Saturday, December 31, 2005
Intelligence update --- new book on reforms and voter turnout
There is a new book on election reforms for increasing voter participation that will be available soon, "American Voter Turnout: An Institutional Perspective", by David Lee Hill (a professor at Valdosa State University). The description of the book from the publisher summarizes the book well:
I've had the opportunity to review an advance uncorrected proof of this new book, and have found it a straightforward and accessible treatment of the available research on the various "institutional" reforms that have either been used or have been discussed in recent years to help increase voter participation in the United States. By "institutional", political scientists typically mean procedural or regulatory reforms --- for example, the types of changes recommended long ago by political scientists Ray Wolfinger and Steven Rosenstone in their seminal book, "Who Votes": reforms seeking to mitigate or eliminate some of the common hurdles for easy voter registration processes (some of the Wolfinger-Rosenstone ideas were incorporated into NVRA in 1993, and have continued to be important ideas behind many attempts to make the registration process easier for eligible citizens).
After covering the available literature, and providing some analysis of his own, Hill concludes by making two different types of recommended reforms: changes that seek to increase access, and changes that seek to alter the basic nature of the electoral process in the United States. As for improving access to the electoral process, Hill recommends implementation of election day voter registration, voting on weekends or making federal elections federal holidays, expansion of by-mail and early voting, and the examination of Internet voting. When it comes to improving the nature of the electoral process, Hill advocates proportional allocation of electoral votes in presidential elections and public financing of campaigns.
Generally, this is a very approachable book and it provides a straightforward introduction to the research perspective and literature that political scientists have developed in the past few decades to try to better understand why many or most American citizens do not participate in the electoral process. Hill's book is one that might be useful for undergraduate classes, or for election reformers and election administrators who are interested in learning more about the academic research in this area.
The qualms I have about Hill's book are beyond the reach of this particular publication. For one, and this is a generic problem for academic researchers facing long delays between the research and writing phases, and the eventual publication of our work, is that Hill has not been able to examine and include some of the very recent research on some of the important reforms he is advocating. This includes much of the research done in the past two years on election day voter registration, on early voting, "supercenter" voting, and Internet voting.
Secondly, research typically focuses exclusively on particular reforms, and then tries to extrapolate how the specific reform would increase voter participation (say how election day voter registration itself would increase voter turnout). But note that Hill has a broader objective here --- he recommends a sweeping set of reforms, based on independent examination of each reform's possible effect on voter turnout. What we don't know is how these reforms might interact; for example, is it necessarily the case that implementing weekend voting and expanding voting-by-mail nationally would together increase turnout? Would both together increase turnout even higher than either might if it were implemented across the nation by itself? Or might their joint implementation have some unexpected or unanticipated effect, that might even act to reduce participation? This leads to an interesting problem for researchers who study election reform and political participation: what is the effect of multiple reforms on participation, and do some reforms have a positive and interactive effect on voter participation. In other words, if we pair up different reforms, do we find that they produce a positive effect on participation above and beyond the effect each reform might provide if implemented alone?
Third, there is not much discussion in Hill's book of possible costs associated with these reforms, or the potential problems that might arise were they implemented. Accessibility is obviously an important goal for election reformers, but we must also keep in mind other important goals like privacy, accuracy, integrity and security. As Thad and I have written about in "Point, Click and Vote", balancing these various goals with respect to the possibility of Internet voting is a complicated proposition (a point that we are returning to in our new book manuscript on the electronic voting debate, which we hope will be published sometime in the latter half of 2006). Trying to achieve all these goals simultaneously is difficult, but we should examine election reforms on all dimensions as we work to understand the broader ramifications of election reforms.
And finally, we are getting into the territory I wrote about recently, regarding the King-Zeng paper on extreme counterfactuals. For the types of reforms that Hall writes about in his book, we don't have a lot of data on which we can base inferences about the reform's effect on voter participation. We certainly have even less data if we are going to consider the effects of multiple reforms on turnout. But if someone tries to examine the interactive effects of election reforms, they will need to be careful about the extreme counterfactual problem.
Using a combination of existing and original research, this new text provides a simple explanation for the low turnout in American elections: rather than creating an environment conducive to participation, the institutional arrangements that govern structure participation, representation, and actual governance in the United States create an environment that discourages widespread participation. To explore this argument, the author examines the origins and development of registration laws, single-member districts, such as the Electoral College, and the separation of powers and the impact these institutions have on turnout levels in American national elections. To this end, the text employs a narrative discussing the impact of institutions on turnout in the United States and across nations, supported with extensive yet accessible data analysis. Hill not only provides students with explanations for the low turnout characteristic of American elections, but also demonstrates the powerful impact of institutions on political life.
I've had the opportunity to review an advance uncorrected proof of this new book, and have found it a straightforward and accessible treatment of the available research on the various "institutional" reforms that have either been used or have been discussed in recent years to help increase voter participation in the United States. By "institutional", political scientists typically mean procedural or regulatory reforms --- for example, the types of changes recommended long ago by political scientists Ray Wolfinger and Steven Rosenstone in their seminal book, "Who Votes": reforms seeking to mitigate or eliminate some of the common hurdles for easy voter registration processes (some of the Wolfinger-Rosenstone ideas were incorporated into NVRA in 1993, and have continued to be important ideas behind many attempts to make the registration process easier for eligible citizens).
After covering the available literature, and providing some analysis of his own, Hill concludes by making two different types of recommended reforms: changes that seek to increase access, and changes that seek to alter the basic nature of the electoral process in the United States. As for improving access to the electoral process, Hill recommends implementation of election day voter registration, voting on weekends or making federal elections federal holidays, expansion of by-mail and early voting, and the examination of Internet voting. When it comes to improving the nature of the electoral process, Hill advocates proportional allocation of electoral votes in presidential elections and public financing of campaigns.
Generally, this is a very approachable book and it provides a straightforward introduction to the research perspective and literature that political scientists have developed in the past few decades to try to better understand why many or most American citizens do not participate in the electoral process. Hill's book is one that might be useful for undergraduate classes, or for election reformers and election administrators who are interested in learning more about the academic research in this area.
The qualms I have about Hill's book are beyond the reach of this particular publication. For one, and this is a generic problem for academic researchers facing long delays between the research and writing phases, and the eventual publication of our work, is that Hill has not been able to examine and include some of the very recent research on some of the important reforms he is advocating. This includes much of the research done in the past two years on election day voter registration, on early voting, "supercenter" voting, and Internet voting.
Secondly, research typically focuses exclusively on particular reforms, and then tries to extrapolate how the specific reform would increase voter participation (say how election day voter registration itself would increase voter turnout). But note that Hill has a broader objective here --- he recommends a sweeping set of reforms, based on independent examination of each reform's possible effect on voter turnout. What we don't know is how these reforms might interact; for example, is it necessarily the case that implementing weekend voting and expanding voting-by-mail nationally would together increase turnout? Would both together increase turnout even higher than either might if it were implemented across the nation by itself? Or might their joint implementation have some unexpected or unanticipated effect, that might even act to reduce participation? This leads to an interesting problem for researchers who study election reform and political participation: what is the effect of multiple reforms on participation, and do some reforms have a positive and interactive effect on voter participation. In other words, if we pair up different reforms, do we find that they produce a positive effect on participation above and beyond the effect each reform might provide if implemented alone?
Third, there is not much discussion in Hill's book of possible costs associated with these reforms, or the potential problems that might arise were they implemented. Accessibility is obviously an important goal for election reformers, but we must also keep in mind other important goals like privacy, accuracy, integrity and security. As Thad and I have written about in "Point, Click and Vote", balancing these various goals with respect to the possibility of Internet voting is a complicated proposition (a point that we are returning to in our new book manuscript on the electronic voting debate, which we hope will be published sometime in the latter half of 2006). Trying to achieve all these goals simultaneously is difficult, but we should examine election reforms on all dimensions as we work to understand the broader ramifications of election reforms.
And finally, we are getting into the territory I wrote about recently, regarding the King-Zeng paper on extreme counterfactuals. For the types of reforms that Hall writes about in his book, we don't have a lot of data on which we can base inferences about the reform's effect on voter participation. We certainly have even less data if we are going to consider the effects of multiple reforms on turnout. But if someone tries to examine the interactive effects of election reforms, they will need to be careful about the extreme counterfactual problem.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Election Center 2005 professional practices papers
We've obtained a single pdf file that contains all of the "2005 Professional Practices Papers" from The Election Center's 21st National Conference, held this past summer in Beverly Hills, California. The list of papers contained in this pdf file is given below. The first paper, by Dana Debeauvoir, received the "2005 Best Professional Practices Award". It is an exceptional piece of work, an example of the contributions being made by our election administrators. I've not had a chance to read through the rest of the papers, but I bet there are also some other excellent pieces of work here.
- Dana Debeauvoir, County Clerk, Travis County, Austin, Texas, “Method for Developing Security Procedures in a DRE Environment”.
- Beverly B. Kaufman, County Clerk, Harris County, Houston, Texas, “Harris Votes! Language Assistance Program”.
- Patricia M. Hollarn, Supervisor of Elections, Okaloosa County, Fort Walton Beach, Florida, “Kids Vote, Too”.
- Barbara A. Kirkman, Supervisor of Elections, Clay County, Green Cove Springs, Florida, “Florida Youth Challenge Academy Elections and Voters Responsibility Program” and “Mentoring the Next Generation of Voters, Clay County Junior Election Board”.
- Dean C. Logan, Director, King County, Seattle, Washington, “2004 Primary Public Education Campaign”.
- Gary J. Smith, Director of Elections, Forsyth County, Cumming, Georgia, “Forsyth County Electronic Poll Book Program”.
- Kristin Heffron, Chief Deputy, Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, County of Los Angeles, Norwalk, California, “The Secret to Educating Your Voters. . . on a Budget that Doesn’t Pinch” and “Service Club Option.”.
- Neal Kelley, Chief Deputy, Registrar of Voters, County of Orange, Santa Ana, California, “Non-Traditional Poll Worker Recruitment Program” and “Enhancing the Election Process through Mapping”.
- Brian D. Newby, Election Commissioner, Johnson County, Olathe, Kansas, “Election Worker Training Program, A Variety of Approaches,” and “Partners in Democracy, A Community Outreach Program”.
- Elizabeth R. Townsend, Community Relations/Voter Education Coordinator, Hernando County, Brooksville, Florida, “Advertise to a Captive Audience”, “An Advertisement to Catch Everyone’s Attention” and “Don’t Tell People
they Should Vote . . .Invite Them to Vote”. - J. R. Perez, Elections Administrator, Guadalupe County, Seguin, Texas, “If the County is Expected to Conduct the Elections for all Entities, How do we Handle the Large Number of Elections?”
- Pat Beckstead, Election Coordinator, Davis County, Farmington, Utah, “Polling Location Coordinator Program” and “Every Poll a Phone”.
- Elaine Larson, Assistant Registrar of Voters, Santa Clara County, San Jose California, “Election Barcode Tracking Systems”.
- David Orr, County Clerk, Cook County, Chicago, Illinois, “Shaping Provisional Voting”.
- Dr. Brenda C. Snipes, Supervisor of Elections, Broward County, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, “High School Voter Registration”.
- Kay Clem, Supervisor of Elections, Indian River County, Vero Beach, Florida, “Customized Survey Program” and “Sunshine State Young Reader’s Award Program”.
- Mary Johnson-Hall, Election Specialist, CERA, and Christie Rupert, Election Specialist, Pierce County, Tacoma, Washington, “Pierce County UOCAVA Voter Testimonials”.
- Scott Doyle, Clerk and Recorder, Larimer County, Fort Collins, Colorado, “Vote Centers”.
- Sara Harris, Deputy Election Director, Montgomery County, Rockville, Maryland, “Election Task Force”.
Holiday movie viewing --- starring "the voting machine"!
I've written a number of essays about voter education materials on the Internet, especially some of the educational materials that have been developed by voting system vendors. Thanks to MIT colleague Ron Rivest, here is an old example of media developed by voting system vendors --- a 1957 film developed by the Automatic Voting Machine Corporation, "Behind the Freedom Curtain".
One interesting segment, about a third of the way through the film, shows voters making errors on a paper ballot, using a pencil. This follows with a segment that justifies the use of the lever machine being promoted in the film, based on how the voting machine helps prevent many of the voting errors shown for the paper ballots. Particularily interesting is the scene (about half-way through the film), where the election official opens up the lever machine from the rear, showing the mechanical workings of the device (the same scene is repeated about two-thirds through, when the election official opens the device again and shows the reporter the election results). There are also a couple of fun scenes of faceless election officials counting massive paper ballots, voiding many of them.
But most compelling to me was the final segment of the film, which pointed out the many ways in 1957 that American life was becoming increasing automated, modernized, and convenient. I found that the parallels between this segment, and the contemporary debates about precinct voting devices, worth the seventeen minutes it took to watch this film. The closing line and scene, where the reporter asks "can democracy compete with it's right hand tied to a hitching post" sums the film's argument into a single sentence.
Also, Ron pointed out that if you click on the "Voting" keyword on the entry page for this particular film, you are then taken to an archive of other similar films, none of which I've had the chance to view yet.
One interesting segment, about a third of the way through the film, shows voters making errors on a paper ballot, using a pencil. This follows with a segment that justifies the use of the lever machine being promoted in the film, based on how the voting machine helps prevent many of the voting errors shown for the paper ballots. Particularily interesting is the scene (about half-way through the film), where the election official opens up the lever machine from the rear, showing the mechanical workings of the device (the same scene is repeated about two-thirds through, when the election official opens the device again and shows the reporter the election results). There are also a couple of fun scenes of faceless election officials counting massive paper ballots, voiding many of them.
But most compelling to me was the final segment of the film, which pointed out the many ways in 1957 that American life was becoming increasing automated, modernized, and convenient. I found that the parallels between this segment, and the contemporary debates about precinct voting devices, worth the seventeen minutes it took to watch this film. The closing line and scene, where the reporter asks "can democracy compete with it's right hand tied to a hitching post" sums the film's argument into a single sentence.
Also, Ron pointed out that if you click on the "Voting" keyword on the entry page for this particular film, you are then taken to an archive of other similar films, none of which I've had the chance to view yet.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
2006: Election Nirvana or Election Chaos?
2006 is about to arrive, and with it will come the deadlines under HAVA for voter registration and voting technologies. Two deadlines exist in HAVA related to voting machines.
- Under Section 102, the punch card and lever machine replacement provision,
If a State certifies to the Administrator not later than January 1, 2004, that the State will not meet the deadline described in subparagraph (A) for good cause and includes in the certification the reasons for the failure to meet such deadline, the State shall ensure that all of the punch card voting systems or lever voting systems in the qualifying precincts within that State will be replaced in time for the first election for Federal office held after January 1, 2006.
- In addition, 301(d) of HAVA, "Each State and jurisdiction shall be required to comply with the requirements of this section on and after January 1, 2006." Section 301 requirements state that each voting system used in an election for Federal office shall meet specified requirements, including those for voter review of their selections before the ballot is cast (including over vote notification) and/or explicit voter education programs for voters using punch card, paper ballot, or central count optical scan, auditability, and accessibility for individuals with disabilities.
- On the voter registration side, the computerized statewide voter registration system requirement, Section 303(d), also go into effect on January 1, 2006.
- What will the EAC and the Department of Justice do to the states that miss the deadline?
- Will they force those states to return any funding they have received from the EAC?
- Will the Justice Department take more punitive actions, forcing the states who fail to meet the HAVA requirements to enter into extensive consent decrees regarding the running of elections?
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
TCF 2005 best and worst of election reform
Fellow election geek Tova Andrea Wang (The Century Foundation) has produced her "Worst and Best in Election Reform, 2005". It makes for interesting end-of-year reading, and hopefully the coming year will lead to a shorter list of "worst" entries a year from now.
For a number of reasons, I'm pessimistic that this will happen in 2006, mainly due to the intersection of some troubling trends in the coming year: many pressing federal election reform deadlines, states that are lagging in meeting those deadlines, a still-closely divided electorate in a federal election year, and heightened scrutiny of our election process in the United States.
I do agree with the conclusion of Tova's end-of-year list: "These developments (the best and worst list) mean all of us who have made careers out of examining election administration can continue to earn a living." No doubt, 2006 will be a busy year for all election geeks.
For a number of reasons, I'm pessimistic that this will happen in 2006, mainly due to the intersection of some troubling trends in the coming year: many pressing federal election reform deadlines, states that are lagging in meeting those deadlines, a still-closely divided electorate in a federal election year, and heightened scrutiny of our election process in the United States.
I do agree with the conclusion of Tova's end-of-year list: "These developments (the best and worst list) mean all of us who have made careers out of examining election administration can continue to earn a living." No doubt, 2006 will be a busy year for all election geeks.
