Home ››

Residual Votes

Measuring the Impact of Voting Technology on Residual Vote Rates

Submitted by admin on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 15:00.
in
Working Paper No.: 
37
Date Published: 
01/01/2009
Author(s): 
Delia Grigg

No abstract available.

Residual Vote in the 2004 Election

Submitted by admin on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 14:14.
in
Working Paper No.: 
25
Date Published: 
01/01/2009
Author(s): 
Charles Stewart III

No abstract available.

Orienting Graphical User Interfaces Reduces Errors: The Low Error Voting Interface

Submitted by admin on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 14:08.
in
Working Paper No.: 
23
Date Published: 
01/01/2009
Author(s): 
Ted Selker
Matt Hockenberry
Jonathan Goler

This paper demonstrates opportunities for reducing errors eith orienting graphical interfaces for voting. We have built many interfaces to explore opportunities for keeping voters aware of selections they have made and are making. Tests of our best prototypes show that missed races and incorrect selection errors are greatly reduced with orienting graphics. The interface reduces errors significantly while extending the time required to vote.

Studying Elections: Data Quality and Pitfalls in Measuring the Effects of Voting Technologies

Submitted by admin on Thu, 06/19/2008 - 14:01.
in
Working Paper No.: 
21
Date Published: 
01/01/2009
Author(s): 
R. Michael Alvarez
Stephen Ansolabehere
Charles Stewart III

Professor Geralyn Miller reminds us of the range of voting administration practices across the United States. We use this variability to study the average performance of various types of voting equipment throughout the country (Ansolabehere and Stewart n.d.). Professor Miller suggests that the performance of equipment is, in fact, quite variable across states.

Voting Technology and Uncounted Votes in the United States

Submitted by admin on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 12:34.
in
Date Published: 
01/01/2009
Author(s): 
Stephen Ansolabehere
Charles Stewart III

We examine the relative performance of voting technologies by studying presidential, gubernatorial, and senatorial election returns across hundreds of counties in hte United States from 1988 to 2000. Relying on a fixed effects regression applied to an unbalanced panel of counties, we find that in presidential elections, traditional paper ballots produce the lowest rates of uncounted votes (i.e. "residual votes"), followed by optically scanned ballots, mechanical lever machines, direct register electronic machines (DREs), and punch cards.

Residual Votes Attributable to Technology: An Assessment of the Reliability of Existing Voting Technologies

Submitted by admin on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 12:18.
in
Date Published: 
01/01/2009
Author(s): 
Voting Technology Project

This report examines the use of voting equipment and the incidence of spoiled and unmarked ballots associated with that equipment. We call the rate of spoiled and unmarked ballots the residual vote rate. The residual vote rate is not a pure measure of voter error. If voting technologies are not producing voter mistakes or confusion, the residual vote rate should be unrelated to equipment. The study covers election results from over 2700 counties and municipalities in the 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential elections.

Residual Vote in the 2004 Election

Submitted by admin on Fri, 06/13/2008 - 11:27.
in
Author(s): 
Charles Stewart III
Journal: 
Election Law Journal
pp: 
158-169
Date Published: 
04/01/2006

No abstract available.

Residual Votes Attributable to Technology

Submitted by admin on Thu, 06/12/2008 - 12:56.
in
Author(s): 
Stephen Ansolabehere
Charles Stewart III
Journal: 
Journal of Politics
pp: 
365-389
Date Published: 
01/01/2009

We examine the relative performance of voting technologies by studying presidential, gubernatorial, and senatorial election returns across hundreds of counties in the United States from 1988 to 2000. Relying on a fixed-effects regression applied to an unbalanced panel of counties, we find that in presidential elections, traditional paper ballots produce the lowest rates of uncounted votes (i.e., “residual votes”), followed by optically scanned ballots, mechanical lever machines, direct register electronic machines (DREs), and punch cards.

Who Overvotes, Who Undervotes, Using Punchcards? Evidence from Los Angeles County

Submitted by admin on Thu, 06/12/2008 - 12:19.
in
Author(s): 
D.E. "Betsy" Sinclair
R. Michael Alvarez
Journal: 
Political Research Quarterly
pp: 
15-25
Date Published: 
01/01/2009

In this study we examine over- and undervotes from the November 2000 General Election in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County is the nation's largest election jurisdiction and it used a punchcard voting system in that election. We use precincts as our unit of analysis and merge the 2000 election data with census data and voter registration data; our dataset allows us to examine all of the countywide races in 2000 (including candidate and ballot measures).

Who Overvotes, Who Undervotes, Using Punchcards? Evidence from Los Angeles County

Submitted by admin on Thu, 06/12/2008 - 10:26.
in
Working Paper No.: 
7
Date Published: 
01/01/2009
Author(s): 
D.E. "Betsy" Sinclair, Caltech
R. Michael Alvarez, Caltech

In this study we examine over- and undervotes from the November 2000 General Election in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County is the nation's largest election jurisdiction and it used a punchcard voting system in that election. We use precincts as our unit of analysis and merge the 2000 election data with census data and voter registration data; our dataset allows us to examine all of the countywide races in 2000 (including candidate and ballot measures).

Syndicate content