The Human Dimension of Elections: How Poll Workers Shape Public Confidence in Elections

gbain — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:57:29 -0800

This article examines the role that poll workers play in the perceptions that voters have about the overall quality of elections and democracy more generally. Although the 2000 election opened up a wideranging examination of the electoral process in the United States, there has been little consideration given to the role of administration and management in the electoral process and in confidence in election outcomes (cf. Hall 2003; Alvarez and Hall 2006).
Many studies have examined the performance of voting technologies (e.g., Alvarez, Ansolabehere, and Stewart 2005; Ansolabehere and Stewart 2005), the implementation of various reforms like all-vote-by mail in Oregon (e.g., Hanmer and Traugott 2004), the partisan nature of electoral administration (Kimball, Kropf, and Battles 2006), and the consequences of reform (e.g., Berinsky 2005). These studies have greatly expanded our understanding of specific aspects of elections, especially the role of voting technology and voting methods on vote counting and participation.

However, little is known about how the activities that occur within polling places on Election Day affect whether individuals have confidence in the way elections are administered as well as election outcomes. This article has three components. First, we examine the role of poll workers and polling place activities in the election process and consider how they are similar to street-level bureaucracies. As street-level bureaucrats, poll workers can exercise discretion in ways that directly affect the experience of the voter. In addition, other polling place experiences, like having to wait in line, can also shape the voter’s experience. Second, we examine the level of satisfaction that voters have toward various components of the voting process. Third, we then consider how a voter’s satisfaction with the poll workers might affect how voters view two key attributes of elections: (1) confidence that the current election process produces fair election outcomes and (2) confidence that the ballot was counted accurately.

Resolving Voter Registration Problems: Making Registration Easier, Less Costly and More Accurate

gbain — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:06:51 -0700

Introduction

The practice of voter registration has a long history in the United States. In 1800, Massachusetts was the first state to impose a voter registration requirement. By Reconstruction, voter registration was used in a handful of states, typically in urban areas, as a tool to prevent multiple voting. By early in the twentieth century, most states required voter registration.

In recent decades, there have been many initiatives to make voter registration easier and more convenient for voters. At the federal level, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA, 1993) and the Help America Vote Act (HAVA, 2002) both sought to ease the registration process for eligible voters. For example, NVRA made the registration process available in government agencies and by mail and HAVA required that most states develop statewide computerized voter lists, among other reforms. At the same time, many states shortened pre-election registration deadlines, allowed for election-day voter registration, and worked in other ways to make the registration process easier.

Voter registration regulations currently in the United States look like a patchwork quilt: states have different deadlines for registration before an election, they use different registration forms, and some states even allow some eligible citizens to register online.4 Despite these varying practices, there are some important commonalities in how voter registration is practiced in every state. In the United States, voter registration is voluntary (eligible citizens do not have to register) and is passive (eligible citizens have the responsibility for registering with the appropriate government authority in their state).5 From an international perspective, the voluntary and passive nature of voter registration in the United States is not unique, but many other nations have voter registration systems that are compulsory and/or active (appropriate governmental authorities are required to find and register eligible citizens).

In this chapter, we argue that, despite federal and state efforts to make voter registration easier and more convenient for voters, the existing patchwork quilt of registration practices and regulations remain a barrier to some many eligible citizens. This patchwork quilt has produced a voter registration system that is likely more costly and less accurate that other types of voter registration systems. Thus, the United States should consider a process for implementing an active, rather than passive, voter registration process. Implementation of an active voter registration process should make registration issues less of a burden for many eligible citizens, lower the costs of election administration, and produce a voter registry that is both more accurate and more comprehensive.

2008 Survey of the Performance of American Elections

gbain — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:23:37 -0700

Charles Stewart is giving a presentation at the IACREOT 38th Annual Summer Conference & Trade Show in Spokane, Washington this week (July 7-11, 2009).

Attached is his presentation on the 2008 Survey of the Performance of American Elections.

Correcting for Survey Misreports using Auxiliary Information with an Application to Estimating Turnout

gbain — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:39:04 -0700

Abstract

Misreporting is a problem that plagues researchers that use survey data. In this paper, we give conditions under which misreporting will lead to incorrect inferences. We then develop a model that corrects for misreporting using some auxiliary information, usually from an earlier or pilot validation study. This correction is implemented via Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods, which allows us to correct for other problems in surveys, such as non-response. This correction will allow researchers to continue to use the non-validated data to make inferences. The model, while fully general, is developed in the context of estimating models of turnout from the American National Elections Studies (ANES) data.

United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration

gbain — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:31:36 -0700

News from Chairman Schumer

Schumer Reveals Groundbreaking New Study from Voting Experts: Up to 7 Million Registered Voters were Prevented or Discouraged from Casting Ballots in '08 Election

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, announced Wednesday that, according to a groundbreaking new study conducted by leading election experts, as many as seven million registered voters were prevented or discouraged from casting their ballots in the 2008 election, demonstrating major malfunctions in the country’s election process.

http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=InNews.MajorityNews&...

Also,

Testimony of Mr. Stephen Ansolabehere
Professor, Department of Government
Harvard University

Hearing: Voter Registration: Assessing Current Problems
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Testimony
Testimony of Mr. Stephen Ansolabehere
Professor, Department of Government
Harvard University

http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=CommitteeSchedule.Te...

The role of race - Voting analysis shows Obama won because of his support among blacks

gbain — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:00:00 -0800

Election Day Went Smoothly But Trouble Spots Remain, Survey Shows

gbain — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:57:02 -0800

WASHINGTON, Dec 09, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Pew Center on the States and the JEHT Foundation Commit $8 Million in 2009 to Modernize Election System
Despite widespread predictions of Election Day meltdowns, the election ran relatively smoothly, according to a new national survey. An overwhelming number of voters on November 4 -- more than nine in ten (91 percent) -- said it was very easy to find their polling place; more than eight in ten (83 percent) said their polling place was very well run; and 75 percent said they were "very confident" their vote was counted as cast. The survey of 10,000 Americans, conducted November 5-12, confirms anecdotal reports of voter satisfaction. Pew Center on the States' Make Voting Work ( www.pewcenteronthestates.org) and AARP sponsored the survey, which was conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
The first of its kind since the election, the research poll was released at Make Voting Work's (MVW) "Voting in America -- The Road Ahead" conference today, where Secretaries of State, election officials and experts gathered to discuss and drive election reform.
"Overall, voters give the election system very good grades," said Michael Caudell-Feagan, director of Pew Center on the States' Make Voting Work. "But the data does point to issues with voter wait times, absentee voting and inconsistent application of election laws. With momentum building for reform, now is the time to wrestle with where and how to improve our system based on the insights from voters' direct experience in navigating it. We are confident election officials are committed to identifying and testing innovative solutions."
Among the survey's findings:

-- On Election Day, African American voters waited more than twice as long
to vote (29 minutes) than all other voters, who reported an average wait
time of 13 minutes to vote. Early voters said they had to wait an
average of 20 minutes to vote, but African Americans again reported an
average wait time more than twice as long -- 43 minutes;
-- Only 61 percent of absentee voters said they were very confident their
vote was counted as cast, compared to 75 percent of Election Day voters;
-- Among those who did not vote, eight percent said they had requested an
absentee ballot but it never arrived, 16 percent had registration
problems and 10 percent could not find their polling place;
-- Almost everyone surveyed said they had at least one form of government
ID. Hispanics said they were asked to show ID more often than whites or
African Americans in states that require ID;
-- More than half of the states require no ID to vote, yet 12 percent of
voters in these states not requiring ID said they were asked to present
an ID. Meanwhile, in states that require a photo ID, 20 percent of
voters said they were never asked for one.

"Over the coming weeks, we will continue to look at the data to learn more about why people had different experiences when they voted," said pollster Charles Stewart III, professor of political science at MIT. "In February, we plan to release an extended analysis providing breakdowns by state and by segments of the electorate."
New Funding to Study Alternatives to Voting by Precinct and Other Innovations
Make Voting Work (MVW) will invest more than $8 million in 2009 to drive advances in the field - continuing its focus on voter information, voter registration, audits, polling place management, and military and overseas voting. Launched in 2007, MVW is a unique partnership of the Pew Center on the States with the JEHT Foundation.
"With Make Voting Work, the Pew Center on the States is documenting problems in our election system and identifying opportunities for improvement," said Susan K. Urahn, managing director, Pew Center on the States. "Our research on the 2008 elections shows that state and local election officials adopted a variety of innovations designed to improve how elections are run. By field-testing these new approaches, Make Voting Work will build the evidence base needed for sound policymaking. And when we know what works, we will explore how to advance policies that lead to significant improvements across the country."
Initially, the new funding will be applied to six projects that will evaluate the impact of early voting and other alternatives to traditional precinct place voting on turnout, voter convenience and satisfaction, integrity and security of the system, and administrative efficiency and cost. Working with leading election officials around the country, MVW will commission a number of additional pilot projects, case studies and experiments in 2009 to deepen the evidence base available to policymakers, those administering our elections, and the American electorate.
Make Voting Work, a project of the Pew Center on the States, seeks to foster an election system that achieves the highest standards of accuracy, accessibility, efficiency and security. The initiative examines the most pressing election problems, and undertakes and evaluates pilot projects and experiments designed to address them. This research will inform our efforts to identify effective solutions through changes in policies, practices and technology. Further information is available at www.pewcenteronthestates.org.
The JEHT Foundation was established in April 2000. Its name stands for the core values that underlie the Foundation's mission: Justice, Equality, Human dignity and Tolerance. The Foundation focuses on criminal and juvenile justice, international justice, and fair and participatory elections. Working directly with states, in some cases in-depth, is a key part of the Foundation strategy to implement practical change related to its mission.
SOURCE Pew Center on the States

THE NEW MEXICO 2006 POST ELECTION AUDIT REPORT

gbain — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:36:23 -0800

During the 2007 legislative session, the New Mexico Legislature passed a bill and Governor
Richardson signed it into law, which provides for random voting system audits after every
statewide general election (see §1-14-13.1, NMSA). Specifically, the law provides that county
clerks are to compare the total votes tallied in the general election for the office of president or
governor from a random selection of 2% of the voting systems used during the election
throughout the state to a hand count of the ballots cast on that system. A voting system is
defined as a vote-tabulating machine (§1-9-1(B), NMSA). In the event the hand count varies
from the total system count by more than 1.5%, the Secretary of State is required to conduct a
recount of the specified office in the precincts of the legislative district in which the discrepancy
occurred. The random system audit is to be completed within five days of the county canvass
board certification of the county election results to the Secretary of State. (See Part II of this
report for a copy of the New Mexico law).

The purpose of the law is to verify the accuracy and efficacy of the voting systems or vote
tabulating machines in tabulating votes. Thus, the audit is meant as a performance audit of the
voting machines. The New Mexico law is similar to laws that have been passed or are being
considered in legislative committees across the country that require manual counts of paper
ballots and voter-verifiable paper records in randomly selected units (e.g. precincts or voting
systems) and comparing them to the corresponding electronic or manual tallies, for the purpose
of verifying the election result with a high level of confidence.1 The broader purpose of these
measures is to strengthen voter confidence in the administration process and its outcomes.
In the spring of 2008, we had the opportunity to develop and test audit procedures in Bernalillo
County, New Mexico for the purpose of recommending specific recommendations and
guidelines to the New Mexico Secretary of State in preparation for the 2008 post election audit
and more broadly to consider and test methods that would be effective for other states and
localities as they grapple with this issue. At the same time, our study is also meant to inform the
public debate on the accuracy and integrity of the new optical scan voting systems deployed for
the first time in the 2006 election.

Therefore, we simulated the 2006 election using a random sample of 25% of the ballots cast
(47,481 ballots) and recounted those ballots by 2-person and 3-person hand counts and by a
second machine count. Bernalillo County, along with all other counties in New Mexico, uses an
optical scan paper ballot system to administer their elections. Bernalillo tabulates its ballots
using the ES&S M100 optical scan precinct ballot counter for Election Day and early ballot
processing and the ES&S M650 for absentee ballot processing. Early voting machines and the
M650 are programmed with 431 ballot styles and 78 unique ballot combinations, while Election
Day voting machines usually are programmed with only 1 ballot style. Our election audit
focused on the race for governor and land commissioner. 1 H.R. 811 (op cite) also has provisions in it for post-election audits in federal elections.

This study allowed us to evaluate, assess and experiment with procedures to provide
recommendations on post election performance audits. During our study we experimented with
counting procedures, developed sampling procedures, chain of custody procedures and carefully
examined all of the parameters necessary for a successful and complete post election audit. This
included: ballot reconciliation, pre-election preparation for the post election audit, the
importance of transparency to the voting process, sampling methods, example forms, audit team
selection standards, reporting of audit outcomes, voter intent standards and various hand
counting procedures. These recommendations, along with explanations and justifications, are
presented in Part I.

Part II of our report provides a detailed description of our study, research design, and process.
We provide background information on the New Mexico election administration context, the
election audit law and the location and set-up for our study. We also describe the documents that
we relied on to account for our work (e.g. tally sheets, audit logs, forms) chain of custody rules,
sampling methods, the data we collected and the machine and hand-counting procedures.
Part III of our report examines the machine and hand count data that were generated over the
course of our study and allows us to answer a number of questions about the reliability and
precision of machine and hand counts across different counting modes. We compare the machine
count to the actual number of ballots processed, machine to hand counts, hand counts to hand
counts and machine to machine counts to assess the reliability and validity of the various
counting methods. We also examine how long machines and humans took to count ballots,
providing information on how long audits can take.

Each part of our study is prefaced with an executive summary that briefly discusses the major
findings. We also provide an extensive appendix that documents all aspects of our research
design, provides examples for suggested forms, and provides detailed information on the data we
collected.

We hope that our research is a useful tool as election administrators across New Mexico and the
country prepare for the upcoming elections in 2008 and beyond. Our detailed examination of the
audit process is meant to provide practitioners and stakeholders with valuable information in
preparation for their own election audits.

We wish to make clear that this work was a partnership between the non-profit sector,
government, and academia and the strength of these relationships was key to a successful study
design. As scholars we learned much about the election administration process over the course
of our work and have a deeper understanding of the complexities of election administration. We
hope our experiences, detailed throughout this report, provide useful information to practitioners.
This study’s primary financial sponsors were the Pew Charitable Trusts, Center for the States,
and JEHT Foundation’s “Make Voting Work” Initiative. Without their support this project would
not have been completed. In addition, it is important to recognize that our partnership with local
and state government both financially and administratively was also critical to our success.

Bernalillo County Clerk, Maggie Toulouse Oliver and her Deputy Clerk Robert Adams, provided
valuable financial resources to support the election audit at the Voter Warehouse, provided us
with the training and background to operate machines and gave us the freedom, in a potentially
politically sensitive situation, to perform our task independently and experiment with a variety of
methods. Her staff was incredibly supportive before, during and after the audit and made our
jobs both productive and fun. The Secretary of State Mary Herrera also provided key financial
and administrative support and observed our process throughout. Her staff provided key input
on the New Mexico law and on the process of elections in the State of New Mexico and was a
needed asset and ally throughout our work. The partnership has provided important insights for
all parties in creating a stronger, more efficient and confident election system.
In addition to these individuals, the University of New Mexico, the University of Utah and the
California Institute of Technology also provided key financial and administrative support. A
detailed listing of all of the individuals involved in making this project a success are listed in the
acknowledgement section at the end of this document.

Flooding The Vote: Hurricane Katrina and Voter Participation in New Orleans

gbain — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:44:07 -0800

The flooding of New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina resulted in a massive and rapid exodus of individuals from New Orleans to locations around the United States. In the midst of the hurricane recovery, the City of New Orleans reelected Mayor Ray Nagin to a second term in office. Arguments regarding when this election would be held were
largely driven by views regarding the impact of the diaspora on the voting population in New Orleans. With more than half of the city’s population gone, the unknown was who would be able to vote. We use voting record data from twenty election cycles, GIS-coded flood depth data, and census data to examine the voting behavior of registered voters in New Orleans before and after Hurricane Katrina. We apply a variety of statistical techniques,
including propensity score matching methods, to compare the mayoral turnout of registered voters across flood depths. We find that registered voters who experienced more than six feet of flooding were more likely to participate in the mayoral election than registered voters who experienced less flooding. We attribute this to their increased motivation to participate in municipal politics in conjunction with voter mobilization efforts in
the wake of Katrina. Our finding about the characteristics of the voters who participated in the mayoral election given the flooding provides us insights into the scope of change for the political landscape of New Orleans after the hurricane.

Minnesota challenge variability

gbain — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:15:34 -0800

The real action in the Minnesota recount will be the ballots challenged by the two campaigns on the grounds that the voter intent was not properly ascertained. These challenged ballots are emerging even when the county recounts show no discrepancy with the count of the ballots successfully scanned by the machines. As I suggested in an earlier posting, this is an illustration of why the post-election audit is not an especially good predictor of what will happen in the recount. The result will be determined by looking at the ballots that the machines fail to count if they are functioning properly. (Why some of these ballots weren’t kicked back to the voters because they were overvotes is another issue to be pondered.)

If the best hunting for new votes is among the “residual votes,” then it is natural to ask whether the different parts of the state seem to be setting aside the same proportion of ballots for further scrutiny. The answer here is “no.”

Statewide, about 5% of the residual vote has ended up as a challenged ballot. Two counties that have completed their recounts have seen challenges lodged against over 20% of their residual votes: Cook (25%) and Fillmore (25%). St. Louis (21%), and Wabasha (32%) counties are also over 20%, but the recounts aren’t complete. Five counties have seen precisely zero challenges: Clearwater, Lincoln, Norman, Red Lake, and Redwood. These are tiny counties, and so we might expect that the number of challenges would be low. Nonetheless, even if the fraction of ambiguous ballots is 1% of the residual votes, then the probability that the challenged ballots in these counties would be precisely zero is very small.

It is natural to assume that the rate of challenging will vary according to who is representing the campaigns in each county. The Minnesota recount process is very orderly, but the human element is undoubtedly present, too.

http://electionupdates.caltech.edu/

Featured Content