Resources

Use our resource library to explore the latest research in the field of election science.

152 Resources

Enrico CantoniUniversity of Bologna2020
In-Person Voting Academic Papers

In this paper, Cantoni Indicates that extending the distance to a polling place by a quarter mile decreases voter turnout by one to three percentage points, with a greater impact observed in areas with higher proportions of non-white voters.

Theodore T. Allen, Muer Yang, Shijie Huang, Olivia K. Hernandez2020
In-Person Voting Academic Papers

In this paper, authors generate voter wait-time estimates using an indifference-zone generalized binary search method to optimize and determine resource allocation, such as electronic poll books and voting machines, to reduce wait times.

Enrijeta Shino, Michael D. Martinez, Michael P. McDonald, Daniel A. Smith2020
Voter Registration Academic Papers

This study investigates the reliability of Florida’s voter registration files through a phone survey, asking respondents to verify their records. Authors find 17.7% of registrants fail to verify at least one identifying piece of information.

Nathaniel Persily, Charles Stewart IIIStanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project2020
In-Person Voting Tools

This resource is a curated hub of tools developed by university researchers and the civic tech community to help election officials manage in-person polling place operations, including resource allocation, queue management, capacity planning with social distancing, and poll worker management.

Sharad Goel, Marc Meredith, Michael Morse, David Rothschild, Houshmand Shirani-Mehr2020
Voter Registration Academic Papers

This research develops and applies a method to estimate how many people voted twice in the 2012 presidential election. It estimates that about one in 4,000 voters cast two ballots, although an audit suggests that the true rate may be lower due to small errors in electronic vote records.

John Kuk, Zoltan Hajnal, Nazita Lajevardi2020
In-Person Voting Academic Papers

In this paper, authors find that strict voter ID laws impose a disproportionate burden on minority voters and have significant negative effects on turnout among racial and ethnic minority groups.

Matthew Bernhard, Allison McDonald, Henry Meng, Jensen Hwa, Nakul Bajaj, Kevin Chang, J. Alex HaldermanUniversity of Michigan2020
In-Person Voting Academic Papers

In this paper, authors test whether voters can detect malicious manipulation of ballot-marking devices, finding low detection rates and showing that signage and poll worker prompts can modestly improve verification rates.

Thessalia MerivakiMississippi State University2020
Voter Registration Academic Papers

This research argues that local challenges remain when maintaining voters’ registration and voting history information, which undermines the quality of voter lists and the integrity of the electoral process. It analyzes Mississippi’s Statewide Election Management System (SEMS) records and finds that voter registration and voting history errors are linked to the county’s active and inactive registered voter rates and demographic characteristics.

Lisa A. BryantCalifornia State University2020
In-Person Voting Academic Papers

This paper compares in-person versus absentee voting, finding that voters randomly assigned to in-person voting reported significantly higher levels of voter confidence than those assigned to absentee voting.

Bridgett A. KingAuburn University2020
In-Person Voting Academic Papers

Using the Survey of the Performance of American Elections, authors find that wait times have a significant negative effect on voter confidence, as do challenges with voting equipment and voter registration irregularities.

Andrew W. Appel, Richard A. DeMillo, Philip B. StarkPrinceton University2020
In-Person Voting Academic Papers

In this paper, authors argue that ballot-marking devices cannot ensure that the paper ballot accurately reflects the voter's choices because voters rarely verify the printed ballot carefully enough to detect errors or manipulation.

Kevin Morris, Catalina FederBarnard College2020
Voter Registration Academic Papers

This analysis focuses on whether counties that had previously been “covered” purged voters at a higher rate than noncovered counties after the coverage formula was struck down. It finds increases in purge rate of between 1.5 and 4.5 points in formerly covered jurisdictions post-Shelby, compared with counties that had not been subject to preclearance. Most of the increase came immediately, as the effect in 2014 is substantively and significantly higher than that in 2016.