Resources

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

185 Resources

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

This tool can be used to estimate outside queue capacity needs, average voter wait times, and the number of voters who will wait too long, given social distancing constraints that limit the number of people allowed inside a polling place at one time.

Hannah Klain, Kevin Morris, Max Feldman, Rebecca AyalaBrennan Center for Justice2020
In-Person Voting Reports

This report documents racial disparities in Election Day wait times, finding that voters in minority precincts face systematically longer waits than those in majority-white precincts.

In-Person Voting Tools

This tool provides eight key questions election officials should consider when designing or reviewing a ballot. These questions focus on layout, instructions, typography, and formatting to help minimize voter errors and undervoting.

Bridgett A. KingAuburn University2020
Voter Trust Academic Papers

Utilizing the 2008–2016 Survey on the Performance of American Elections (SPAE), the analysis finds that wait times have a negative effect on confidence as do challenges with the voting equipment and voter registration.

Juan GilbertStanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project2020
In-Person Voting Tools

This system allows poll workers to hand out tickets to voters waiting in line. Tickets are printed on demand and include a QR code with a date and time for the voter to return, available in English and Spanish. When voters return, the QR code is scanned, and they proceed to vote, reducing physical wait times.

Colin Jones, Robert M. Stein, Lonna Atkeson, M.V. Hood III, Mason ReeceMIT Election Data + Science Lab2020
Voter Trust Reports

There is increasing evidence that voters’ confidence in the outcome of elections, and more specifically, that their vote was counted accurately, is dominated by the whether the voter supported the winning or losing candidate in an election. Authors ask whether this winner (loser) effect is consistent over time and parties. Additionally, they test whether the strength of this effect on voter confidence varies across electoral level (i.e., confidence in a county, state, and nations vote counting).

Robert M. Stein, Christopher Mann, Charles Stewart III, Zachary Birenbaum, Anson Fung, Jed Greenberg, Farhan Kawsar, Gayle Alberda, R. Michael Alvarez, Lonna Atkeson, Emily Beaulieu, Nathaniel A. Birkhead, Frederick J. Boehmke, Joshua Boston, Barry C. Burden, Francisco Cantu, Rachael Cobb, David Darmofal, Thomas C. Ellington, Terri Susan Fine, Charles J. Finocchiaro, Michael D. Gilbert, Victor Haynes, Brian Janssen, David Kimball, Charles Kromkowski, Elena Llaudet, Kenneth R. Mayer, Matthew R. Miles, David Miller, Lindsay Nielson, Yu Ouyang, Costas Panagopoulos, Andrew Reeves, Min Hee Seo, Haley Simmons, Corwin Smidt, Farrah M. Stone, Rachel VanSickle-Ward, Jennifer Nicoll Victor, Abby Wood, Julie Wronski2020
In-Person Voting Academic Papers

This paper examines factors contributing to wait times during the 2016 presidential election across multiple counties, finding that inadequate resources and staffing are key drivers of long lines.

Stephen Graves, Colin McIntyreStanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project2020
In-Person Voting Tools

This tool helps election officials understand how long it will take for lines to dissipate after predictable early-morning or late-day surges of voters at polling places. Calculates projected line lengths and wait times during these surge periods to support staffing and resource planning.

R. Michael Alvarez, Jian Cao, Yimeng Li2020
Voter Trust Academic Papers

This paper focuses on Orange County (CA), using a survey of voters that was implemented immediately after the November 2018 midterm elections. Results show that voters who cast mail ballots are less confident about their own votes being counted correctly than in-person voters

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

This tool helps election officials determine the capacity of a modified polling place system under various social distancing measures and identify where process bottlenecks may have shifted in response to those changes.

Charles Stewart IIIMIT Election Data + Science Lab2020
Voter Trust Reports

This post-election survey reports on how Americans cast ballots in 2020 and how confident they were that votes were counted accurately.

Berkman Klein Center2020
Voter Trust Reports

This Berkman Klein Center work analyzes media ecosystems and disinformation narratives around mail voting, voter fraud, and public discourse in the 2020 election. It is relevant because beliefs about fraud and exposure to misleading claims are central mechanisms through which confidence in election outcomes rises or falls. For this dataset, it helps explain why the 2020 election became a turning point in public debates over fraud, mail voting, certification, and legitimacy.