[EL] Voter turnout

[John Tanner]

Another way to approach the issue is how to eliminate barriers to voting
for those who are interested for those times when they are interested.
there are indeed legitimate reasons for not voting (especially here in the
District of Columbia) but then there are times when it makes sense even to
the jaded.  And at those times the process should be as burden-free as
practicable


On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Ilya Shapiro <IShapiro at cato.org> wrote:

>  If a country is in crisis and politics are foremost on every citizen's
> mind -- Argentina, Venezuela -- that's probably a bad thing, but voter
> turnout is astronomical. Conversely, if things are going great and/or govt
> is in it's proper role, less reason to turn out and that's a good thing.
> Those are just two examples, but there are plenty of other reasons. Voter
> turnout rates, ceteris paribus (and unless you're talking about racial or
> other salient disparities in turnout rates), are pretty irrelevant in and
> of themselves.
>
>  In short, the equation higher turnout = better government/healthier
> polity is demonstrably false.
>
>  There are also deeper issues, like do we want to promote voting by more
> or "better" (higher-information) voters? Do we want that as a normative
> good even if it empirically leads to worse govt?
>
>
>
> Ilya Shapiro
> Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies
> Cato Institute
> 1000 Mass. Ave. NW
> Washington, DC 20001
> Tel. 202-218-4600
> Cel. 202-577-1134
> www.cato.org/people/shapiro.html
> twitter.com/ishapiro
>
> On Apr 10, 2014, at 10:32 AM, "Estelle Rogers" <erogers at projectvote.org>
> wrote:
>
>  Those of us who want the electorate, particularly the portion of the
> electorate that is voting, to reflect the citizenry as a whole care very
> much.  I can't imagine a scenario where low turnout would be good for
> society, though it might be good for a particular candidate or issue under
> particular circumstances.
>
> Estelle H. Rogers, Esq.
> Legislative Director
> Project Vote
> 202-546-4173, ext. 310
>
>  The information contained in this email is confidential and may contain
> proprietary information. It is meant solely for the intended recipient(s).
> Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the
> intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action
> taken or omitted in reliance on this, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
>
>
>
>
>  On Apr 10, 2014, at 11:19 AM, Ilya Shapiro wrote:
>
>  Why would we necessarily care what the turnout rate is. Both high and
> low turnout could be good or bad, depending on circumstance.  It's like
> economic inequality. Doesn't seem to me to be the right question to ask or
> policy concern to address.
>
> Ilya Shapiro
> Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies
> Cato Institute
> 1000 Mass. Ave. NW
> Washington, DC 20001
> Tel. 202-218-4600
> Cel. 202-577-1134
> www.cato.org/people/shapiro.html
> twitter.com/ishapiro
>
> On Apr 10, 2014, at 10:15 AM, "Gregory Huber" <gregory.huber at yale.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
> We (me, Alan Gerber, and Seth Hill) have a recent paper out that exploits
> the roll out of all mail elections in Washington counties. We estimate
> effects of about 2 to 4 points, with some evidence that it attracts less
> regular voters.
>
> Abstract:
>
>  What effect does moving to all-mail elections have on participation? On
> one hand, all registered voters automatically receive a ballot to return by
> mail at their convenience. On the other hand, the social aspect of the
> polling place, and the focal point of election day, is lost. Current
> estimates of the effect of all-mail elections on turnout are ambiguous.
> This article offers an improved design and new estimates of the effect of
> moving to all-mail elections. Exploiting cross-sectional and temporal
> variation in county-level implementation of all-mail elections in
> Washington State, we find that the reform increased aggregate participation
> by two to four percentage points. Using individual observations from the
> state voter file, we also find that the reform increased turnout more for
> lower-participating registrants than for frequent voters, suggesting that
> all-mail voting reduces turnout disparities between these groups.
> Political Science Research and Methods / Volume 1 / Issue 01 / June 2013,
> pp 91 - 116
> Link (gated): http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2013.5
> Link (ungated): http://huber.research.yale.edu/materials/28_paper.pdf
>
>
> On 4/10/2014 10:41 AM, Charles Stewart III wrote:
>
>  Paul, as always, has provided an exemplary intervention on behalf of
> what the literature of political science tells us about administrative
> changes and turnout.
>
>
>
> I would make one correction (that will REALLY surprise Paul):  I am aware
> of research done in Florida around 2000 that examined the effects of
> Florida's election law changes that allowed certain local elections to be
> conducted by mail.  These were, for sure, annexation and millage rate
> elections, and they may have been (I forget the details) regular municipal
> elections, too.
>
>
>
> Huge turnout increases.
>
>
>
> I would also add the research of Sarah Sled, whose PhD dissertation at MIT
> in 2008 was about all-mail elections and turnout.  Here is the link:
> http://18.7.29.232/handle/1721.1/46634.  Here is an excerpt from the
> abstract:
>
>
>
> The implementation of Vote By Mail produces turnout effects that increase
> in magnitude as the salience of the election decreases, with a range from
> 3.4 percentage points increase in the high salience category of
> presidential general elections to an increase in turnout of 15 percentage
> points in the low salience category of local special elections.
>
>
>
> By the way, Sarah also finds the typical political science result, in so
> far as her investigation of whether VBM changes _*outcomes*_ turns up a
> big goose egg.
>
>
>
> -cs
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Charles Stewart III
>
> Kenan Sahin Distinguished Professor of Political Science
>
> Housemaster of McCormick Hall
>
>
>
> Department of Political Science
>
> The Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>
> E53-449
>
> 30 Wadsworth Street
>
> Cambridge, Massachusetts   02139
>
>
>
> Office:  617-253-3127
>
>
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>]
> *On Behalf Of *Paul Gronke
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 10, 2014 9:50 AM
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Voter turnout
>
>
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> I assume you're asking mainly about administrative changes, right, because
> the political scientists will (predictably) chime in: make elections more
> relevant to citizens' everyday lives, make elections more competitive,
> increase media coverage of elections, improve the educational system.  And
> age the population so that everyone's over 60.  ;-)
>
>
>
> I think it would be fair to say that the easiest reform that has
> predictably resulted in significant increases in turnout is same-day /
> election-day registration.  It requires technological improvements to the
> registration system, and I know our friend Dean Logan is ready for the
> budgetary infusion that may be needed!  (LA may be already moving in this
> direction.)
>
>
>
> Coordinating municipal elections with presidential elections should result
> in substantial increases in turnout, but the tradeoff is topic that has
> been part of the political science literature for 50 years or longer (going
> back to Wilson's Amateur Democrats at least): the electorate includes a
> large number of irregular voters who are drawn in by the excitement and
> interest of the presidential contest.  The reason some states and
> localities moved their elections off cycle is precisely to *avoid* this.
>  Turnout is lower, but you get an electorate more predictably knowledgable
> about local issues.
>
>
>
> My comments about the last reform may surprise you, given my affiliation
> and reputation, but the reform that I think could result in a substantial
> increase in turnout but for which we do not have systematic research is a
> fully vote by mail system.  I say this primarily because I have long
> suspected, and have lots of anecdotes indicating, that full vote by mail
> has it's largest turnout impact in low profile state and local contests.
>  But no one has looked at this in a systematic fashion to date.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Paul Gronke Ph:   503-517-7393
>
>                         Fax: 503-661-0601
>
>
>
> Professor, Reed College
>
> Director, Early Voting Information Center
>
> 3203 SE Woodstock Blvd
>
> Portland OR 97202
>
>
>
> EVIC: http://earlyvoting.net
>
>
>
> My public key: http://people.reed.edu/~gronkep/36E051EA.asc
>
>
>  <http://people.reed.edu/%7Egronkep/36E051EA.asc>
>
>  <http://people.reed.edu/%7Egronkep/36E051EA.asc>
>
>
> *   <http://people.reed.edu/%7Egronkep/36E051EA.asc>*
>
>
>
> * <http://people.reed.edu/%7Egronkep/36E051EA.asc>*
>
>
>
> * <http://people.reed.edu/%7Egronkep/36E051EA.asc>*
>
>
>
> * <http://people.reed.edu/%7Egronkep/36E051EA.asc>*
>
>
>
> On Apr 9, 2014, at 9:30 PM, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>   I have been appointed as a member of the Los Angeles City Advisory
> Commission on Political Reform. I am a member of the sub-committee on
> research. The main charge of the commission is to look into actions that
> might increase turnout in municipal elections. Can anyone on the list
> provide some recent research on this subject? Nothing is off limits ?
> change of election dates, consolidation with other elections, early voting,
> expanded number of voting dates, etc.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Larry
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing listLaw-election at department-lists.uci.eduhttp://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> --
> ==============================================================
> Gregory A. Hubergregory.huber at yale.eduhttp://huber.research.yale.edu
>
> Yale University
> Professor, Department of Political Science
> Resident Fellow, Institution for Social and Policy Studies
> Faculty Affiliate, Center for the Study of American Politics
> Director of Graduate Studies, Political Science
> 203-432-5731 (voice)203-432-3296 (fax)
> Office: ISPS, C222, 77 Prospect Street
> Mail: PO Box 208209, New Haven, CT 06520
> ==============================================================
>
>   _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>  _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140410/b94fd82d/attachment.html>