FIG 2 - uploaded by Daniel A. Smith
Content may be subject to copyright.
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... illustrate these nuances in mail ballot implementation, we plot for states in the 2020 general election the percent of voters who voted a mail ballot versus their turnout rates in Figure 2. 12 The plot reveals wide disparities in mail ballot usage across states, challenging the simple dichotomous classifications of vote-by-mail or no-excuse absentee voting. ...
Context 2
... depart from adding more classifications, opting instead for an approach that to our knowledge has never been executed previously with respect to the study of election policies. As we do in Figure 2, we measure states' mail ballot usage as our key explanatory variable. Our measurement approach allows us to avoid a proliferation of classifications. ...
Context 3
... breadth of academic studies to this point, all of which rely on observational data, suggest there is no causation flowing from expansive early voting laws to higher turnout, outside of vote-by mail policies. Figure 2 and our discussion of it further suggests a common approach to mitigating reverse causation-difference-in-difference models-is challenged. States do not flip switches from off to on when they implement a new mail ballot policy. ...
Context 4
... such a finding would likely discount theories that early voting actually reduces turnout ( Burden et al. 2014), as they predict states with near universal mail ballot usage will have the lowest turnout rates. Figure 2 provides evidence of correlation in the 2020 general election between mail ballot usage variable and the states' turnout rates. A simple LOESS line helps us illustrate that states' turnout rates averaged about 60% where the fewest percentage of voters cast mail ballots, with a ten percentage point rise to about 70% in states in which roughly 40% of voters cast mail ballots. ...
Context 5
... suggestion in Figure 2 is that the turnout benefits of mail balloting level off around 50% of the electorate using mail ballots, perhaps because the remaining voters are high propensity voters who are less sensitive to voting modalities. ...
Context 6
... take this approach and apply these alternative weights to our estimation procedures. As a consequence, our re-weighted CPS turnout estimates closely follow the voting-eligible turnout rates, much like those we present in Figure 2. 20 We offer parallel models for the general elections from 2012 to 2020 for both the CPS and CES. ...
Similar publications
PT. Mitra Rajawali Banjaran (PT.MRB) is one of the subsidiaries of PT. Rajawali Nusantara Indonesia (Persero). PT.MRB is a medical equipment factory that produces various products such as condoms, syringes, gloves, and other medical devices. The company's current mail management activities still use manual methods, using handwritten agenda books as...
![Multi head attention [23]](profile/Bharathi-Mohan-Gurusamy/publication/385009464/figure/fig2/AS:11431281284329895@1729217514354/Multi-head-attention-23_Q320.jpg)
Pre-trained language models have significantly advanced text summarization by leveraging extensive pre-training data to enhance performance. Many cutting-edge models undergo an initial pre-training phase on a large corpus before being fine-tuned specifically for text summarization tasks. The challenge arises when the limited data available for thes...
Background:
Normative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data from the general population are regularly used to facilitate the interpretation of HRQoL as reported by cancer patients participating in cancer clinical trials, especially when conducting long-term follow-up studies after treatment. The aim of the present study is to compare two Swe...
L’article analyse le cas d’une étudiante en master de formation d’enseignant d’histoire, en France, dans un dispositif de formation par la recherche qui la conduit à l’apprentissage de concepts de didactique de l’histoire. Ce cas vaut par son exceptionnalité, qui permet de dessiner des conditions à cet apprentissage par une approche de « didactique...
This Roundtable marks the beginning of a new era for the Journal of British Studies ( JBS ). Volume 63, issue 4, October 2024, was the last traditional issue printed on paper. No longer will members of the North American Conference on British Studies receive a bound volume quarterly in the mail. We fully understand that for many of our readers the...
Citations
... To be sure, voters who cast mail ballots implicitly accept these added restrictions in exchange for the convenience of voting remotely. As a result of the coronavirus pandemic, millions of voters shifted to mail voting in the 2020 election, as the use of mail ballots across the states hit record highs, including in Florida (McDonald et al. 2024). ...
Might voters’ experience with how they cast ballots affect their confidence in votes being accurately counted? We analyze how vote modality shapes voters’ confidence in the accuracy of the vote count, particularly when one method of voting is called into question to challenge the legitimacy of an election. Drawing on a large panel survey of validated voters conducted before and after the 2020 General Election, we find that voters in Florida who voted by mail in the last two general elections were more confident that votes would be accurately counted in the state than those who voted in person in the previous two general elections, despite claims by elites that mail ballots were fraudulent. We also find that voters who cast validated mail ballots became more confident that votes were accurately counted in the election. Panel data reveals that voters who previously cast mail ballots, as well as voters who voted by mail in 2020, were no less confident than their counterparts in votes being accurately counted in the election. Building on existing research examining voting and confidence in elections, our study offers new evidence that voters’ actual experience with a voting method might mitigate perceived threats to election integrity.
Americans can register and vote in more ways than ever before. But do Americans think it is easy to register and vote in their state, who thinks it is easy, and how do these perceptions affect voter turnout? Despite the importance of answers to these question for theorizing, understanding, and explaining political behavior, few previous works have examined the levels, determinants, and implications of perceptions of registration and voting ease. Using data from the 2022 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, this study finds super majorities of Americans think registering and voting are very easy. Older and Republican-identifying Americans think registering and voting are easier, those in states with same/Election Day registration find registration easier while those in states with voter identification requirements find voting harder. Last, those who think voting (but not registration) is easier are more likely to vote. These findings place increased importance on not just examining the costs of voting, but also the perceived costs of voting.
Contemporary election reforms that are purported to increase or decrease turnout tend to have negligible effects on election outcomes. We offer an analytical framework to explain why. Contrary to heated political rhetoric, election policies have small effects on outcomes because they tend to target small shares of the electorate, have a small effect on turnout, and/or affect voters who are relatively balanced in their partisanship. After developing this framework, we address how the findings bear on minority voting rights. We then show that countermobilization from political parties cannot explain the small effects of election laws. We explain that even when a state passes multiple policies at the same time, the reforms will still only have a marginal effect on turnout and an ambiguous effect on who wins. Finally, we explain what policies should raise alarm about affecting outcomes.
How did the pandemic impact turnout of young voters living in university communities? Leveraging the mandatory vacating of Florida college students living on campuses and drawing on administrative data from Florida’s voter file, we argue that on-campus registered young voters who had to leave their university housing in the days prior to Florida’s 2020 Presidential Preference Primary (PPP) were less likely to turn out compared to adjacent off-campus young voters because they lost the opportunity to cast early in-person and Election Day ballots. Using a difference-in-differences (DiD) design, we find that on-campus students, in part because they had early and Election Day voting available to them on campus in the 2020 general election, were more likely than comparable off-campus student-aged registered voters to cast ballots in the November election. Our study has important implications for academic debates concerning the turnout effects of convenience voting reforms and the ability of voters to cast ballots prior to Election Day.
