Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-8sgpw Total loading time: 1.527 Render date: 2021-03-02T08:25:19.831Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Early Voting and Turnout

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2007

Paul Gronke
Affiliation:
Reed College
Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum
Affiliation:
Reed College
Peter A. Miller
Affiliation:
Reed College

Extract

Early or convenience voting—understood in this context to be relaxed administrative rules and procedures by which citizens can cast a ballot at a time and place other than the precinct on Election Day—is a popular candidate for election reformers. Typically, reformers argue that maximization of turnout is a primary goal, and reducing barriers between voters and the polls is an important method for achieving higher turnout. Arguments in favor of voting by mail, early in-person voting, and relaxed absentee requirements share this characteristic. While there are good theoretical reasons, drawn primarily from the rational choice tradition, to believe that early voting reforms should increase turnout, the empirical literature has found decidedly mixed results. While one prominent study suggests that voting by mail is associated with a 10% increase in turnout, other studies find smaller—but still statistically significant—increases in turnout associated with other convenience voting methods.This work is supported by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the AEI/Brookings Election Reform Project, and the Charles McKinley Fund of Reed College. Thanks to Caroline Tolbert and Daniel Smith for sharing data with us, and to David Magleby for comments on an earlier version of this paper. All responsibility for interpretations lay with the authors.

Type
SYMPOSIUM
Copyright
© 2007 The American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

ACE Project Page. 2004. Web site contains reports by the Administration and Cost of Elections Project. Stockholm, Sweden. Available at www.aceproject.org.
Aldrich, John H. 1993. “Rational Choice and Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 37: 24678.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Thad Hall. 2003. “Whose Absentee Ballots are Counted?Unpublished working paper. Washington, D.C.: Century Foundation.
Berinsky, Adam, Nancy Burns, and Michael Traugott. 2001. “Who Votes By Mail? A Dynamic Model of the Individual-Level Consequences of Voting-By-Mail Systems.” Public Opinion Quarterly 65: 17897.Google Scholar
Berinsky, Adam. 2004. “The Perverse Consequences of Electoral Reform in America.” Working paper. Department of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Bradbury, Bill. 2001. “The Voting Booth at the Kitchen Table.” New York Times, August 21.
Dubin, J. A., and G. A. Kalsow. 1996. “Comparing Absentee and Precinct Voters: A View Over Time.” Political Behavior 18 (4): 36992.Google Scholar
Gronke, Paul. 2000. The Electorate, the Campaign, and the Office. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Gronke, Paul. 2004. “Early Voting Reforms and American Elections.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
Hall, Thad. 2003. “Ensuring the Continuity of the United States Government: The Congress.” Prepared testimony before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, September 9.
Hanmer, Michael J., and Michael W. Traugott. 2004. “The Impact of Voting By Mail on Voter Behavior.” American Politics Research 32: 375405.Google Scholar
Hansen, John Mark. 2001. “To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process.” Report prepared for the National Commission on Federal Election Reform. Charlottesville: Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia.
Institute for Democracy, and Electoral Assistance (IDEA). “Postal Voting and Voting on the Internet.” Accessed at www.idea.int/vt/analysis/Postal_Voting_Internet_Voting.cfm (August 3, 2004).
Karp, Jeffrey A., and Susan A. Banducci. 2000. “Going Postal: How All-mail Elections Influence Turnout.” Political Behavior 22 (3): 22339.Google Scholar
Magleby, David B. 1987. “Participation in Mail Ballot Elections.” Western Political Quarterly 40 (March): 7991.Google Scholar
McDonald, Michael P., and Samuel Popkin. 2001. “The Myth of the Vanishing Voter.” American Political Science Review 95 (4): 96374.Google Scholar
Nagourney, Adam. 2002. “Early Voting Puts Many Candidates in Early Overdrive.” New York Times October 14, A1.
National Association of Secretaries of State. 2001. “Election Reform: State by State Best Practices.” Available at www.nass.org.
National Association of Secretaries of State. 2003. “New Millennium Best Practices Survey.” July. Washington, D.C.: NASS. Available at www.nass.org.
National Conference of State Legislatures. 2001. “Voting in America: Final Report of the NCSL Elections Reform Task Force.” Washington, D.C.: National Conference on State Legislatures; also available online at www.nscl.org.
Oliver, J. Eric. 1996. “The Effects of Eligibility Restrictions and Party Activity on Absentee Voting and Overall Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (2): 498514.Google Scholar
Patterson, S., and G. Caldeira. 1985. “Mailing in the Vote: Correlates and Consequences of Absentee Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 29: 76687.Google Scholar
Neeley, Grant W., and Lilliard Richardson. 2001. “Who is Early Voting? An Individual-level Examination.” Social Science Journal 38: 38192.Google Scholar
Rosenstone, Steven, and John Mark Hansen. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.
Southwell, Priscilla L. 1996. “Final Report Survey of Vote-By-Mail Senate Elections.” Report presented to the Vote-By-Mail Citizen Commission, State of Oregon, April 3.
Southwell, Priscilla L. 1998. “Vote by Mail in the State of Oregon.” Willamette Law Review 34 (2): 34556.Google Scholar
Southwell, Priscilla L. 2004. “Five Years Later: A Re-assessment of Oregon's Vote by Mail Electoral Process.” PS: Political Science and Politics 98 (1): 8993.Google Scholar
Southwell, Priscilla, and Justin Burchett. 2000a. “The Effect of All-Mail Elections on Voter Turnout.” American Politics Quarterly 28: 729.Google Scholar
Southwell, Priscilla, and Justin Burchett. 2000b. “Does Changing the Rules Change the Players? Vote by Mail and the Composition of the Electorate.” Social Science Quarterly 81(4): 83745.Google Scholar
Stein, Robert. 1998. “Early Voting.” Public Opinion Quarterly 62: 5769.Google Scholar
Stein, Robert, and Patricia A. Garcia-Monet. 1997. “Voting Early, but Not Often.” Social Science Quarterly 78: 65771.Google Scholar
Stein, Robert, Chris Owens, and Jan Leighley. 2003. “Electoral Reform, Party Mobilization, and Voter Turnout.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
Texiera, Rey. 1992. The Disappearing American Voter. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Tolbert, Caroline J., John A. Grummel, and Daniel A. Smith. 2001. “The Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout in the United States.” American Politics Research 29(6): 62548.Google Scholar
Tolbert, Caroline J., and Daniel A. Smith. 2005. “The Educative Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout.” American Politics Research 33 (March): 283309.Google Scholar
Traugott, Michael W. 2003. “ Why Electoral Reform Has Failed: If You Build It, Will They Come?” In Rethinking the Vote, eds. Ann Crigler, Ed McCafferty, and Marion Just. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wintour, Patrick, and Helen Carter. 2002. “Postal Voting Boosts Turnout in Local Polls,” The Guardian (UK), May 1.
Wolfinger, Raymond E., and Steven J. Rosenstone. 1980. Who Votes? New Haven: Yale University Press.

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 160
Total number of PDF views: 616 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 2nd March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Early Voting and Turnout
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Early Voting and Turnout
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Early Voting and Turnout
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *