|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
American Politics Research, Vol. 33, No. 4,
471-491 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X04269419
The Perverse Consequences of Electoral Reform in the United States
Adam J. Berinsky
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
A number of electoral reforms have been enacted in the United States in the past three decades that are designed to increase turnout by easing restrictions on the casting of ballots. Both proponents and opponents of electoral reforms agree that these reforms should increase the demographic representativeness of the electorate by reducing the direct costs of voting, thereby increasing turnout among less-privileged groups who, presumably, are most sensitive to the costs of coming to the polls. In fact, these reforms have been greatly contested because both major political parties believe that increasing turnout among less-privileged groups will benefit Democratic politicians. I review evidence from numerous studies of electoral reform to demonstrate that reforms designed to make it easier for registered voters to cast their ballots actually increase, rather than reduce, socioeconomicbiases in the composition of the voting public. I conclude with a recommendation that we shift the focus of electoral reform from an emphasis on institutional changes to a concentration on political engagement.
Key Words: election reform • voting • political participation • turnout • representation
References
- Achen, C. H., & Shively, W. P. (1995). Cross-level inference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Alvarez, R. M. L., Ansolabehere, S., & Wilson, C. H. (2002). Election day voter registration in the United States: How one-step voting can change the composition of the American electorate. Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project Working Paper.
- Alvarez, R. M. L., & Hall, T. E. (2004). Point, click, andvote: The future of internet voting. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
- Alvarez, R. M., & Nagler, J. (2001). The likely consequences of Internet voting for political representation. Loyola Law Review, 34, 1115-1153.
- Althoff, S. (2004, March 7). Point, click, elect. Boston Globe Magazine, p. 26-26.
- Bennett, S. E., & Resnick, D. (1990). The implications of nonvoting for democracy in the United States. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 771-802.
- Berinsky, A. J. (2002). Silent voices: Social welfare policy opinions and political equality in America. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 276-287.
- Berinsky, A. J. (2004). Silent voices: Opinion polls and political participation in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Berinsky, A. J., N. Burns, & Traugott, M. W. (2001).Who votes by mail? A dynamic model of the individual-level consequences of vote-by-mail systems. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 178-197.[Abstract]
- Brody, R. A., & Sniderman, P. M. (1977). From life space to polling place: The relevance of personal concerns for voting behavior. British Journal of Political Science, 7, 337-360.
- Calvert, J. W., & Gilchrist, J. (1993). Suppose they held an election and almost everybody came! PS: Political Science and Politics, 26, 695-700.[CrossRef]
- Campbell, A. (1966). Surge and decline: A study of electoral change. In A. Campbell, P. E. Converse, W. Miller, & D. Stokes (Eds.), Elections and the political order (pp.40-62).New York: Wiley.
- Citrin, J., Schickler, E., & Sides, J. (2003). What if everyone voted? Simulating the impact of increased turnout in senate elections. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 75-90.[CrossRef]
- Delli Carpini,M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- DeNardo, J. (1980). Turnout and the vote: The joke’s on the Democrats. American Political Science Review, 74, 406-420.[CrossRef][ISI]
- Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Shachar, R. (2003). Voting may be habit-forming:Evidence from a randomized field experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 540-550.[CrossRef][ISI]
- Gibson, R. (2002). Elections online: Assessing internet voting in light of the Arizona democratic primary. Political Science Quarterly, 116, 561-583.
- Hajnal, Z., & Trounstine, J. (in press). Where turnout matters: The consequences of uneven turnout in city politics. Journal of Politics.
- Hanmer, M. J. (2004). From selection to election and beyond: Understanding the causes and consequences of electoral reform in America. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
- Hansen, J. M. (2001). Early voting, unrestricted absentee voting, and voting by mail. Unpublished report of the Task Force on the Federal Election System.
- Highton, B. (1997). Easy registration and voter turnout. Journal of Politics, 59, 565-575.[CrossRef][ISI]
- Highton, B. (2004).Registration and voting in the United States. Perspectives on Politics, 2, 507-515.
- Karp, J. A., & Banducci, S. A. (2000). Going postal: How all-mail elections influence turnout. Political Behavior, 22, 223-239.
- Karp, J. A., & Banducci, S. A. (2001). Absentee voting, mobilization, and participation. American Politics Research, 29, 183-195.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- King, G. (1997). A solution to the ecological inference problem: Reconstructing individual behavior from aggregate data. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Knack, S., & White, J. (2000). Election-day registration and turnout inequality. Political Behavior, 22, 29-44.[CrossRef]
- Leighley, J. E., & Nagler, J. (1992). Socioeconomic class bias in turnout, 1964-1988: The voters remain the same. American Political Science Review, 86, 725-736.[CrossRef][ISI]
- Magleby, D. (1987). Participation in mail ballot elections. Western Political Quarterly, 40, 79-91.
- Mitchell, G. E., & Wlezien, C. (1995). The impact of legal constraints on voter registration, turnout, and the composition of the American Electorate. Political Behavior, 17, 179-202.
- Nagel, J. H., & McNulty, J. E. (1996). Partisan effects of voter turnout in senatorial and gubernatorial elections. American Political Science Review, 90, 780-793.[CrossRef][ISI]
- Neely, G. W., & Richardson, L. E., Jr. (2001). Who is early voting? An individual level examination. The Social Science Journal, 38, 381-392.[CrossRef]
- Oliver, J. E. (1996). The effects of eligibility restrictions and party activity on absentee voting and overall turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 498-513.
- Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. A. (1989). Government statistics and conflicting expectations of nonvoting. PS: Political Science and Politics, 22, 578-589.
- Presser, S., & Traugott, M. (1992). Little white lies and social science models: Correlated response errors in a panel study of voting. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 77-86.[Abstract]
- Robinson, W. S. (1950). Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. American Sociological Review, 15, 351-357.[CrossRef]
- Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: MacMillian.
- Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
- Sigelman, L., & Jewell, M. E. (1986). From core to periphery: A note on the imagery of concentric electorates. Journal of Politics, 48, 440-449.[CrossRef]
- Silver, B. D., Anderson, B. A., & Abramson, P. R. (1986). Who overreports voting? The American Political Science Review, 80, 613-624.
- Southwell, P., & Burchett, J. (1997). Survey of vote-by-mail senate election in the state of Oregon. PS: Political Science and Politics, 30, 53-57.
- Southwell, P., & Burchett, J. (2000). Does changing the rules change the players? The effect of all-mail elections on the composition of the electorate. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 837-845.
- Stein, R. M. (1998). Early voting. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 57-69.[CrossRef][ISI]
- Stein, R. M., & Garcia-Monet, P. A. (1997).Voting early, but not often. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 657-671.
- Traugott, M. W. (2004). Why electoral reform has failed: If you build it, will they come? In A. N. Crigler, M. R. Just, & E. McCaffery (Eds.), Rethinking the vote: The politics and prospects of American election reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Wolfinger, R., & Highton, B. (1998). Estimating the effects of the national voter registration act of 1993. Political Behavior, 20, 79-104.[CrossRef][ISI]
- Wolfinger, R., & Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Whovotes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality. Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H. E., & Nie, N. H. (1993). Citizen activity: Who participates? What do they say? American Political Science Review, 8, 303-318.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
A. K. Prevost and B. F. Schaffner
Digital Divide or Just Another Absentee Ballot?: Evaluating Internet Voting in the 2004 Michigan Democratic Primary
American Politics Research,
July 1, 2008;
36(4):
510 - 529.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. Neely and C. Cook
Whose Votes Count?: Undervotes, Overvotes, and Ranking in San Francisco's Instant-Runoff Elections
American Politics Research,
July 1, 2008;
36(4):
530 - 554.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. A. Rosenson
The Impact of Ethics Laws on Legislative Recruitment and the Occupational Composition of State Legislatures
Political Research Quarterly,
December 1, 2006;
59(4):
619 - 627.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Donovan and J. A. Karp
Popular Support for Direct Democracy
Party Politics,
September 1, 2006;
12(5):
671 - 688.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
