A first-cut detailed look at FL early voters

This must be brief, but I’ve been able to merge the registration and voter history files in Florida from 2010 with the early voting records from 2014.  Here are some first-cut comparisons at the individual level.  (Remember, another quarter million Floridians are still yet to vote early in this cycle.)

The thing that jumps out at me is that Hispanic and Black early voters in 2014 tend to be drawn more from non-voters in 2010 than whites.  In addition, there is evidence that among voters in 2010, Black and Hispanic Election Day voters are more likely to be voting early than white Election Day voters.

The other thing is that among those not  registered with a party, the early voters were disproportionately non-voters in 2010, compared to registered partisans.

Here are the notes I’ve made:

Among early voters thus far, how did they vote in 2010?

15.4% did not vote
5.9% voted absentee
45.0% voted early
33.5% voted Election Day

Among blacks, 19.3% did not vote, 4.0% absentee, 39.2% early, 37.2% election day
Among hispanics, 24.7% did not vote,6.0% absentee, 38.8% early, 30.4% election day
Among whites, 13.3% did not vote, 6.3% absentee, 47.1% early, 33.2% election day

Among Dems: 16.9% did not vote, 4.5% absentee, 42.3% early, 36.2% election day
Among Reps: 10.5% did not vote, 7.8% absentee, 50.4% early, 31.2% election day
Among NPAs: 24.7% did not vote, 4.7% absentee, 37.8% early, 32.6% election day
Among early voters in 2010, have they voted already in 2014?

Overall, 33.6% have already voted early
Among whites, 34.1% have already voted early
Among blacks, 35.0% have already voted early
Among hispanics, 27.8% have already voted early

Among Dems: 34.1% have already voted early
Among Reps: 34.3% have already voted early
Among NPAs: 29.8% have already voted early

 

FL Early Voting Turnout by County

I have been asked about the geographic distribution of the in-person early voting shifts in Florida from 2010 to 2014.  Here are some quick graphs, using data through yesterday.

1.  The graph of the percentage change in in-person early voting turnout, from 2010 to 2014.  On the whole, fairly uniform increases throughout, with notable exceptions. (Click on the graph to get the full picture)

county_comparison_by_size_201410312.  A simple scatterplot showing total early voting turnout in 2014 vs. 2010.  Again, the plot reinforces the previous one:  fairly uniform increase statewide thus far.  (The labeled counties are 50% ahead of 2010.)

county_comparison_201410313.  Finally, in quick succession, the same scatterplot, broken down by party.  The new interesting thing is the large uniform increase in early voting among those who are not registered with any party.  I don’t know enough about Florida politics to know what this bodes for election outcomes.  What I do know is that the big increase in in-person early voting seems to be significantly driven by this group, and not registered partisans.

county_comparison_dem_20141031

county_comparison_rep_20141031

county_comparison_npa_20141031

 

 

FL Early Voting through Thursday

FL continues to outpace 2010 early voting totals by about 10%. Unlike 2010, the partisan pattern has remained fairly constant for the entire two-week period. The only question remaining is whether there will be a sharp up-tick in Democratic composition these last days, or whether the shift in composition will continue to be more gradual.

Click on the graphs to see the full pictures.

Day-to-day cumulative totals:

day_to_day_cumulative_gross_20141031

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Daily partisan composition:
day_to_day_pct_gross_20141031

Small change in FL early voting trends

First, the consistency in this year’s early voting trends: the volume exceeds 2010.

Second, the deviation: the stark partisan contrast with 2010 did not appear yesterday. At this point in 2010, the Democratic share of the in-person early voting population began to shoot up, as the election approached. Yesterday, there was a small increase in the Democratic share, but the overall mix is now much closer to 2010. The natural thing to wonder is whether late-period early voters in 2010 became early-period early voters in 2014. We’ll see.

(As always, click on the graphs to get the full figures)

Cumulative in-person early vote totals:
day_to_day_cumulative_gross

 

Day-to-day partisan composition:

day_to_day_pct_gross_2014_10_30

FL Early Voting Statistics through Monday

Florida’s in-person early voting period is now in full swing. The following two graphs, which update previous posts, show two things:

Graph 1: About 70,000 more people have voted early, compared to the same time in 2010.
Graph 2: For each day of early voting, the composition of in-person early voters has been (on the whole) more Democratic than in 2010.

(Please click on the graphs to see the full picture.)

day_to_day_cumulative_gross

 

day_to_day_pct_gross_through_10_27

I want your ballots!

As readers of this blog know, I am interested in better understanding why long lines form at (some) polling places. One common claim, or hypothesis, is that a big culprit is ballot length. Unfortunately, it is very hard to test this claim empirically, because of the difficulty in getting a good sample of ballots from around the country.

Here’s a strategy to overcome this empirical barrier, and how you can help. If you have access to your sample ballot, please send it to me. Also, tell me what your ZIP Code is, so that I can link the ballot style and length to measures of waiting times and line lengths I will also be gathering.

Send those ballots to: ballots@mit.edu

Don’t forget the ZIP Code!

Update on FL Early Voting with Saturday Data

Here is the update on in-person early voting statistics, in three graphs.

First is the day-to-day in-person early voting turnout, compared to 2010. Because all counties have now begun early voting, I don’t account for when counties started.  (Over twenty counties opened their in-person early voting operations yesterday.)Unlike 2010, 2014 was the biggest day of in-person early voting during the first week.  (Click on this, and all other graphs, to see the full picture.)

day_to_day_gross2Because of the big surge of in-person early voting yesterday, more voters have now cast a ballot via in-person early voting in 2014 than in 2010, despite the fact that over 20 counties only began early voting yesterday:

day_to_day_cumulative_grossFinally, the in-person early voting electorate has been much more Democratic in 2014 than it was in 2010:

day_to_day_pct_comp

Florida Early Voting Surges Ahead

Florida has begun in-person early voting under the new regime that allows, though doesn’t require, two weeks of early voting.  Because counties may start early voting on different days, it is not straightforward to compare early voting trends in 2014 with those in 2010.

Using the early voting turnout files available from the state, it is easy to see that early voting in 2014 is well ahead of 2010.  Here are the two basic graphs.

First, just leaving aside the fact that over 20 counties did not start in-person early voting until today, the day-to-day early voting turnout has matched 2010 totals, as the following graph shows. (Click on the graph to get the full picture.  Unfortunately, the thumbnail cuts off values from the y-axis.)

day_to_day_grossSo, for instance, despite the fact that only 35 counties opened early voting on Monday (15 days before the election), 48,214 people voted early in those counties, compared to 65,276 early voters in all of Florida’s counties in 2010.  The total number of early voters in 2014 in the 45 counties that were conducting early voting that day exceeded total early voter turnout in all 67 Florida counties in 2010.

A more apples-to-apples comparison is possible.  Let us look at the counties that began early voting in the period when early voting is optional, and compare turnout in those counties with 2010.  On Monday, 45 counties reported early voting totals.  As I’ve already noted, 48,214 people voted early in those counties.  If we look at those same 45 counties in 2010, we see that only 37,297 individuals voted the first Monday in 2010.  If we continue this comparison across the first five days of early voting, the pattern is stark: (Again, click on the thumbnail for the full graph)

day_to_day_comp2

When we do this apples-to-apples to comparison, we see that turnout has vastly exceeded 2010 totals.  Thursday’s 77,365 early voters was 43% greater than the number who voted on the comparable day in these counties in 2010.  Overall, early voting is up 37% compared to 2010, when we confine ourselves to counties that have started early voting.

More can (and will) be said about these numbers.  The most obvious initial conclusion is that early voting continues to rise in popularity in the Sunshine State.  One thing to watch is whether the counties that have opened their early voting centers as late as possible experience the type of congestion that causes long lines to form at the polls.  With lower turnout overall in a midterm election, we shouldn’t expect problems to emerge like we saw in 2012.  However, the initial evidence is that interest in in-person early voting continues to grow in Florida, so there is a real possibility that the late-opening counties will have to struggle with unanticipated congestion.

I have yet to run these numbers by party, so it’s unclear whether in-person early voting (as distinct from absentee voting, which is also a form of early voting) continues to skew towards the Democrats.  I also have to remind the reader that I have not been able to examine parallel figures with absentee ballots, though there is some evidence that interest in absentee voting has also grow in 2014 (compared to 2010).

To quote my friend, Doug Chapin, stay tuned.

 

Thoughts on the GAO report on wait times

On Tuesday the Government Accountability Office issued its long-awaited report on wait times at polling places.  I recommend it to all who are interested in this topic.

It is no criticism of the report to say that much of what is contained within it has appeared elsewhere.  The report provides one-stop shopping for those interested in the established research on the topic. More importantly, the independent verification of existing research — in the way that only the meticulous, scrupulously nonpartisan GAO can do it — underscores that certain facts about long waiting times are actually facts.

Most importantly, long lines are not universal.  They are concentrated in particular places — certain states, cities, and areas with large minority populations.

While this is bad news for these particular places, it is good news for doing something about long wait times.  Assuming that the jurisdictions beset by wait times are dedicated to doing something about the problem, the policy response can be focused on a half-dozen states and a relatively limited number of large jurisdictions.  (The flip side of this conclusion is that a scatter-shot approach to long wait times would be a mistake.)

The report contains one new finding that deserves attention.  This finding is contained on the very first page of the report:

Estimates from our nationwide survey of local election jurisdictions indicate that most jurisdictions did not collect data that would allow them to calculate voter wait times at individual polling places on the November 2012 General Election Day.

The GAO research team conducted a survey of local election officials, and asked them about the data they did collect that might help with the management of wait times.  This is what they found:

  • 36% of jurisdictions recorded “observations by election officials of voter wait times at polling places”
  • 31% recorded “the number of votes cast at a precinct during a specific time period”
  • 18% recorded the “length of time polling places remained open after designated closing times”
  • 17% recorded the “time individuals checked into a polling place, recorded by an electronic poll book”
  • 16% recorded “voter complaints about wait times at polling places”

My only criticism of the report is that it credits too readily the utility of these data gathering efforts.  Data such as voter complaints and after-hours closings are better than nothing.  They are indicators that local election officials are taking the problem seriously.  But, they are still blunt instruments for helping to manage problems of polling place congestion.  (Imagine, for instance, if the only statistic a Walmart manager had to judge whether to add another cashier line was how long it took to check-out the last customer when the store closed at night.)

Both queuing theory and the application of line-management techniques in retail and manufacturing teach us that specific types of data are needed to manage lines effectively.  Mostly importantly, we need to know when people arrive (not when they get to the front of the line to check in) and how long it takes to complete all the tasks required of them.  The percentage of election jurisdictions gathering this data is effectively zero.

The report does mention an example of two jurisdictions that have taken it upon themselves to gather the type of data that is needed for the proper management of the polls using standard techniques that are common in the private sector:

In at least one election, 1 of these jurisdictions distributed time-stamped cards to every 15th voter upon arrival. Poll workers then recorded the time on each card at various stages of the voting process and collected the cards when voting was complete. In the other jurisdiction, officials stated that they began measuring wait times from arrival to check-in in the August 2014 election by distributing cards to voters upon arrival and then collecting those cards at the check-in station, where they recorded the time of check-in in an electronic poll book.

This is exactly what needs to be done.  It probably doesn’t need to be done in every election and at every precinct.  But, if managers of the nation’s largest jurisdictions began conducting these exercises in representative precincts on a regular basis, they would reap great dividends.

The final question — not covered in the GAO report — is what to do with this data?  I close with some shameless self-promotion.  Earlier this year, at the request of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration, the VTP posted three election management tools that can take input that comes from data-gathering exercises and convert it into output to help guide decisions about the allocation of resources (poll books, privacy booths, etc.) in polling places.  With the support of the Democracy Fund, we are working hard to fine-tune these tools.  If you haven’t checked out the tools, please do.  I am looking forward to sharing the results of our R&D efforts in the coming months.

Voter Identification and Discretion

We have a blog post on our Voter ID and Discretion article out on the LSEUSA blog site.  Poll workers often are influenced by their own biases when implementing voter identification laws but this problem can be mitigated in part by having better educated poll workers.