Who Makes Voting Convenient? Explaining the Adoption of Early and No-Excuse Absentee Voting in the American States

被引:58
作者
Biggers, Daniel R. [1 ,2 ]
Hanmer, Michael J. [3 ]
机构
[1] Yale Univ, Ctr Study Amer Polit, New Haven, CT 06520 USA
[2] Yale Univ, Inst Social & Policy Studies, New Haven, CT 06520 USA
[3] Univ Maryland, Dept Govt & Polit, Grad Studies, College Pk, MD 20742 USA
关键词
convenience voting; election reform; election rules; political behavior; policy adoption; policy diffusion; DIRECT DEMOCRACY; VOTER TURNOUT; POLICY; CONSEQUENCES; REFORM; MOBILIZATION; INNOVATIONS; DIFFUSION; IDEOLOGY; POLITICS;
D O I
10.1177/1532440015570328
中图分类号
D0 [政治学、政治理论];
学科分类号
0302 ; 030201 ;
摘要
Recent elections have witnessed substantial debate regarding the degree to which state governments facilitate access to the polls. Despite this newfound interest, however, many of the major reforms aimed at increasing voting convenience (i.e., early voting and no-excuse absentee voting) were implemented over the past four decades. Although numerous studies examine their consequences (on turnout, the composition of the electorate, and/or electoral outcomes), we know significantly less about the factors leading to the initial adoption of these policies. We attempt to provide insights into such motivations using event history analysis to identify the impact of political and demographic considerations, as well as diffusion mechanisms, on which states opted for easier ballot access. We find that adoption responded to some factors signaling the necessity of greater voting convenience in the state, and that partisanship influenced the enactment of early voting but not no-excuse absentee voting procedures.
引用
收藏
页码:192 / 210
页数:19
相关论文
共 65 条
[1]   Making Voting Easier: Convenience Voting in the 2008 Presidential Election [J].
Alvarez, R. Michael ;
Levin, Ines ;
Sinclair, J. Andrew .
POLITICAL RESEARCH QUARTERLY, 2012, 65 (02) :248-262
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1984, American Federalism: A View from the States
[3]  
[Anonymous], NY TIMES
[4]   Politics, race, and American state electoral reforms after election 2000 [J].
Bali, Valentina A. ;
Silver, Brian D. .
STATE POLITICS & POLICY QUARTERLY, 2006, 6 (01) :21-48
[5]   Do absentee voters differ from polling place voters? New evidence from California [J].
Barreto, Matt A. ;
Streb, Matthew J. ;
Marks, Mara ;
Guerra, Fernando .
PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY, 2006, 70 (02) :224-234
[6]   Taking time seriously: Time-series-cross-section analysis with a binary dependent variable [J].
Beck, N ;
Katz, JN ;
Tucker, R .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, 1998, 42 (04) :1260-1288
[7]   Jim Crow 2.0? Why States Consider and Adopt Restrictive Voter Access Policies [J].
Bentele, Keith G. ;
O'Brien, Erin E. .
PERSPECTIVES ON POLITICS, 2013, 11 (04) :1088-1116
[8]   The perverse consequences of electoral reform in the united states [J].
Berinsky, AJ .
AMERICAN POLITICS RESEARCH, 2005, 33 (04) :471-491
[9]   STATE LOTTERY ADOPTIONS AS POLICY INNOVATIONS - AN EVENT HISTORY ANALYSIS [J].
BERRY, FS ;
BERRY, WD .
AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 1990, 84 (02) :395-415
[10]   Using geographic information systems to study interstate competition [J].
Berry, WD ;
Baybeck, B .
AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 2005, 99 (04) :505-519