Turnout

The Introduction of Voter Registration and Its Effect on Turnout

admin — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 12:44:14 -0700

Studies of voter turnout across states ﬁnd that those with more facilitative registration laws have higher turnout rates. Eliminating registration barriers altogether is estimated to raise voter participation rates by up to 10%. This article presents panel estimates of the effects of introducing registration that exploits changes in registration laws and turnout within states. New York and Ohio imposed registration requirements on all of their counties in 1965 and 1977, respectively. We ﬁnd that the introduction of registration to counties that did not previously require registration decreased participation over the long term by three to ﬁve percentage points. Though signiﬁcant, this is lower than estimates of the effects of registration from cross-sectional studies and suggests that expectations about the effects of registration reforms on turnout may be overstated.

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

admin — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:01:54 -0700

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. Aparticular technology that performs poorly nationwide might perform well in a particular setting—either because the technology is well suited to the peculiarities of the setting or because a locality has been proﬁcient in overcoming shortcomings that vex other jurisdictions. In making this point, Professor Miller examines two states, Wyoming and Pennsylvania, in the 2000 election.

While we are sensitive to the general point Miller makes, her article does not in fact demonstrate it. Instead, careful consideration of this paper raises a separate, but equally important matter—the content and quality of local and state election reports. The data she employs run up against problems that face all researchers doing this type of analysis. Rather than mount a full-scale critique of Miller’s ﬁndings, we think it more constructive to focus on the two major data problems in her article, as an illustration of precisely how difﬁcult it is to conduct this type of research. The most serious errors in Miller’s article are not readily apparent to most researchers doing voting technology research. Indeed, as we will show, Miller stumbled upon one error that we committed and were publicly chastised for.

The two states that Miller studies illustrate separate and important data problems. Pennsylvania illustrates that states do not report all the data necessary to study the performance of voting technologies. Wyoming illustrates that not all states report all they seem to be reporting.

Beyond data collection concerns, there is also a basic issue of research design. Single cross-sectional studies of individual states in fact have little statistical power. The number of counties is simply too small to arrive at meaningful estimates of average effects of technologies, let alone the interactive or varying effects of technologies used. Research on election administration needs to go beyond looking at single elections in order to establish the point that voting technology performance varies across states. That lesson is most clearly borne out in our prior research on this subject, in which many puzzling results emerge in cross-sections that are resolved in panel studies.

The Perverse Consequences of Electoral Reform in the United States

admin — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:46:06 -0700

A number of electoral reforms have been enacted in the United States in the past three decades that are designed to increase turnout by easing restrictions on the casting of ballots. Both proponents and opponents of electoral reforms agree that these reforms should increase the demographic representativeness of the electorate by reducing the direct costs of voting, thereby increasing turnout among less-privileges groups who, presumably, are most sensitive to the costs of coming to the polls. In fact, these reforms have been greatly contested because both major political parties believe that increasing turnout among less-privileged groups will benegit Democratic politicians. I review evidence from numerous studies of electoral reform to demonstrate that reforms designed to make it easier for registered voters to cast their ballots actually increase, rather than reduce, socioeconomic biases in the composition of the voting public. I conclude with a recommendation that we shift the focus of electoral reform from an emphasis on institutional changes to a concentration on political engagement.