Nichter, Simeon and Peress, Michael 2017. Request Fulfilling: When Citizens Demand Clientelist Benefits. Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 50, Issue. 8, p. 1086.
Teorell, Jan Ziblatt, Daniel and Lehoucq, Fabrice 2017. An Introduction to Special Issue. Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 50, Issue. 5, p. 531.
Gerber, Alan S. Huber, Gregory A. Fang, Albert H. Reardon, Catlan E. and Zia, Asim 2017. The effect on turnout of campaign mobilization messages addressing ballot secrecy concerns: A replication experiment. PLOS ONE, Vol. 12, Issue. 8, p. e0182199.
Vandamme, Pierre-Etienne 2017. Voting secrecy and the right to justification. Constellations,
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M. Hyde, Susan D. and Jablonski, Ryan S. 2016. Surviving Elections: Election Violence, Incumbent Victory and Post-Election Repercussions. British Journal of Political Science, p. 1.
Gerber, Alan S. Huber, Gregory A. Doherty, David and Dowling, Conor M. 2016. Why People Vote: Estimating the Social Returns to Voting. British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 46, Issue. 02, p. 241.
Saglie, Jo and Segaard, Signe Bock 2016. Internet voting and the secret ballot in Norway: principles and popular understandings. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, Vol. 26, Issue. 2, p. 155.
Herron, Michael C. and Smith, Daniel A. 2016. Precinct resources and voter wait times. Electoral Studies, Vol. 42, p. 249.
Gerber, Alan S. Huber, Gregory A. Meredith, Marc Biggers, Daniel R. and Hendry, David J. 2015. Can Incarcerated Felons Be (Re)integrated into the Political System? Results from a Field Experiment. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 59, Issue. 4, p. 912.
Raymond, Christopher D. 2014. The Effect of the Secret Ballot on Party System Fragmentation: A Test of Three Competing Arguments. Politics, Vol. 34, Issue. 4, p. 378.
Gerber, Alan S. Huber, Gregory A. Biggers, Daniel R. and Hendry, David J. 2014. Ballot Secrecy Concerns and Voter Mobilization. American Politics Research, Vol. 42, Issue. 5, p. 896.
Schaffer, Frederic Charles 2014. Not-So-Individual Voting: Patriarchal Control and Familial Hedging in Political Elections around the World. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, Vol. 35, Issue. 4, p. 349.
Gerber , Alan S. Huber , Gregory A. Doherty , David Dowling , Conor M. and Hill , Seth J. 2013. Do Perceptions of Ballot Secrecy Influence Turnout? Results from a Field Experiment. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 57, Issue. 3, p. 537.
Do people believe the votes they cast are truly secret? Novel items added to a nationally representative survey show that 25 per cent of respondents report not believing their ballot choices are kept secret and over 70 per cent report sharing their vote choices with others. These findings suggest that standard models of candidate choice should account for the potential effects of doubts about ballot secrecy. Consistent with this view, regression analysis shows that social forces appear to have a greater effect on vote choices among people who doubt the formal secrecy of the ballot. This analysis supports the broader claim that the intended benefits of institutional rules may not be realized if people's perceptions of these rules differ from their formal characteristics.
Gerber and Huber at Department of Political Science and Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University; Doherty at Department of Political Science, Loyola University Chicago; Dowling at Department of Political Science, University of Mississippi (email:
1 Yakobson Alexander, ‘Secret Ballot and Its Effects in the Late Roman Republic’, Hermes, 123 (1995), 426–442
2 Evans Eldon Cobb, A History of the Australian Ballot System in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1917)
3 Franck Thomas M., ‘The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance’, American Journal of International Law, 86 (1992), 46–91
4 Benson Lawrence E., ‘Studies in Secret-Ballot Technique’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 5 (1941), 79–82
Gerber Alan S., ‘The Adoption of the Secret Ballot’ (doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1994)
Rusk Jerrold G., ‘The Effect of the Australian Ballot Reform on Split Ticket Voting: 1876–1908’, American Political Science Review, 64 (1970), 1220–1238
Bensel Richard F., The American Ballot Box in the Mid-nineteenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004)
5 Carpini Michael X. Delli and Keeter Scott, What Americans Know about Politics and Why it Matters (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1996)
6 Alvarez R. Michael, Hall Thad E. and Llewellyn Morgan H., ‘Are Americans Confident Their Ballots Are Counted?’ Journal of Politics, 70 (2008), 754–766
Atkeson Lonna Rae and Saunders Kyle L., ‘Voter Confidence: A Local Matter?’ PS: Political Science & Politics, 40 (2007), 655–660
III Charles S. Bullock, III M.V. Hood and Clark Richard, ‘Punch Cards, Jim Crow, and Al Gore: Explaining Voter Trust in the Electoral System in Georgia, 2000’, State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 5 (2005), 283–294
Llewellyn Morgan H., Hall Thad E. and Alvarez R. Michael, ‘Electoral Context and Voter Confidence: How the Context of an Election Shapes Voter Confidence in the Process’ (unpublished, Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project, Working Paper No: 79, 2009)
7 Claassen Ryan L., Magleby David B., Monson J. Quin and Patterson Kelly D., ‘“At Your Service”: Voter Evaluations of Poll Worker Performance’, American Politics Research, 36 (2008), 612–634
8 DePaulo Bella M., Kashy Deborah A., Kirkendol Susan E., Wyer Melissa M. and Epstein Jennifer A., ‘Lying in Everyday Life’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70 (1996), 979–995
DePaulo Bella M. and Kashy Deborah A., ‘Everyday Lies in Close and Casual Relationships’, Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes, 74 (1998), 63–79
Rycyna Caroline C., Champion Crystal D. and Kelly Anita E., ‘First Impressions after Various Types of Deception: Less Favorable Following Expectancy Violation’, Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31 (2009), 40–48
Lane Julie D. and Wegner Daniel M., ‘The Cognitive Consequences of Secrecy’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69 (1995), 237–253
9 Gilovich Thomas, Medvec Victoria Husted and Savitsky Kenneth, ‘The Illusion of Transparency: Biased Assessments of Others’ Ability to Read One's Emotional States’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (1998), 332–346
10 Source: American National Election Studies (ANES) cumulative file (1992–2004).
11 Knight Jack, Institutions and Social Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992)
North Douglass, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990)
12 Schaffer Frederic C., Democracy in Translation: Understanding Politics in an Unfamiliar Culture (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998)
13 Christakis Nicholas A. and Fowler James H., Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives (Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown, 2009)
Diana C. Mutz, Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)
Huckfeldt Robert and Sprague John, ‘Networks in Context: The Social Flow of Political Information’, American Political Science Review, 81 (1987), 1197–1215
14 Asch Solomon E., ‘Opinions and Social Pressure’, Scientific American, 193 (1955), 31–35
Berelson Bernard R., Lazarsfeld Paul F. and McPhee William N., Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954)
Cialdini Robert B. and Goldstein Noah J., ‘Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity’, Annual Review of Psychology, 55 (2004), 591–621
Gerber Alan S., Green Donald P. and Larimer Christopher W., ‘Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment’, American Political Science Review, 102 (2008), 33–48
Santee Richard T. and Maslach Christina, ‘To Agree or Not to Agree: Personal Dissent amid Social Pressure to Conform’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42 (1982), 690–700
15 Milgram Stanley, ‘Behavioral Study of Obedience’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67 (1963), 371–378
16 Chong Dennis, Rational Lives: Norms and Values in Politics and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000)
McClosky Herbert and Dahlgren Harold E., ‘Primary Group Influence on Party Loyalty’, American Political Science Review, 53 (1959), 757–776
17 Nichter Simeon, ‘Vote Buying or Turnout Buying? Machine Politics and the Secret Ballot’, American Political Science Review, 102 (2008), 19–31
Stokes Susan C., ‘Perverse Accountability: A Formal Model of Machine Politics with Evidence from Argentina’, American Political Science Review, 99 (2005), 315–325
18 In their study of what factors affect people's evaluations of their polling place experiences, Claassen, Magleby, Monson and Patterson, ‘“At Your Service”’, find that perceptions that one's voting experience was private are associated with positive evaluations of poll workers.
19 Downs Anthony, An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper & Row, 1957)
20 Riker William H. and Ordeshook Peter C., ‘A Theory of the Calculus of Voting’, American Political Science Review, 62 (1968), 25–42
Katosh John P. and Traugott Michael W., ‘Costs and Values in the Calculus of Voting’, American Journal of Political Science, 26 (1982), 361–376
Feddersen Timothy J. and Pesendorfer Wolfgang, ‘The Swing Voter's Curse’, American Economic Review, 86 (1996), 408–424
21 Mulligan Casey B. and Hunter Charles G., ‘The Empirical Frequency of a Pivotal Vote’, Public Choice, 116 (2003), 31–54
Blais André, To Vote or Not To Vote? The Merits and Limits of Rational Choice Theory (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2000)
22 Rusk, ‘The Effect of the Australian Ballot Reform on Split Ticket Voting’.
23 Riker and Ordeshook, ‘A Theory of the Calculus of Voting’, p. 27
24 Vavreck Lynn and Rivers Douglas, ‘The 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Study’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 18 (2008), 355–366
25 In the CCES pre-election survey, we find that 56 per cent of respondents are ‘very much’ interested in politics and current events (variable = v245, ‘Level of interest in politics/current events’). In the ANES pre-election survey, the comparable figure is 52 per cent (variable = V0830001b, ‘How interested are you in information about what's going on in government and politics?’ = Extremely or Very interested). Among respondents who reported voting in 2008, 54 per cent of the two-party vote share went to Obama in our CCES data; in the ANES, the comparable proportion was 55 per cent. The demographic and political characteristics of the sample used in the analysis that follows are presented in online Appendix Table A1.
26 Fewer than 1 per cent of respondents failed to respond to any individual question. We restrict our analysis to the 804 participants who responded to each of the ballot secrecy items and who completed the post-election wave of the survey where the presidential vote choice question used in the analyses below was asked.
27 George H. Dunteman, Principal Components Analysis, Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1989)
28 Milbrath Lester W. and Goel Madan Lal, Political Participation: How and Why Do People Get Involved in Politics (Chicago: Rand McNally College, 1977)
Verba Sidney, Schlozman Kay Lehman and Brady Henry, Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995)
29 See online Appendix Table A3 for cross-tabulations of each secrecy item with education and other demographic groups.
30 See online Appendix Table A3.
31 In additional analysis (available upon request), we estimated OLS models predicting summary measures of each type of secrecy (measured based on principle component scores reported in online Appendix Table A2 and described in greater detail below) with a series of indicators for each of the race, gender, age, education, income and political interest categories presented in online Appendix Table A3. The models also include indicators for income missing, other race and state fixed effects. The only statistically significant (p < 0.05) relationships we find are a positive association between education and psychological secrecy, a positive association between the middle age category (40–60, significantly different from both other age categories) and social secrecy, and negative associations between both income and interest in politics and social secrecy.
32 Joo Thomas, ‘Corporate Governance and the Constitutionality of Campaign Finance Reform’, Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 1 (2002), 361–372
David B. Magleby, Anthony Corrado and Kelly D. Patterson, eds, Financing the 2004 Elections (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2006)
David B. Magleby, ed., Financing the 2000 Elections (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2002)
Magleby David B., Monson J. Quin and Patterson Kelly D., Dancing without Partners: How Candidates, Parties, and Interest Groups Interact in the Presidential Campaign (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007)
Regnerus Mark D., Sikkink David and Smith Christian, ‘Voting with the Christian Right: Contextual and Individual Patterns of Electoral Influence’, Social Forces, 77 (1999), 1375–1401
33 Finifter Ada, ‘The Friendship Group as a Protective Environment for Political Deviants’, American Political Science Review, 68 (1974), 607–625
34 Huckfeldt Robert and Sprague John, Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995)
Mutz Diana C., ‘Cross-cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice’, American Political Science Review, 96 (2004), 111–126
Beck Paul Allen and Jennings M. Kent, ‘Family Traditions, Political Periods, and the Development of Partisan Orientations’, Journal of Politics, 53 (1991), 742–763
35 Beck Paul Allen, Dalton Russell J., Greene Steven and Huckfeldt Robert, ‘The Social Calculus of Voting: Interpersonal, Media, and Organizational Influences on Presidential Choices’, American Political Science Review, 96 (2002), 57–73
Huckfeldt Robert, Beck Paul Allen, Dalton Russell J. and Levine Jeffrey, ‘Political Environments, Cohesive Social Groups, and the Communication of Public Opinion’, American Journal of Political Science, 39 (1995), 1025–1054
36 Additionally, ‘pure’ independents and partisan ‘leaners’ do not identify with a party in response to the stem of the standard party identification measure. Thus, unlike partisan identifiers, they are less likely to be concerned about social sanctions associated with deviating from a given party's candidate.
37 Minor party voters, of whom there are fewer than ten in our weighted sample, are also specified as the midpoint of the scale in our primary analysis.
38 We obtain highly similar results to those presented in Table 2 when additive scales of standardized (M = 0, SD = 1) items are used to measure each secrecy concept. The Cronbach's alphas are 0.496 and 0.763 for these psychological and social secrecy scale scales, respectively. These results are available upon request.
39 There is not a statistically significant effect for the interaction of social secrecy and union status.
40 The linear combination of the coefficient on psychological secrecy and the interaction between psychological secrecy and the union household indicator is: −0.113 (p < 0.05).
41 The interactions between psychological secrecy and the partisanship indicators fall short of conventional levels of statistical significance; p = 0.139.
42 To the extent that some respondents are only faced with situations where they would disclose their choices to like-minded individuals, these estimates understate the potential consequences of social secrecy.
43 Keith Bruce E., Magleby David B., Nelson Candice J., Orr Elizabeth, Westlye Mark C. and Wolfinger Raymond E., The Myth of the Independent Voter (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992)
44 James N. Druckman, Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski and Arthur Lupia, eds, Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011)
45 In addition, Column 5 does not include state indicators because ordered logit models are inconsistent with fixed effects given the sample sizes we have within states.
46 Gerber Alan S., Huber Gregoy A., Doherty David, Dowling Conor M. and Hill Seth J., ‘Do Perceptions of Ballot Secrecy Influence Turnout? Results from a Field Experiment’ (unpublished, Department of Political Science, Yale University, 2011)
47 Mutz Diana C., ‘The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation’, American Journal of Political Science, 46 (2002), 838–855
48 Citrin Jack, ‘Comment: The Political Relevance of Trust in Government’, American Political Science Review, 68 (1974), 973–988
Hetherington Marc J., ‘The Political Relevance of Political Trust’, American Political Science Review, 92 (1998), 791–808
49 Note that the opposite pattern – low trust union members being more Republican – could not explain our finding if low trust leads to lack of confidence in secrecy protections.
50 Note too that this finding suggests it is not simply that non-trusting individuals are somehow different (ideologically) from their environments because we control for individuals’ social identities (partisanship and union membership) and those policy preferences (ideology).
51 Simon Jackman and Lynn Vavreck, Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project, 2007–2008 Panel Study: Common Content, [Computer File] Release 1: February 1, 2009, Los Angeles, CA: UCLA.
52 The CCAP was also conducted by Polimetrix and the sample was constructed to be representative of registered voters. Trust in Government item: ‘How much of the time do you think you can trust the government in Washington (D.C.) to do what is right? 1. Almost never; 2. Some of the time; 3. Most of the time; 4. Just about always.’ The political interest measure solicited respondents’ level of ‘interest in politics and current events’.
53 Hall Thad E., Monson J. Quin and Patterson Kelly D., ‘The Human Dimension of Elections: How Poll Workers Shape Public Confidence in Elections’, Political Research Quarterly, 62 (2008), 507–522
54 Christian R. Grose and Carrie A. Russell, ‘Avoiding the Vote: A Theory and Field Experiment of the Social Costs of Public Political Participation’ (paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association, Boston, 2008).
55 In supplementary analysis (available upon request) we found few differences in secrecy perceptions between those who reported voting by mail or absentee and those who reported voting in person.
56 Bishop George F. and Fisher Bonnie S., ‘“Secret Ballots” and Self-Reports in an Exit-Poll Experiment’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 59 (1995), 568–588
57 Alvarez, Hall and Llewellyn, ‘Are Americans Confident Their Ballots Are Counted?’
58 Hyde Susan, ‘The Observer Effect in International Politics: Evidence from a Natural Experiment’, World Politics, 60 (2007), 37–63
59 Karpowitz Christopher F., Monson J. Quin, Nielson Lindsay, Patterson Kelly D. and Snell Steven A., ‘Political Norms and the Private Act of Voting’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 75 (2011), 659–685
* Gerber and Huber at Department of Political Science and Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University; Doherty at Department of Political Science, Loyola University Chicago; Dowling at Department of Political Science, University of Mississippi (email: email@example.com). This research was funded by Yale's Center for the Study of American Politics and Institution for Social and Policy Studies. Data and supporting materials necessary to reproduce the numerical results will be made available at http://huber.research.yale.edu/ upon publication. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2009 meeting of the American Political Science Association. We thank Kevin Arceneaux, John Bullock, Rachel Vanessa Cobb, Jamie Druckman, Susan Hyde, Gabriel Lenz, Neil Malhotra, Marc Meredith, Eric Patashnik, Eric Schickler, the anonymous referees and the Editor for feedback on earlier versions. An appendix containing additional information is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S000712341200021X.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 25th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.