Who Votes by Mail?: A Dynamic Model of the Individual-Level Consequences of Voting-by-Mail Systems.

Election administrators and public officials often consider changes in electoral laws, hoping that these changes will increase voter turnout and make the electorate more reflective of the voting-age population. The most recent of these innovations is voting-by-mail (VBM), a procedure by which ballots are sent to an address for every registered voter. Over the last 2 decades, VBM has spread across the United States, unaccompanied by much empirical evaluation of its impact on either voter turnout or the stratification of the electorate. In this study, we fill this gap in our knowledge by assessing the impact of VBM in one state, Oregon. We carry out this assessment at the individual level, using data over a range of elections. We argue that VBM does increase voter turnout in the long run, primarily by making it easier for current voters to continue to participate, rather than by mobilizing nonvoters into the electorate. These effects, however, are not uniform across all groups in the electorate. Although VBM in Oregon does not exert any influence on the partisan composition of the electorate, VBM increases, rather than diminishes, the resource stratification of the electorate. Contrary to the expectations of many reformers, VBM advantages the resource-rich by keeping them in the electorate, and VBM does little to change the behavior of the resource-poor. In short, VBM increases turnout, but it does so without making the electorate more descriptively representative of the voting-age population.

[1]  J. Heckman,et al.  Models for the Analysis of Labor Force Dynamics , 1982 .

[2]  D. P. Franklin,et al.  Effects of Motor Voter Legislation , 1997 .

[3]  James J. Heckman,et al.  A Beta-logistic Model for the Analysis of Sequential Labor Force Participation by Married Women , 1975, Journal of Political Economy.

[4]  P. Southwell,et al.  The Effect of All-mail Elections on Voter Turnout , 2000 .

[5]  J. Heckman,et al.  The third birth in Sweden , 1990, Journal of population economics.

[6]  Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier,et al.  Time is of the Essence: Event History Models in Political Science , 1997 .

[7]  Cheng Hsiao,et al.  Analysis of Panel Data , 1987 .

[8]  B. Highton,et al.  Estimating the Effects of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 , 1998 .

[9]  Robert M. Stein,et al.  Voting early but not often , 1997 .

[10]  R. Michael Alvarez,et al.  The Likely Consequences of Internet Voting for Political Representation , 2001 .

[11]  Did States' Motor Voter Programs Help the Democrats? , 1998 .

[12]  Richard J. Timpone Structure, Behavior, and Voter Turnout in the United States , 1998, American Political Science Review.

[13]  A. Campbell SURGE AND DECLINE: A STUDY OF ELECTORAL CHANGE , 1960 .

[14]  M. Traugott,et al.  Response Validity in Surveysof Voting Behavior , 1979 .

[15]  Voting and Nonvoting: A Multi-Election Perspective , 1985 .

[16]  Robert F. Belli,et al.  Reducing vote overreporting in surveys : Social desirability, memory failure, and source monitoring , 1999 .

[17]  D. Rubin,et al.  Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. , 1989 .

[18]  William G. Bowen,et al.  Registration and Voting: Putting First Things First , 1967, American Political Science Review.

[19]  E. Fox VOTING BY MAIL , 1920 .

[20]  Stephen F. Knack Southern Political Science Association Does " Motor Voter " Work ? Evidence from State-Level Data , 2007 .

[21]  A. Downs An Economic Theory of Democracy , 1957 .