Element contents
The Representational Consequences of Electronic Voting Reform
Evidence from Argentina
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 May 2023
Summary
Ballots and voting devices are fundamental tools in the electoral process. Despite their importance, scholars have paid little attention to the broader implications of voting procedures. In this Element, the authors contend that ballots have significant implications for democratic representation, as they affect the cost associated with voting for citizens and electioneering for elites. This Element explains how ballot designs affect the behavior of voters, the performance of candidates, and the strategies of parties. It shows how voting procedures structure the likelihood of vote splitting and ballot roll-off. This in turn has implications for candidates. Focusing on gender and experience, this Element shows how ballot form alters the salience of personal vote earning attributes. With respect to political parties, ballot structure can shift both the cost, strategies, and ultimately electoral fortunes of political parties. Finally, it discusses the profound implications ballot forms have for party campaigns and election outcomes.
Keywords
Information
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781108973960Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 08 June 2023
References
Adrogué, Gerardo. 1995. El Nuevo Sistema Partidario Argentino. La Nueva Matriz Política Argentina, edited by Acuña, Carlos. Buenos Aires: Nueva Visión, pp. 27–70.Google Scholar
Aguilar, Rosario, Cunow, Saul, Desposato, Scott, and Barone, Leonardo Sangali. 2015. Ballot Structure, Candidate Race, and Vote Choice in Brazil. Latin American Research Review 50(3): 175–202.Google Scholar
Alles, Santiago, Pachón, Mónica, and Muñoz, Manuela. 2021. The Burden of Election Logistics: Election Ballots and the Territorial Influence of Party Machines in Colombia. The Journal of Politics 83(4): 1635–1651.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Hall, Thad E.. 2008. Electronic Elections: The Perils and Promises of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, Hall, Thad. E., and Llewellyn, Morgan H.. 2008. Are Americans Confident Their Ballots Are Counted? The Journal of Politics 70(3): 754–766.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, Katz, Gabriel, Llamosa, Ricardo, and Martínez, Hugo. 2009. Assessing Voters’ Attitudes towards Electronic Voting in Latin America: Evidence from Colombia’s 2007 E-Voting Pilot. E-Voting and Identity, edited by Ryan, Peter Y. A. and Schoenmakers, Berry. Springer, Berlin, 75–91.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, Katz, Gabriel, and Pomares, Julia. 2009. Evaluating New Voting Technologies in Latin America. Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project: VTP Working Paper No. 93.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, Katz, Gabriel, and Pomares, Julia. 2011. The Impact of New Technologies on Voter Confidence in Latin America: Evidence from E-Voting Experiments in Argentina and Colombia. Journal of Information Technology and Politics 8: 199–217.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, Levin, Inés, and Li, Yimeng. 2018. Fraud, Convenience, and E-Voting: How Voting Experience Shapes Opinions about Voting Technology. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 15(2): 94–105.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, Levin, Inés, Pomares, Julia, and Leiras, Marcelo. 2013. Voting Made Safe and Easy: The Impact of E-Voting on Citizen Perceptions. Political Science Research and Methods 1(1): 117–137.Google Scholar
Andrews, Josephine T., and Jackman, Robert W.. 2005. Strategic Fools: Electoral Rule Choice under Extreme Uncertainty. Electoral Studies 24(1): 65–84.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Stewart, Charles III. 2001. Candidate Positioning in US House Elections. American Journal of Political Science 45(1): 136–159.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Stewart, Charles III. 2005. Residual Votes Attributable to Technology. The Journal of Politics 67(2): 365–389.Google Scholar
Anzia, Sarah and Bernhard, Rachel. 2022. Gender Stereotyping and the Electoral Success of Women Candidates: New Evidence from Local Elections in the United States. British Journal of Political Science 52(4): 1544–1563. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123421000570.Google Scholar
Atkeson, Lonna Rae, and Hamel, Brian T.. 2020. Fit for the Job: Candidate Qualifications and Vote Choice in Low Information Elections. Political Behavior 42(1): 59–82.Google Scholar
Avelino, George, Biderman, Ciro, and da Silva, Glauco Peres. 2016. A Concentração Eleitoral no Brasil (1994–2014). Dados: Revista de Ciências Sociais 59(4): 1091–1125.Google Scholar
Banducci, Susan A., Karp, Jeffrey A., Thrasher, Michael, and Colin Rallings. 2008. Ballot Photographs as Cues in Low-information Elections. Political Psychology 29(6): 903–917.Google Scholar
Barnes, Tiffany, 2016. Gendering Legislative Behavior: Institutional Constraints and Collaboration. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, Tiffany, and Beaulieu, Emily. 2014. Gender Stereotypes and Corruption: How Candidates Affect Perceptions of Election Fraud. Politics & Gender 10(3): 365–391.Google Scholar
Barnes, Tiffany, Branton, Regina, and Cassese, Erin. 2017. A Reexamination of Women’s Electoral Success in Open Seat Elections: The Conditioning Effect of Electoral Competition. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 38(3): 298–317.Google Scholar
Barnes, Tiffany, and Rangel, Gabriela. 2014. Election Law Reform in Chile: The Implementation of Automatic Registration and Voluntary Voting. Election Law Journal 13(4): 570–582.Google Scholar
Barnes, Tiffany, and Rangel, Gabriela. 2018. Subnational Patterns of Participation: Compulsory Voting and the Conditional Impact of Institutional Design. Political Research Quarterly 71(4): 826–841.Google Scholar
Barnes, Tiffany, Tchintian, Carolina, and Alles, Santiago. 2017. Assessing Ballot Structure and Split-Ticket Voting: Evidence from a Quasi-Experiment. The Journal of Politics 79(2): 439–456.Google Scholar
Bauer, Nichole. 2020. The Qualification Gap: Why Women Must Be Better than Men to Win Political Office. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beaulieu, Emily. 2014. From Voter ID to Party ID: How Political Parties affect Perceptions of Election Fraud in the US. Electoral Studies 35(9): 24–32.Google Scholar
Beaulieu, Emily. 2016. Electronic Voting and Perceptions of Election Fraud and Fairness. Journal of Experimental Political Science 3(1): 18–31.Google Scholar
Benton, Allyson L. 2005. Dissatisfied Democrats or Retrospective Voters? Economic Hardship, Political Institutions, and Voting Behavior in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies 38(4): 417–442.Google Scholar
Bernhard, Rachel, and Freeder, Sean. 2020. The More You Know: Voter Heuristics and the Information Search. Political Behavior 42(2): 603–623.Google Scholar
Blombäck, Sofie, and Licht, Jenny de Fine. 2017. Same Considerations, Different Decisions: Motivations for Split‐Ticket Voting among Swedish Feminist Initiative Supporters. Scandinavian Political Studies, 40(1): 61–81.Google Scholar
Bochsler, Daniel. 2010. Measuring Party Nationalisation: A New Gini-Based Indicator that Corrects for the Number of Units. Electoral Studies 29(1): 155–168.Google Scholar
Boussalis, Constantine, Coan, Travis, Holman, Mirya, and Müller, Stefan. 2021. Gender, Candidate Emotional Expression, and Voter Reactions during Televised Debates. The American Political Science Review 115(4): 1242–1257.Google Scholar
Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Happ, Trudi. 1992. Ballot Propositions and Information Costs: Direct Democracy and the Fatigued Voter. The Western Political Quarterly 45(2): 559–568.Google Scholar
Burden, Barry, and Helmke, Gretchen. 2009. The Comparative Study of Split-Ticket Voting. Electoral Studies 28(1): 1–7.Google Scholar
Burden, Barry, and Kimball, David. 2002. Why Americans Split Their Tickets. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Cain, Bruce, Ferejohn, John, and Fiorina, Morris. 1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project. 2001. Residual Votes Attributable to Technology: An Assessment of the Reliability of Existing Voting Equipment. Version 2: March 30.Google Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto. 2009. The Competitive Road to Proportional Representation: Partisan Biases and Electoral Regime Change under Increasing Party Competition. World Politics 61(2): 254–295.Google Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto. 2014. Legislator Success in Fragmented Congresses in Argentina: Plurality Cartels, Minority Presidents, and Lawmaking. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto, and Escolar, Marcelo. 2005. La Nueva Política de Partidos en la Argentina: Crisis Política, Realineamientos Partidarios y Reforma Electoral. Buenos Aires: PENT-Prometeo.Google Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto, Escolar, Marcelo, and Pomares, Julia. 2009. Ballot Design and Split-Ticket Voting in Multiparty Systems: Experimental Evidence on Information Effects and Vote Choice. Electoral Studies 28(2): 218–231.Google Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto, and Leiras, Marcelo. 2011. La forma de votar importa. El impacto de los nuevos instrumentos de votación sobre la conducta electoral en las provincias argentinas. Buenos Aires: CIPPEC-COPEC.Google Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto, and Micozzi, Juan Pablo. 2005. The Governor’s Backyard: A Seat-Vote Model of Electoral Reform for Subnational Multiparty Races. The Journal of Politics 67(4): 1050–1074.Google Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto, and Murillo, María Victoria. 2004. Who Delivers? Partisan Clients in the Argentine Electoral Market. American Journal of Political Science 48(4): 742–757.Google Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto, and Murillo, María Victoria. 2019. Non-Policy Politics: Richer Voters, Poorer Voters, and the Diversification of Electoral Strategies. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Calvo, Ernesto, and Rodden, Jonathan. 2015. The Achilles Heel of Plurality Systems: Geography and Representation in Multiparty Democracies. American Journal of Political Science 59(4): 789–805.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, and Miller, Warren. 1957. The Motivational Basis of Straight and Split-Ticket Voting. The American Political Science Review 51(2): 293–312.Google Scholar
Carey, John, and Shugart, Matthew Søberg. 1995. Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas. Electoral Studies 14(4): 417–439.Google Scholar
Carlin, Ryan, and Singh, Shane. 2015. Executive Power and Economic Accountability. The Journal of Politics 77(4): 1031–1044.Google Scholar
Carson, Jamie, and Roberts, Jason Matthew. 2013. Ambition, Competition, and Electoral Reform: The Politics of Congressional Elections across Time. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Carty, Kenneth and Eagles, Munroe. 1999. Do Local Campaigns Matter? Campaign Spending, the Local Canvass and Party Support in Canada. Electoral Studies 18(1): 69–87.Google Scholar
Casas, Agustin, Diaz, Guillermo, and Mavridis, Christos. 2020. How Influential Is Ballot Design in Elections? Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2020.1844219.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary. 1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary, Fiva, Jon, and Smith, Daniel. 2019. Parties, Legislators, and the Origins of Proportional Representation. Comparative Political Studies 52(1): 102–133.Google Scholar
Cribari-Neto, Francisco, and Zeileis, Achim. 2010. Beta Regression in R. Journal of Statistical Software 34(2): 1–24.Google Scholar
Crisp, Brian, Escobar-Lemmon, Maria, Jones, Bradford, Jones, Mark, and Taylor-Robinson, Michelle. 2004. Vote-Seeking Incentives and Legislative Representation in Six Presidential Democracies. The Journal of Politics 66(3): 823–846.Google Scholar
Crisp, Brian, Schneider, Benjamin, Catalinac, Amy, and Muraoka, Taishi. 2021. Capturing Vote-Seeking Incentives and the Cultivation of a Personal and Party Vote. Electoral Studies 72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102369.Google Scholar
Darcy, Robert, and Schneider, Anne. 1989. Confusing Ballots, Roll-off, and the Black Vote. The Western Political Quarterly 42(3): 347–364.Google Scholar
Desposato, Scott, and Petrocik, John. 2003. The Variable Incumbency Advantage: New Voters, Redistricting, and the Personal Vote. American Journal of Political Science 47(1): 18–32.Google Scholar
Di Primio, Leandro. 2019. Implementación de tecnologías electrónicas al proceso de votación. Instrumentos de Sufragio. Observatorio de Reforma Electoral, no. 5. Buenos Aires: Dirección General Reforma Política y Electoral – GCBA.Google Scholar
Dodyk, Juan, and Nicolini, Juan Pablo Ruiz. 2017. Enchufes, espejos y ijeras: efectos del diseño de las boletas sobre el comportamiento electoral. Revista SAAP: Sociedad Argentina de Análisis Político 11(2): 365–386.Google Scholar
Engstrom, Erik. 2012. The Rise and Decline of Turnout in Congressional Elections. American Journal of Political Science 56(2): 373–386.Google Scholar
Engstrom, Erik, and Kernell, Samuel. 2014. Party Ballots, Reform, and the Transformation of America’s Electoral System. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Engstrom, Erik, and Roberts, Jason. 2020. The Politics of Ballot Design: How States Shape American Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feierherd, Germán and Lucardi, Adrián. 2022. When the Partisan Becomes Personal: Mayoral Incumbency Effects in Buenos Aires, 1983–2019. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2022.2081696.Google Scholar
Ferrari, Silvia, and Cribari-Neto, Francisco. 2004. Beta Regression for Modelling Rates and Proportions. Journal of Applied Statistics 31(7): 799–815.Google Scholar
Folke, Olle, and Rickne, Johanna. 2020. Who Wins Preference Votes? An Analysis of Party Loyalty, Ideology, and Accountability to Voters. Journal of Theoretical Politics 32(1): 11–35.Google Scholar
Fujiwara, Thomas. 2015. Voting Technology, Political Responsiveness, and Infant Health: Evidence from Brazil. Econometrica 83(2): 423–464.Google Scholar
Gamboa, Ricardo. 2011. Changing Electoral Rules: The Australian Ballot and Electoral Pacts in Chile (1958–1962). Revista de Ciencia Política 31(2): 159–186.Google Scholar
Garay, Candelaria, and Maroto, Maria Marta. 2019. Local Health Care Provision as a Territorial Power-Building Strategy: Non-Aligned Mayors in Argentina. Comparative Politics 52(1): 105–134.Google Scholar
Garay, Candelaria, and Simison, Emilia. 2022. When Mayors Deliver: Political Alignment and Well-being. Studies in Comparative International Development 57: 303–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-022-09357-w.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1990. Estimating Incumbency Advantage without Bias. American Journal of Political Science 34(4): 1142–1164.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan, and Green, Donald. 2012. Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Gimpel, James, Lee, Frances, and Kaminski, Joshua. 2006. The Political Geography of Campaign Contributions in American Politics. The Journal of Politics 68(3): 626–639.Google Scholar
Gimpel, James, Lee, Frances, and Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna. 2008. The Check Is in the Mail: Interdistrict Funding Flows in Congressional Elections. American Journal of Political Science 52(2): 373–394.Google Scholar
Gudgin, Graham, and Taylor, Peter. 1976. The Myth of Non-Partisan Cartography: A Study of Electoral Biases in the English Boundary Commission’s Redistribution for 1955–1970. Urban Studies 13(1): 13–25.Google Scholar
Hagopian, Frances, and Mainwaring, Scott. eds. 2005. The Third Wave of Democratization in Latin America: Advances and Setbacks. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hanmer, Michael J., Park, Won Ho, Traugott, Michael W. et al. 2010. Losing Fewer Votes: The Impact of Changing Voting Systems on Residual Votes. Political Research Quarterly 63(1): 129–142.Google Scholar
Harbers, Imke. 2017. Spatial Effects and Party Nationalization: The Geography of Partisan Support in Mexico. Electoral Studies 47: 55–66.Google Scholar
Hartlyn, Jonathan, and Valenzuela, Arturo. 1995. Democracy in Latin America since 1930. The Cambridge History of Latin America, vol. 6. Edited by Bethell, Leslie. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 97–162.Google Scholar
Heckelman, Jac. 2000. Revisiting the Relationship between Secret Ballots and Turnout: A New Test of Two Legal Institutional Theories. American Politics Research 28(2): 194–215.Google Scholar
Helmke, Gretchen. 2009. Ticket Splitting as Electoral Insurance: The Mexico 2000 Elections. Electoral Studies 28(1): 70–78.Google Scholar
Herrnson, Paul, Niemi, Richard, Hanmer, Michael et al. 2008. Voting Technology: The Not-So-Simple Act of Casting a Ballot. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Daniel, Ho, and Imai, Kosuke. 2008. Estimating Causal Effects of Ballot Order from a Randomized Natural Experiment: The California Alphabet Lottery, 1978–2002. The Public Opinion Quarterly 72(2): 216–240.Google Scholar
Daniel, Ho, Imai, Kosuke, King, Gary, and Stuart, Elizabeth. 2007. Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference. Political Analysis 15(3): 199–236.Google Scholar
Holman, Mirya, and Lay, Celeste. 2021. Are You Picking Up What I Am Laying Down? Ideology in Low-Information Elections. Urban Affairs Review 57(2): 315–341.Google Scholar
Iacus, Stefano, King, Gary, and Porro, Giuseppe. 2012. Causal Inference without Balance Checking: Coarsened Exact Matching. Political Analysis 20(1): 1–24.Google Scholar
INDEC. 2010. Censo Nacional de Población, Hogares y Viviendas 2010. Buenos Aires: Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos.Google Scholar
Jones, Mark, Saiegh, Sebastián, Spiller, Pablo, and Tommasi, Mariano. 2002. Amateur Legislators-Professional Politicians: The Consequences of Party-Centered Electoral Rules in a Federal System. American Journal of Political Science 46(3): 656–669.Google Scholar
Katz, Gabriel, Alvarez, Michael, Calvo, Ernesto, Escolar, Marcelo, and Pomares, Julia. 2011. Assessing the Impact of Alternative Voting Technologies on Multi-Party Elections: Design Features, Heuristic Processing and Voter Choice. Political Behavior 33(2): 247–270.Google Scholar
Katz, Jonathan N., and Brian R. Sala. 1996. Careerism, committee assignments, and the electoral connection. The American Political Science Review 90 (1): 21–33.
Google Scholar
Kimball, David, and Kropf, Martha. 2005. Ballot Design and Unrecorded Votes on Paper-Based Ballots. Public Opinion Quarterly 69(4): 508–529.Google Scholar
King, Gary, and Nielsen, Richard. 2019. Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching. Political Analysis 27(4): 435–454.Google Scholar
Lamb, Matt, and Perry, Steven. 2020. Knowing What You Don’t Know: The Role of Information and Sophistication in Ballot Completion. Social Science Quarterly 101(3): 1132–1149.Google Scholar
Latner, Michael, and McGann, Anthony. 2005. Geographical Representation under Proportional Representation: The Cases of Israel and the Netherlands. Electoral Studies 24(4): 709–734.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Micozzi, Juan Pablo, and Lucardi, Adrián. 2021. How Valuable Is a Legislative Seat? Incumbency Effects in the Argentine Chamber of Deputies. Political Science Research and Methods 9(2): 414–429.Google Scholar
Miller, Joanne M., and Krosnick, Jon A.. 1998. The Impact of Candidate Name Order on Election Outcomes. Public Opinion Quarterly 62(3): 291–330.Google Scholar
Moehler, Devra, and Conroy-Krutz, Jeffrey. 2016. Eyes on the Ballot: Priming Effects and Ethnic Voting in the Developing World. Electoral Studies 42: 99–113.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jana, and Buice, Melissa. 2013. Latin American Attitudes toward Women in Politics: The Influence of Elite Cues, Female Advancement, and Individual Characteristics. The American Political Science Review 107(4): 644–662.Google Scholar
Moser, Robert, and Scheiner, Ethan. 2009. Strategic Voting in Established and New Democracies: Ticket Splitting in Mixed-member Electoral Systems. Electoral Studies 28(1): 51–61.Google Scholar
Muraoka, Taishi. 2021. The Electoral Implications of Politically Irrelevant Cues under Demanding Electoral Systems. Political Science Research and Methods 9(2): 312–326.Google Scholar
Mustapic, Ana María, Scherlis, Gerardo, and Page, María. 2010. Boleta única. Agenda para avanzar hacia un modelo técnicamente sólido y políticamente viable. CIPPEC Working Paper No. 94.Google Scholar
Mustillo, Thomas, and Polga-Hecimovich, John. 2020. Party, Candidate, and Voter Incentives under Free List Proportional Representation. Journal of Theoretical Politics 32(1): 143–167.Google Scholar
Nicolau, Jairo. 2015. Impact of Electronic Voting Machines on Blank Votes and Null Votes in Brazilian Elections in 1998. Brazilian Political Science Review 9(3): 3–20.Google Scholar
Observatorio Político Electoral. 2021. Normativa comparada provincial. Buenos Aires: Ministerio del Interior. www.argentina.gob.ar/interior/observatorioelectoral/analisis/normativacomparada (accessed April 15, 2021).Google Scholar
Ortega Villodres, Carmen. 2008. Gender and Party Duopoly in a Small State: Ballot Position Effects Under the Single Transferable Vote in Malta, 1947–2008. South European Society and Politics 13(4): 435–456.Google Scholar
Pachón, Mónica, Carroll, Royce, and Barragán, Hernando. 2017. Ballot Design and Invalid Votes: Evidence from Colombia. Electoral Studies 48: 98–110.Google Scholar
Pachón, Mónica, and Shugart, Matthew Søberg. 2010. Electoral Reform and the Mirror Image of Inter-party and Intra-party Competition: The Adoption of Party Lists in Colombia. Electoral Studies 29(4): 648–660.Google Scholar
Page, María, and Lenarduzzi, Julieta. 2015. Cambios en la Forma de Votar: Experiencias y percepciones de las autoridades de mesa sobre el voto electrónico en las elecciones de Salta 2015. CIPPEC Working Paper No. 154.Google Scholar
Page, María, Mignone, Josefina, and Lenarduzzi, Julieta. 2016. Cambios en la forma de votar. 10 aprendizajes de la implementación del voto electrónico en la provincia de Salta. CIPPEC: Working Paper No. 147.Google Scholar
Patty, John, Schibber, Constanza, Penn, Maggie, and Crisp, Brian. 2019. Valence, Elections, and Legislative Institutions. American Journal of Political Science 63(3): 563–576.Google Scholar
Peres da Silva, Glauco, and Davidian, Andreza. 2013. Identification of Areas of Vote Concentration: Evidences from Brazil. Brazilian Political Science Review 7(2): 141–155.Google Scholar
Pomares, Julia, Leiras, Marcelo, Page, María, Tchintian, Carolina, Ramos, Anastasia Peralta. 2011. Cambios en la Forma de Votar: La experiencia del voto electrónico en Salta. CIPPEC Working Paper No. 94.Google Scholar
Pomares, Julia, Levin, Ines, and Alvarez, Michael. 2014. Do Voters and Poll Workers Differ in Their Attitudes toward E-Voting? Evidence from the First E-Election in Salta, Argentina. Journal of Election Technology and Systems 2(2): 1–10.Google Scholar
Pomares, Julia, and Zárate, Soledad. 2014. Cambios en la forma de votar: la primera elección provincial completa de un sistema electrónico de votación. Salta, 2013. CIPPEC Working Paper No. 130.Google Scholar
Potter, Joshua, and Olivella, Santiago. 2015. Electoral Strategy in Geographic Space: Accounting for Spatial Proximity in District-level Party Competition. Electoral Studies 40: 76–86.Google Scholar
Remmer, Karen. 2008. The Politics of Institutional Change. Electoral Reform in Latin America, 1978–2002. Party Politics 14(1): 5–30.Google Scholar
Renwick, Alan. 2010. The Politics of Electoral Reform: Changing the Rules of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reynolds, Andrew, and Steenbergen, Marco. 2006. How the World Votes: The Political Consequences of Ballot Design, Innovation and Manipulation. Electoral Studies 25(3): 570–598.Google Scholar
Timothy, Rich. 2014. Split-Ticket Voting in South Korea’s 2012 National Assembly Election. Asian Politics & Policy 6(3): 455–469.Google Scholar
Jonathan, Rodden. 2010. The Geographic Distribution of Political Preferences. Annual Review of Political Science 13(1): 312–340.Google Scholar
Jerrold, Rusk. 1970. The Effect of the Australian Ballot Reform on Split-Ticket Voting: 1876–1908. The American Political Science Review 64(4): 1220–1238.Google Scholar
Saxton, Gregory, and Barnes, Tiffany. 2022. Sex and Ideology: Liberal and Conservative Responses to Scandal. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 32(2): 396–407.Google Scholar
Schröder, Valentin, and Manow, Philip. 2020. An Intra-party Account of Electoral System Choice. Political Science Research and Methods 8(2): 251–267.Google Scholar
Setzler, Mark. 2019. Adversity, Gender Stereotyping, and Appraisals of Female Political Leadership: Evidence from Latin America. The Latin Americanist 63(2): 189–219.Google Scholar
Shugart, Matthew Søberg, and Carey, John. 1992. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sievert, Joel. 2020. The Impact of Electoral Rules and Reforms on Election Outcomes. American Politics Research, 48(6): 738–749.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Betsy, and Alvarez, Michael. 2004. Who Overvotes, Who Undervotes, Using Punchcards? Evidence from Los Angeles Country. Political Research Quarterly 57(1): 15–25.Google Scholar
Söderlund, Peter, von Schoultz, Åsa, and Papageorgiou, Achillefs. 2021. Coping with Complexity: Ballot Position Effects in the Finnish Open-list Proportional Representation System. Electoral Studies 71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102330.Google Scholar
Stewart, Charles. 2011. Voting Technologies. Annual Review of Political Science 14: 353–378.Google Scholar
Szwarcberg, Mariela. 2013. The Microfoundations of Political Clientelism: Lessons from the Argentine Case. Latin American Research Review 48(2): 32–54.Google Scholar
Tchintian, Carolina. 2018. Ballots, Vote Casting Procedures, and Electoral Outcomes. PhD Dissertation. Houston, TX: Department of Political Science, Rice University.Google Scholar
Teele, Dawn Langan, Kalla, Joshua, and Rosenbluth, Frances. 2018. The Ties that Double Bind: Social Roles and Women’s Underrepresentation in Politics. The American Political Science Review 112(3): 525–541.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael, and Houweling, Robert Van. 2003. How does Voting Equipment Affect the Racial Gap in Voided Ballots? American Journal of Political Science 47(1): 46–60.Google Scholar
Tribunal Electoral de la Provincia de Salta. 2019. Manual de Capacitación para Autoridades de Mesa. Sistema de Boleta Única Electrónica. www.electoralsalta.gob.ar/informacion/2019/manual-de-capacitacion-2019.pdf (accessed April 15, 2021).Google Scholar
Trounstine, Jessica. 2011. Evidence of a Local Incumbency Advantage. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36(2): 255–280.Google Scholar
Tula, María Inés. 2005. Voto electrónico: Entre votos y máquinas: Las nuevas tecnologías en los procesos electorales. Buenos Aires: Ariel.Google Scholar
UNDP. 2017. Informe Nacional sobre Desarrollo Humano 2017: Información para el Desarrollo Sostenible: Argentina y la Agenda 2030. Buenos Aires: United Nations Development Programme.Google Scholar
Walker, Jack. 1966. Ballot Forms and Voter Fatigue: An Analysis of the Office Block and Party Column Ballots. Midwest Journal of Political Science 10(4): 448–463.Google Scholar
Wattenberg, Martin, McAllister, Ian, and Salvanto, Anthony. 2000. How Voting Is Like Taking an SAT Test: An Analysis of American Voter Rolloff. American Politics Quarterly 28(2): 234–250.Google Scholar
Weingast, Barry, Shepsle, Kenneth, and Johnsen, Christopher. 1981. The Political Economy of Benefits and Costs: A Neoclassical Approach to Distributive Politics. Journal of Political Economy 89(4): 642–664.Google Scholar
Zucco, Cesar, and Nicolau, Jairo. 2016. Trading Old Errors for New Errors? The Impact of Electronic Voting Technology on Party Label Votes in Brazil. Electoral Studies 43:10–20.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this element is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 8
- Cited by