Latest Research from the VTP

Partisanship and Voter Confidence, 2000-2012

Working Paper No.: 
125
Date Published: 
06/01/2014
Author(s): 
Michael W. Sances, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Charles Stewart III, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Abstract:  To what degree is voter confidence in election procedures driven by satisfaction with the outcome of an election, as opposed to trust in government or objective features of the polling place, such as voting technology?  Using approximately 30 national surveys over the past decade, we find a consistent relationship between voting for the winner and confidence in election administration.  This confidence varies as a function of question wording and electoral context.  Respondents are more confident in the quality of the vote count locally than nationally.  They are

Written Testimony of Charles Stewart III Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration

Working Paper No.: 
123
Date Published: 
05/14/2014
Author(s): 
Charles Stewart III, MIT

Charles Stewart III testifies before the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on May 14th.

THERE IS A NEED FOR A MORE DATA-CENTERED APPROACH TO ELECTION ADMINISTRATION. 

Election policymaking would greatly benefit from metrics-based policymaking, and the development of measures similar to those in policy areas like education and health care.

Elections are awash in data, managing elections is increasingly metrics-driven, and a growing network of experts is dedicated to a metrics-based approach to improving elections.

Practical Provably Correct Voter Privacy Protecting End-to-End Voting Employing Multiparty Computations and Split Value Representations of Votes

Working Paper No.: 
124
Date Published: 
05/12/2014
Author(s): 
Ronald L. Rivest, MIT CSAIL
Michael O. Rabin, Harvard, SEAS, Columbia SEAS

Abstract. Continuing the work of Rabin and Rivest [1] we present another simple and fast method for conducting end to end voting and allowing public verification of correctness of the announced vote tallying results. This method was referred to in [1] as the SV/VCP method. In the present note voter privacy protection is achieved by use of a simple form of Multi Party Computations (MPC). At the end of vote tallying process, random permutations of the cast votes are publicly posted in the clear, without identification of voters or ballot ids.

Do Voters and Poll Workers Differ in their Attitudes Toward e-voting? Evidence from the first e-election in Salta, Argentina

Author(s): 
Julia Pomares, Center for the Implementation of Public Promoting Equity and Growth
Ines Levin, University of Georgia
R. Michael Alvarez, California Institute of Technology
Journal: 
Journal of Election Technology and Systems
pp: 
1-10
Link to Article: 
Date Published: 
04/01/2014

We provide an analysis of voter and poll worker perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of a new e-voting system vis–à–vis traditional ballot-and-envelope voting in the 2011 election in Salta, Argentina. The results of this comparison provide new insights into how poll workers perceive the implementation of new voting technologies and show that both points of view need to be taken into account when assessing new election technology. We found that speed is perceived to be the most important advantage of e-voting; and more so for poll workers than for voters.

In Line or Online? American Voter Registration in the Digital Era

Working Paper No.: 
121
Date Published: 
02/18/2014
Author(s): 
Allyson Pellissier, Caltech

Abstract

Online voter registration is one of the most recent e

Practical End-to-End Verifiable Voting via Split-Value Representations and Randomized Partial Checking

Working Paper No.: 
122
Date Published: 
04/03/2014
Author(s): 
Ronald L. Rivest, MIT CSAIL
Michael O. Rabin, Harvard, SEAS, Columbia SEAS

Abstract

We describe how to use Rabin's "split-value" representations, originally developed for use in secure auctions, to e

Election Administration during Natural Disasters and Emergencies: Hurricane Sandy and the 2012 Election

Working Paper No.: 
117
Date Published: 
09/04/2013
Author(s): 
Robert M. Stein, Rice University

Introduction

Voting Technology: Vote-by-Mail, and Residual Votes in California, 1990-2010

Working Paper No.: 
120
Date Published: 
09/01/2013
Author(s): 
R. Michael Alvarez, Caltech
Charles Stewart III, MIT
Dustin Beckett, Caltech

To test the supposition that the lost votes recovered by California through the modernization of voting technologies may be being undone by the trend toward more voting by mail, Table A1 attempts to quantify changes in the residual vote rate in each county from the presidential elections of 1992 to 2008 due to changes in voting technologies, and due to the growth in voting by mail.  The table starts by reporting turnout in the 1992 and 2008 presidential elections; the percentage of ballots cast by mail in 1992 and 2008, along with the change across the two years; the type of voting equipmen

Report on Registration Systems in American Elections

Working Paper No.: 
118
Date Published: 
06/26/2013
Author(s): 
Stephen Ansolabehere, Harvard University
Charles Stewart III, MIT

The Voter Registration System is essential for the management of precincts, handling of ballots, authentication of voters, and communications with voters. The Registration system is massive, with 191.8 million records and 130.3 million voters.

The Registration system is decentralized, managed by 8,000 different local election offices as well as 50 state offices and used at 186,000 different precincts on Election Day. Decentralized use of the lists is a necessity of running elections at many different precincts and through county offices.

Waiting in Line to Vote

Working Paper No.: 
114
Date Published: 
07/28/2013
Author(s): 
Charles Stewart III, MIT
Stephen Ansolabehere, Harvard University
  • Waiting in long lines discourages some people from voting, undermines confidence in the electoral system, and imposes economic costs on voters.

Pages