We examine how the growth in vote-by-mail and changes in voting technologies led to changes in the residual vote rate in California from 1990 to 2010. In California’s presidential elections, counties that abandoned punch cards in favor of optical scanning enjoyed a significant improvement in the residual vote rate. We also conduct the first analysis of the effects of the rise of vote-by-mail on residual votes. Regardless of the election, increased use of the mail to cast ballots is robustly associated with a significant rise in the residual vote rate.
AlvarezR. MichaelAnsolabehereStephenStewartCharlesIII.2005. “Studying Elections: Data Quality and Pitfalls in Measuring of Effects of Voting Technologies.” Policy Studies Journal33 (1): 15–24.
2.
AlvarezR. MichaelHallThad E.SinclairBetsy. 2008. “Whose Absentee Votes are Returned and Counted: The Variety and Use of Absentee Ballots in California.” Electoral Studies27 (4): 673–83.
3.
AlvarezR. MichaelLevinInesSinclairJ. Andrew. 2011. “Making Voting Easier: Convenience Voting in the 2008 Presidential Election.” Political Research Quarterly65 (2): 248–62.
4.
AnsolabehereStephen. 2002. “Voting Machines, Race, and Equal Protection.” Election Law Journal1 (1): 61–70.
5.
AnsolabehereStephenStewartCharlesIII.2005. “Residual Votes Attributable to Technology.” Journal of Politics67 (2): 365–89.
6.
Arnold, Ed. 1999. “History of Voting Systems in California.” Prepared by Bill Jones, Secretary of State. Sacramento, CA.
7.
AsherHerbSchusslerRussellRosenfieldPeg. 1982. “The Effect of Voting Systems on Voter Participation.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association Milwaukee, April 28-May 1.
8.
BergmanElizabethYatesPhilip. 2009. “How Does Vote by Mail Affect Voters? A Natural Experiment Examining Individual-Level Turnout.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 3.
9.
BoehmkeFrederick J.2005. The Indirect Effect of Direct Legislation: How Institutions Shape Interest Group Systems. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
10.
BowlerShaunDonovanToddHappTrudi. 1992. “Ballot Propositions and Information Costs: Direct Democracy and the Fatigued Voter.” Western Political Quarterly45 (2): 559–68.
11.
CainBruce E.NollRoger. 2010. “Institutional Causes of California’s Budget Problem.” California Journal of Politics and Policy2 (3): 1–37.
GerberElisabeth R.1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
14.
GerberElisabeth R.McCubbinsMathew D.KiewietD. Roderick. 2001. Stealing the Initiative: How State Government Responds to Direct Democracy. Upper Saddle: Prentice Hall.
15.
GronkePaulGalanes-RosenbaumEvaMillerPeter A.ToffeyDaniel. 2008. “Convenience Voting.” Annual Review of Political Science11:437–55.
16.
GronkePaulStewartCharlesIIIHicksJames. 2010. “Residual Voting in Florida.” Washington, DC: Pew Center on the States.
17.
HajnalZoltan L.GerberElisabeth R.LouchHugh. 2002. “Minorities and Direct Legislation: Evidence from California Ballot Proposition Elections.” Journal of Politics64 (1): 154–77.
18.
KahnMatthew E.MatsusakaJohn G.1997. “Demand for Environmental Goods: Evidence from Voting Patterns on California Initiatives.” Journal of Law & Economics40 (1): 137–73.
19.
KimballDavid C.KropfMartha. 2008. “Voting Technology, Ballot Measures, and Residual Votes.” American Politics Research36 (4): 479–509.
20.
KousserThadMullinMegan. 2007. “Does Voting by Mail Increase Participation? Using Matching to Analyze a Natural Experiment.” Political Analysis15 (4): 428–45.
LottJohn R.2009. “Non-Voted Ballots, the Cost of Voting, and Race.” Public Choice138 (1): 171–97.
23.
LupiaArthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review88 (1): 63–76.
24.
MaglebyDavid B.1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
25.
MatsusakaJohn G.2004. For the Many or the Few: The Initiative Process, Public Policy, and American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26.
MuellerJohn E.1969. “Voting on the Propositions: Ballot Patterns and Historical Trends in California.” American Political Science Review63 (4): 1197–212.
27.
ReillyShaunaRicheySean. 2011. “Ballot Question Readability and Roll-Off: The Impact of Language Complexity.” Political Research Quarterly64 (1): 59–67.
SinclairD. E. “Betsy”AlvarezR. Michael. 2004. “Who Overvotes, Who Undervotes, Using Punchcards? Evidence from Los Angeles County.” Political Research Quarterly57 (1): 15–25.
30.
SmithRichard L.2002. “A Statistical Assessment of Buchanan’s Vote in Palm Beach County.” Statistical Science17 (4): 441–57.
31.
StewartCharlesIII. 2006. “Residual Vote in the 2004 Election.” Election Law Journal5 (2): 158–69.
32.
StewartCharlesIII. 2010. “Losing Votes by Mail.” NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy13 (3): 573–602.
33.
StewartCharlesIII. 2011. “Voting Technology.” Annual Review of Political Science14 (1): 353–78.
34.
ThomasNorman C.1968. “Voting Machines and Voter Participation in Four Michigan Constitutional Revision Referenda.” Western Political Quarterly21 (3): 409–19.
35.
TomzMichaelVan HouwelingR.2003. “How Does Voting Equipment Affect the Racial Gap in Voided Ballots?”American Journal of Political Science47 (1): 46–60.
36.
WalkerJack L.1966. “Ballot Forms and Voter Fatigue: An Analysis of the Office Block and Party Column Ballots.” Midwest Journal of Political Science10 (4): 448–63.
37.
WandJonathan N.ShottsKenneth W.SekhonJasjeet S.MebaneWalter R.HerronMichael C.BradyHenry E.2001. “The Butterfly Did It: The Aberrant Vote for Buchanan in Palm Beach County, Florida.” American Political Science Review95 (4): 793–810.
