My problem with Highton's analysis comes from a different angle. Highton
calculates his dependent variable (turnout rates) as a percent of registered
voters and for one of his independent variables (registrants per machine)
registration appears in the numerator. The amount of deadwood on the
registration rolls is probably correlated with turnout (e.g., precincts with
higher levels of deadwood could be poorer neighborhoods with lower turnout).
The findings could therefore be an artifact of measurement issues, as
precincts with higher number of registrants per machine are the same as
those with lower turnout rates due to the confounding presence of deadwood,
not long lines.
I investigated constructing citizen voting-age population for the Franklin
County precincts after I had a similar discussion with Walter Mebane through
the election law list-serve a few months back (Walter is one of the
co-authors of the Social Science Research Council report cited by Highton,
who is also a co-author on the same report). Unfortunately, I concluded
there was no reliable way to construct a CVAP measure for the 2004
precincts. We are left, then, with an analysis that is known to be flawed -
I don't think anyone would seriously argue that deadwood is not present on
voter registration files - though there is no mention of the limitations of
the measures in Highton's article. Perhaps in the future I can get a handle
on the magnitude of the potential error induced by calculating turnout rates
based on voter registration rather than the eligible population.
One other point about the SSRC report: a claim that came out of Franklin
County was that African-Americans were discriminated against by a lack of
voting machines in their precincts. But when one looks carefully at the
numbers in the report, the number of votes per voting machine was lower in
predominantly African-American precincts than in other precincts. For the
claim to be true that machines were inefficiently distributed into
African-American communities creating a situation for long lines, it must
have been that African-American voters all showed up to vote at the same
time and long lines ensued, while in White precincts, voters came in at a
steady pace throughout the day. I don't find this credible, and I don't
think that election officials have the capacity to predict timing of voting
patterns. While this is not Highton's argument, it arises indirectly when
he calculates predicted effects, finding inefficient distribution of
machines effectively gave Bush a net of 6,000 votes in Franklin County, Ohio
(race is, of course, related to presidential vote).
All this said, I have personally witnessed voters stepping out of even
relatively short lines, so I do not doubt long lines induced people not to
vote. I just don't buy that it would have increased turnout by 7.7% to have
250 registered voters per machine in every precinct. The predicted effects
are likely attenuated by the presence of deadwood.
==================================
Dr. Michael P. McDonald
Visiting Fellow, Brookings Institution
Assistant Professor, Dept of Public and International Affairs
George Mason University
4400 University Drive - 3F4
Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
Office: 703-993-4191
Fax: 703-993-1399
mmcdon@gmu.edu
http://elections.gmu.edu/
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Jeffrey MA
Hauser
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 1:17 PM
To: election-law
Subject: Re: Electionlawblog news and commentary 2/7/06
<< Message: 06 (5.75 KB) >> FORGIVE ME if this reflects a failure to
appreciate the statistical
analysis nomenclature, but doesn't Benjamin Highton's article on voter
turnout during the 2004 presidential election in Franklin County
understate the effect because his model, unlike his essay, ignores that
which made 2004 unique within generally low-turnout precincts?
That is, his model seems to fail to incorporate a way to address these
questions:
1. Isn't voter turnout in low-turnout districts more elastic than in
high-turnout with respect to Presidential years?
2. Aren't new registrants, especially those being hounded by field
organizers, much more likely to vote than otherwise demographically
indistinguishable people?
Re 1 & 2, wouldn't the incredible increases in turn out in Cuyahoga,
despite declining population, need to be accounted for in this analysis?
Finally -- I should know this, but do not -- who appoints the county
Democratic election board members?