This Article Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (18) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Berinsky, A. J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Perverse Consequences of Electoral Reform in the United States

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

American Politics Research, Vol. 33, No. 4, 471-491 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X04269419


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. L. Claassen and B. Highton Policy Polarization among Party Elites and the Significance of Political Awareness in the Mass Public Political Research Quarterly, September 1, 2009; 62(3): 538 - 551. [Abstract] [PDF]

				T. E. Hall, J. Quin Monson, and K. D. Patterson The Human Dimension of Elections: How Poll Workers Shape Public Confidence in Elections Political Research Quarterly, September 1, 2009; 62(3): 507 - 522. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. Garcia Bedolla and M. R. Michelson What Do Voters Need to Know?: Testing the Role of Cognitive Information in Asian American Voter Mobilization American Politics Research, March 1, 2009; 37(2): 254 - 274. [Abstract] [PDF]

				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]