Hostname: page-component-594f858ff7-7tp2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-06-09T20:31:10.744Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "corePageComponentUseShareaholicInsteadOfAddThis": true, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false
  • English

Poll Workers and the Vitality of Democracy: An Early Assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2007

Thad Hall ,
J. Quin Monson  and
Kelly D. Patterson
Thad Hall
Affiliation:
University of Utah
J. Quin Monson
Affiliation:
Brigham Young University
Kelly D. Patterson
Affiliation:
Brigham Young University
Get access Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Extract

The aftermath of the 2000 election has been a time of constant learning in regards to election administration in the United States. Both scholars and policy makers initially focused primarily on voting technology and on which voting technologies were best at capturing votes. In early 2001, the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project developed the “residual vote” metric; numerous studies have since examined residual vote rates across different voting platforms. Congressional reform of elections—exemplified in the “Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002” (P.L. 107-252)—also focused largely on voting technology, with HAVA imposing new standards for voting equipment and providing states with one-shot funding to aid in its purchase.Authors are listed alphabetically. The data collection in Cuyahoga County, Ohio was funded by the Election Science Institute (ESI) through a contract with the Cuyahoga County Commission. We are grateful to Steven Hertzberg of ESI for his assistance in the data collection. The Utah poll-worker survey was funded by the Institute of Public and International Affairs (IPIA) at the University of Utah. Steven Snell of the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy (CSED) at Brigham Young University provided valuable research assistance for this project.

Type
SYMPOSIUM
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , October 2007 , pp. 647 - 654
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. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alvarez, R. Michael, Stephen Ansolabehere, and Charles Stewart III 2005. “Studying Elections: Data Quality and Pitfalls in Measuring of Effects of Voting Technologies.” Policy Studies Journal 33 (1): 15–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Thad E. Hall. 2006. “Controlling Democracy: The Principal-agent Problems in Election Administration.” Policy Studies Journal 34 (4): 491–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, Thad E. Hall, and Morgan Llewellyn. 2006. “Are Americans Confident Their Ballots Are Counted?” Working paper. Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project.Google Scholar
Argyris, Chris, Geoffry M. Bellman, Kenneth Blanchard, Peter Block, William Bridges, Bonnie Deane, Gloria Gery, W. Mathew Juechter, Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Edward E. Lawler II, Tom Peters, Gifford Pinchot, Elizabeth Pinchot, Peter Senge, Noel Tichy, and Margaret Wheatley. 1994. “The Future of Workplace Learning and Performance.” Training & Development (May): S41.Google Scholar
Atkeson, Lonna, and Kyle Saunders. 2007. “The Effect of Election Administration on Voter Confidence: A Local Matter?” PS: Political Science and Politics 40 (October): 655–60.Google Scholar
Cuyahoga Election Review Panel. 2006. “Final Report.” Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Available at: www.cuyahogavoting.org/CERP_Final_Report_20060720.pdf (Accessed, February 6, 2007).Google Scholar
Dillman, Don A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Election Science Institute. 2006. “DRE Analysis for May 2006 Primary.” Cuyahoga County, Ohio. Available at: http://bocc.cuyahogacounty.us/GSC/pdf/esi_cuyahoga_final.pdf (Accessed, February 6, 2007).Google Scholar
Fisher, Cynthia D., Lyle F. Schoenfeldt, and James B. Shaw. 1996. Human Resource Management, 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Green, Kenneth C. 1999. “High Tech vs. High Touch: The Potential Promise and Probable Limits of Technology-Based Education and Training on Campuses.” In Competence Without Credentials. Washington, D.C.: National Institute on Postsecondary Education, Libraries, and Lifelong Learning, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
Hall, Thad E., Quin Monson, and Kelly Patterson. 2006. “The Human Dimension of Elections: How Poll Workers Shape Public Confidence in Elections.” Working paper. University of Utah.Google Scholar
Herron, Michael, and Jeffrey B. Lewis. 2006. “From Punchcards to Touchscreens: Some Evidence from Pasco County, Florida on the Effects of Changing Voting Technology.” Working paper. Dartmouth University.Google Scholar
Lavrakas, Paul J. 1993. Telephone Survey Methods: Sampling, Selection, and Supervision, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patton, W. David, Stephanie L. Witt, Nicholas P. Lovrich, and Patricia J. Fredericksen. 2002. Human Resource Management: The Public Service Perspective. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Senge, Peter, 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.Google Scholar
Stewart III, Charles. 2006. “Changes in the Residual Vote Rates Between 2000 and 2004.” Election Law Journal 5 (2): 158–69.Google Scholar
Van Wart, Montgomery. 1998. “ Organizational Investment in Employee Development.” In Handbook of Human Resource Management in Government, ed. Stephen E. Condrey. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 276–97.Google Scholar