Sound Politics: And it doesn't increase turnout

May 10, 2006

And it doesn't increase turnout

One of the biggest reasons given by some advocates of all-mail voting is that it "increases voter turnout". But that claim, like many other claims of the mail-vote fetishists, lies somewhere between overstatement and falsehood.

A couple of people e-mailed me this study today: "Making It Easier Doesn't Work: No Excuse Absentee and Early Voting; Hurt Voter Turnout; Create Other Problems", by Curtis Gans (Sep. 2004). Jason Aaron Osgood from Washington Citizens for Fair Elections summarizes:

Vote by mail doesn't increase turnout and probably actually hurts it. Oregon's 100% state-wide vote by mail is explicitly examined. Vote by mail carries with it many other risks.

Osgood also e-mailed a link to this 2001 article by John Mark Hansen: "Early Voting, Unrestricted Absentee Voting, and Voting by mail"

Ten years’ experience with voter participation outside Election Day suggests that early voting and voting by mail have boosted voter turnout, though modestly. Unrestricted absentee voting by and large has not, or has but by less.

Paul Gronke of Reed College summarizes in "Early Voting Reforms and American Elections"

Enough research has accumulated on the first question to state a scholarly consensus: early voting does not increase turnout by bringing new voters into the system. What it does is encourage regular voters to participate in lower intensity contests that they might otherwise skip.

If encouraging more regular voters to participate in lower intensity contests is the goal, then why not have fewer special elections and put the lower intensity issues on the ballot in general elections when regular voters are already voting anyway? Forcing everybody to vote by mail in high-intensity contests not only is not expected to increase participation, but would only reduce accuracy and confidence in the results of the elections that most people care most about. That sounds like a pretty stupid change to me.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 10, 2006 04:02 PM | Email This

Comments

1. I read some of the paper fropm Reed college. (Do your readers know you are citing studies from the ultra left Reed?).

There are certainly points on both sides and it does increase some voting.

However, I think one of the reasons people like voting by mail is that they like it. They really like it. They are too busy to drive to a voting booth.

Posted by: Erik on May 10, 2006 04:24 PM

2. Erik: Well, I guess then that I'm not "most people" I LIKE going to my polling place. I LIKE standing there with a lot of other people and filling out my ballot. I LIKE getting my little "I Voted" sticker and wearing it all day. I LIKE knowing that no one is messing with my ballot. I LIKE having the oversight that poll workers provide. And I LIKE the neighborly, community feeling shared at the polling place. I guess I must be weird.

Posted by: katomar on May 10, 2006 05:11 PM

3. Do they take into account those who quit voting entirely because they have no confidence in an all mail voting system.
As was already shown in King county the outcome can be manipulated by the way you "handle" the absentee votes. When it's all mail voting the possibilities are endless.

I moved to Snohomish County last Fall and will not bother to register to vote here as I have no confidence at all that my vote will be counted or if counted will be counted accurately.

Posted by: Mark on May 10, 2006 06:13 PM

4. This is definitely the Dem / Progressive argument because they think that GOTV works, it doesn't. They also think that making it easier to vote will get them more votes, it doesn't.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 10, 2006 06:37 PM

5. It really looks like the only tangible advantage of "all absentee voting" is the increased ability of the Democrats to commit fraud. There! The truth is out. That IS the only reason that the Dems in Olympia quickly pushed for this absurd All Mail Voting bill so soon after the election fiasco of 2004! They almost got busted using their usual methods of ballot stuffing (remember the numerous ballot finds and lost ballots, blank ballots and illegally signed ballots, log altering, etc...)..and wanted to ensure they never had to risk getting caught again! The only way to guarantee that they had a chance at undetected ballot fraud in the future is to change all counties to All Absentee voting before the next big election. It was truly hard to explain why the party voting dynamics differed so much between the poll votes and the absentee votes... How could so many more Republicans vote at the polls than those who voted by mail? Could it be that perhaps someone manipulated the absentee vote counts?....Those questions just became so annoying after the 2004 election! The Dems had to find a way to eliminate that second method of statistical analysis and come up with just one means of ballot counting. That way no one will ever know what the true Republican v Democrat voting dymnamics are in any county of the State!

I don't know any family that doesn't have one member who votes at the polls. Convenient or not - just about every family has a member who prefers to vote at the neighborhood poll station....

Posted by: Deborah on May 10, 2006 07:15 PM

6. And I LIKE the neighborly, community feeling shared at the polling place. I guess I must be weird.

Nah, you are like alot of people, a great many people but a decreasing part of the electorate.

Posted by: Erik on May 10, 2006 07:57 PM

7. Oh, and one more thing about the polling places. Mine is in Midland, just outside Tacoma. I grew up there. The ladies working at the polling place have known me and every one of my family members for over 30 years. And they STILL ask, every time, to see my voter registration and photo ID when I vote. How's that for doing it right out in the sticks?

Posted by: katomar on May 10, 2006 08:05 PM

8. How about voting on Sunday like they do in Europe? It's hard to do during the workweek especially if you have a long commute or afterschool kid duties.

Posted by: westello on May 10, 2006 08:45 PM

9. So the only place it might increase voter participation is in special elections...which are usually for special interest things like bond issues, levys etc...which are being held as special elections because the people putting them on the ballot actually want minimal turnout of primarily people who support the measure in the first place.

(I'm sorry, but if a school district needs an 'emergency' special election for a bond issue to do maintenance on their buildings, the people running that district are as incompetent as DeanRon. Maintenance is not hard to predict, barring unforeseen major damage from a quake or other disaster. One reason I will not vote for anyone with 'Incumbent' next to their name in the next school district election.)

Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on May 10, 2006 08:59 PM

10. I agree with Westello - they should change the date of national elections to the first Sunday after April 15th!

It would (IMNSO) give people a real incentive to cast their vote!

Posted by: alphabet soup on May 11, 2006 08:45 AM

11. Actually, Erik, you're right. People like voting by mail. That's why over 70% of Washington voters chose to vote by mail even before the county option to go all vote by mail was passed.

Posted by: Anne on May 11, 2006 09:55 AM

12. Lots of links to independent studies, including one on turnout by the Washington State Association of County Auditors, can be found here:

http://www.sos.state.or.us/executive/policy-initiatives/vbm/execvbm.htm

Posted by: Anne on May 11, 2006 09:57 AM

13. Stefan

You continue to post misleading commentaries.

You write: Forcing everybody to vote by mail in high-intensity contests not only is not expected to increase participation, but would only reduce accuracy and confidence in the results of the elections that most people care most about. That sounds like a pretty stupid change to me.

Please examine the many studies which compare the accuracy of ballot counting between precinct day voting and absentee voting.

Absentee ballots, because they can be processed over a longer period of time, and because they allow elections officials time to go back and allow voters to re-cast damaged or otherwise rejected ballots, are more accurately counted.

Don't believe me--refer to the studies that you cite: the Hansen report in 2000, the Carter/Baker report in 2004, the various CalTech/MIT Voting Technology reports.

Posted by: paul on May 11, 2006 11:27 AM