significance everywhere in Ohio, but here Plaintiffs assert that “the polling places where most of the error-infected provisional ballots were cast are in African-American areas of Hamilton Country.” Plaintiffs 2d Br. at 3. It appears, then, that the exclusionary rule in this case may accrue to the detriment of a protected class. (Emphasis added)

Featured Content