Residual Votes

Measuring the Impact of Voting Technology on Residual Vote Rates

Working Paper No.: 
37
Date Published: 
11/30/2008
Author(s): 
Delia Grigg
No abstract available.

Residual Vote in the 2004 Election

Working Paper No.: 
25
Date Published: 
11/30/2008
Author(s): 
Charles Stewart III
No abstract available.

Orienting Graphical User Interfaces Reduces Errors: The Low Error Voting Interface

Working Paper No.: 
23
Date Published: 
11/30/2008
Author(s): 
Jonathan Goler
Matt Hockenberry
Ted Selker
This paper demonstrates opportunities for reducing errors eith orienting graphical interfaces for voting. We have built many interfaces to explore opportunities for keeping voters aware of selections they have made and are making. Tests of our best prototypes show that missed races and incorrect selection errors are greatly reduced with orienting graphics. The interface reduces errors significantly while extending the time required to vote.

Studying Elections: Data Quality and Pitfalls in Measuring the Effects of Voting Technologies

Working Paper No.: 
21
Date Published: 
11/30/2008
Author(s): 
Charles Stewart III
Stephen Ansolabehere
R. Michael Alvarez
Professor Geralyn Miller reminds us of the range of voting administration practices across the United States. We use this variability to study the average performance of various types of voting equipment throughout the country (Ansolabehere and Stewart n.d.). Professor Miller suggests that the performance of equipment is, in fact, quite variable across states.

Voting Technology and Uncounted Votes in the United States

Date Published: 
11/30/2008
Author(s): 
Charles Stewart III
Stephen Ansolabehere
We examine the relative performance of voting technologies by studying presidential, gubernatorial, and senatorial election returns across hundreds of counties in hte United States from 1988 to 2000. Relying on a fixed effects regression applied to an unbalanced panel of counties, we find that in presidential elections, traditional paper ballots produce the lowest rates of uncounted votes (i.e. "residual votes"), followed by optically scanned ballots, mechanical lever machines, direct register electronic machines (DREs), and punch cards.

Residual Votes Attributable to Technology: An Assessment of the Reliability of Existing Voting Technologies

Date Published: 
11/30/2008
Author(s): 
Voting Technology Project
This report examines the use of voting equipment and the incidence of spoiled and unmarked ballots associated with that equipment. We call the rate of spoiled and unmarked ballots the residual vote rate. The residual vote rate is not a pure measure of voter error. If voting technologies are not producing voter mistakes or confusion, the residual vote rate should be unrelated to equipment. The study covers election results from over 2700 counties and municipalities in the 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000 presidential elections.

Residual Vote in the 2004 Election

Author(s): 
Charles Stewart III
Journal: 
Election Law Journal
pp: 
158-169
Link to Article: 
Date Published: 
04/01/2006
No abstract available.

Residual Votes Attributable to Technology

Author(s): 
Charles Stewart III
Stephen Ansolabehere
Journal: 
Journal of Politics
pp: 
365-389
Link to Article: 
Date Published: 
11/30/2008
We examine the relative performance of voting technologies by studying presidential, gubernatorial, and senatorial election returns across hundreds of counties in the United States from 1988 to 2000. Relying on a fixed-effects regression applied to an unbalanced panel of counties, we find that in presidential elections, traditional paper ballots produce the lowest rates of uncounted votes (i.e., “residual votes”), followed by optically scanned ballots, mechanical lever machines, direct register electronic machines (DREs), and punch cards.
Subscribe to RSS - Residual Votes