Electionline has a great story on “vote shaming” and how some are reacting to the tactic. Christopher Mann, Assistant Professor of Communication and Political Science at LSU is prominently quoted in the story and does a good job explaining the academic research the underlies the technique.
Self promotion alert.
Here is a story profiling my distinguished chaired visiting professorship at Appalachian State University.
A set of companion bills (HB111, SB84) have been introduced in the Texas legislature that would allow for same-day registration during the period of early voting (SB84 looks like it is an attempt to institute same day registration for early and election day voting).
This has always struck me as an easy lift. At a recent conference, Charles Stewart referred to the “two percent rule,” indicating that most election reforms would result in, at best, a 2% change in turnout. I agree with Charles except for same day registration; we have lots of evidence that this reform results in a larger and consistently positive boost in turnout.
And since the same day registration occurs during early voting, there is no issue with jurisdictions not having enough time, staff, or resources on election day to make sure the registration is valid.
These may have no chance in the legislature, but it’s nice to see the debates occurring.
A number of changes in California law should result in more ballots being counted because voters have a few more days to return the ballots, and election officials have a few more days to resolve any outstanding issues with signatures.
But this will surely slow the count in California as officials process vote by mail ballots.
We undertake a comprehensive examination of restrictive voter ID legislation in the American states from 2001 through 2012. With a dataset containing approximately one thousand introduced and nearly one hundred adopted voter ID laws, we evaluate the likelihood that a state legislature introduces a restrictive voter ID bill, as well as the likelihood that a state government adopts such a law. Voter ID laws have evolved from a valence issue into a partisan battle, where Republicans defend them as a safeguard against fraud while Democrats indict them as a mechanism of voter suppression. However, voter ID legislation is not uniform across the states; not all Republican-controlled legislatures have pushed for more restrictive voter ID laws. Instead, our findings show it is a combination of partisan control and the electoral context that drives enactment of such measures. While the prevalence of Republican lawmakers strongly and positively influences the adoption of voter ID laws in electorally competitive states, its effect is significantly weaker in electorally uncompetitive states. Republicans preside over an electoral coalition that is declining in size; where elections are competitive, the furtherance of restrictive voter ID laws is a means of maintaining Republican support while curtailing Democratic electoral gains.
Jacob Canter and I are working on a longer post summarizing the various and sundry details of the college voting controversy that roiled the Appalachian State University campus, Boone, and Watauga County NC.
A quick map, courtesy of the NY Times, captures the partisan nature of the controversy pretty well. Three precincts in Boone city proper contain most of the ASU college students. And these precincts are pockets of blue in a red county.
A great new site with an unfortunate name, “HackOregon” (message to 20 somethings, not all end users view “hacking” as a positive), provides assorted visualizations of campaign spending in Oregon, using information available from Orestar.
The most revealing thing to me is the fact that ALL the initiative and referendum campaigns rely on substantial donations from out of state donors and from very wealthy individuals. Nearly every campaign ad I’ve seen this year charges that “outsiders” and “billionaires” are influencing Oregon elections. Welcome to the post Citizens United / McCutcheon world of campaign finance!
The site could use some improvement in the search mechanism; right now you have to know what (phony) name is being used by many committees in order to search for their spending. For example, search on “Measure 89” or “Measure 90” and you only get one or another of the campaigns.
Very nice visualizations!
This story was apparently prompted by an earlier post I made at earlyvoting.net and a FB discussion on the political science interest group, but also news about the Alaska flyer listing voting histories.
The question she asks is whether “shaming” will increase turnout (political scientists know the answer) but even if it does, is this something we want to encourage? My own unscientific poll of Facebook friends: hell no!
Byline is by Fredreka Schouten, Paul Gronke is quoted about halfway down.
There has been a lot of ink spilled over a recent article in the Monkey Cage that suggested that “Non Citizens Could Decide the The November Election.” At last count, the post had generated 3305 comments, the most by far in the history of the Monkey Cage.
The blog posting was based on a forthcoming article in Electoral Studies, which had a less provocative title (“Do Non Citizens Vote in US Elections“) but does contain this highly charged claim:
These results allow us to estimate the impact of non-citizen voting on election outcomes. We find that there is reason to believe non-citizen voting changed one state’s Electoral College votes in 2008, delivering North Carolina to Obama, and that non-citizen votes have also led to Democratic victories in congressional races including a critical 2008 Senate race that delivered for Democrats a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
For those who wish to further restrict participation by non-citizens, however, our results also provide important cautions. Simple resort to voter photo-identification rules is unlikely to be particularly effective.
But I have to add that this quote, in a recent “Fact Checker” article in the Reno Gazette-Journal, is just brutal.
UPDATE: After this story posted, Richman replied via email:
“We agree with your rating of a ‘4’ because:
“A. Noncitizen voting might tip one or two extremely close races but is unlikely to tip the balance in the Senate, and certainly not in the House.
“B. Science is a process of finding, validation, replication and rebuttal. We are at the very beginning of the process. Colleagues have raised reasonable questions about the data we used–problems that we acknowledge in both the study and the Monkey Cage. It will take some time and additional research to increase confidence in our findings.”
Horse. Stable Door. Too Late.
The damage form this study may have already been done. Doug Chapin, someone who bridges political science and policy, has already written (“Is Political Science Blowing It’s Close Up?”) about the impact of this study (and the Montana experiment) on when and how election administrators may engage with scholars. I am attending a conference of election officials in just a few weeks, and I am certain I will have to defend our discipline from those who are already skeptical about working with scholars.
Any political scientist, and particularly those who work in the elections administration and election policy fields, need to be worried to see a quote like this from one of our supporters and friends:
But if political scientists aren’t careful – either in monitoring their own or their colleagues’ research and publishing decisions – the interest in political science-driven stories will wane. Or worse, it could become yet another (albeit more numerate) weapon in the ongoing rhetorical wars between the parties.
It will also make it harder for researchers and election officials to “play nice” with one another on projects of mutual interest – which for me would be the unkindest cut of all.
My professional association is working hard to convince politicians and policy makers that our scholarship can be relevant. But we as members need to be very circumspect about how we publicize our work, particularly in the context of a dynamic and competitive election campaign. This is not about a few citations or a few appearances on local news shows. This is about political power, and those in power can be quite unforgiving.
Thomas Leeper, in a recent blog posting, makes what strikes me as a very problematic claim to try to justify the Montana field experiment.
Leeper asserts that non-partisan elections “do not obtain the democratic benefits that their advocates hope for,” and that “judicial elections are not necessarily a democratic good.”
I defer to Prof. Leeper for the justifications of these claims; I have no reason to doubt his summary of the literature. I find his arguments intuitively and theoretically appealing.
But how can this possibly justify the Montana field experiment? Leeper is arguing that scientific research that in the process of conducting the research actively undermines a democratic election practice cannot be criticized if the process itself is of questionable democratic value.
Please note, I am not saying that political scientists should not subject election procedures to the closest possible empirical and normative scrutiny. But Leeper misses the point, made by myself in an earlier post and by Melissa Michelson on the New West Blog, that this experiment did not just study the impact of providing partisan cueing information on voter turnout in a non-partisan election, by its very scope, could have undermined the practice itself.
There are 671,031 registered voters in Montana, so this mailer was sent to 15% of the electorate. Depending on how many of the recipients had already intended to vote, using the 2010 turnout as a baseline, as much as half the total voting population received this mailer!
Choose your guide to research ethics in the social sciences. Here is one from Notre Dame, and second from Iowa State. I didn’t choose these with any particular intent in mind; they were just two of the first that came up after a Google search of “ethical guidelines for social science research.”
Others may disagree, but I fail to see how this study attempted to, at a minimum:
- Consider and anticipate effects on third parties that are not directly included in the research (judicial candidates, supporters of non-partisan elections in Montana)
- Show respect for the values and views of research subjects, even if they differ from those generally accepted by society at large (if we accept Leeper’s argument that non-partisan elections are a net bad, and so if the experiment undermined the Montana election it’s OK since those who believe this are simply wrong)
The example used in research ethics 101 is this: we cannot be absolutely sure that someone does not have HIV (today the example used would be Ebola) unless we tested all of their blood. The problem with this test: it would kill the individual. We should minimize to the degree possible the impact of our measurement on the thing we are measuring, and this research design fails this test.
Finally, I’m really amazed that this research is justified on the grounds that private entities are doing this anyway. John Patty writes:
I will point out quickly that this type of experimental work is done all the time by corporations. This is often called “market research” or “market testing.” People don’t like to think they are being treated like guinea pigs, but trust me…you are. And you always will be.
Corporations are not subject to an IRB. I we hold ourselves to a higher standard than simply what makes money for Anheuser Busch.