[EL] making a Democracy Index at the ballot box

[Doug Hess]

It is true that performance measurement can create unintended consequences.
And, of course, how to interpret them (or summarize them) is very tricky
and can generate some tension. However, I would caution people against
being too cynical. There is reason to believe that public officials also
want to know what measurement can tell them about their institution,
policies, etc.

Donald Moynihan at the LaFollette School at Univ of Wisconsin-Madison
studies when and how people use performance measurement. He finds evidence
that some officials are very interested in this data (i.e., they are not
just defensive manipulators shirking their responsibilities). Bureaucrats
get treated harshly in the U.S., but many of them are professionals that
take pride in their work and are interested in results, too.

In short, advocates, researchers, and critics are not the only people
interested in government improvement!

You can find some of Moynihan's work on this at his website:
http://www.lafollette.wisc.edu/facultystaff/moynihan-donald.html

Doug


On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 6:01 PM, <douglasrhess at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> **
>> Metrics is the idea. That it is all summed up into a single index would
>> not be necessarily the goal. I guess Democracy Metrics or Indices is not as
>> sexy a label.
>>
>
> At the same time, these individualized "metrics" would need to be "summed
> up" with the other metrics in the following sense:  To show that failing
> any individualized metric constitutes an unacceptable overall failing
> grade.
>
> Otherwise, a given jurisdiction can pass, perhaps even with flying colors,
> 9 out of a hypothetical 10 metrics, and argue that their "Democracy
> indices" meet or exceed the ratings of the jurisdictions controlled by the
> opposite party.  This talking point transforms what should be a clear-cut
> need for immediate change into a political stalemate or shouting match
> between political opponents, thus defeating or impeding the cause of
> improving election administration.
>
> Elections can, and do, have fatal flaws and nothing should be allowed to
> be used to distract attention from that.
>
> A suitably "harsh" set of metrics that would arguably meet most or all of
> the concern above could be devised, but then the likelihood of failure
> would convince the more problematic jurisdictions not to participate in the
> metrics, or to undermine them in other ways.
>
> Paul Lehto, J.D.
>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From: * Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Mon, 7 May 2012 17:55:45 -0400
>> *To: *Doug Hess<douglasrhess at gmail.com>
>> *Cc: *<law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>> *Subject: *Re: [EL] making a Democracy Index at the ballot box
>>
>> An overall "Democracy Index" is misleading.  Example: Jurisdiction
>> receives, logs, then loses a tray of 200 absentee ballots, thus
>> disfranchising 200 people.  If other parts of the election are just
>> slightly improved, the "Democracy Index" may be unchanged relative to other
>> years because the number of points assigned to chain of custody of absentee
>> ballots is perhaps only 5 out of the 100 point scale for the Democracy
>> Index.  But the loss of ballots is simply unacceptable and should never
>> happen again, nor be papered over with a "passing" index score.
>>
>> *Enhancing data collected about elections is a good idea*.  But
>> incorporating that data into a "Democracy Index" is not the best idea,
>> because such an overall "index" is virtually certain to incorporate what
>> ought to be considered totally unacceptable into an overall index rating
>> that suggests acceptability.
>>
>> Regardless of whether the Democracy Index disclaims this or not, an index
>> is sure to be a talking point that distracts attention from the specific
>> issues at hand by burying problems that must be addressed in a sea of "not
>> so bad."
>>
>> So, it is a good idea to collect data, but a bad idea to incorporate that
>> into a Democracy Index.
>>
>> Paul Lehto, J.D.
>>
>> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Doug Hess <douglasrhess at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> An idea I have thought about before, but not kicked around:
>>>
>>> Administrative data resulting from elections and survey data on or
>>> around election day provide information that can be used to inform a
>>> "Democracy Index" (metrics on the quality of the election process), but
>>> what about adding a few questions to the ballot to make it into a mini
>>> survey? For instance, after you vote for the candidates, there could be a
>>> question that says: How long did you wait in line today? Or whatever. It
>>> could then be tabulated and reported with that precinct.
>>>
>>> You would not have to ask everybody the same question, or even ask
>>> everybody any question. Thus, it wouldn't intrude too much on the voters'
>>> time...and it would not make the process at the precinct much longer
>>> overall. Randomly distributing ballots within a precinct might be tricky
>>> since it is not the usual, but there could be ways to ease this by the
>>> printers. Or, it could be a stand-alone survey that people are given at
>>> random and submit with their ballot.
>>>
>>> Do any states or counties (or have any in the past) have an "election
>>> day experience" survey and incorporate it into the election process itself?
>>>
>>> On a related note: do precinct directors report data at the end of the
>>> day on events at the precinct? E.g., number of people standing in line at
>>> certain hours, etc.?
>>>
>>> Doug
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Law-election mailing list
>>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
>> P.O. Box 1
>> Ishpeming, MI  49849
>> lehto.paul at gmail.com
>> 906-204-4026 (cell)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> P.O. Box 1
> Ishpeming, MI  49849
> lehto.paul at gmail.com
> 906-204-4026 (cell)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120508/28367f46/attachment.html>