What is the relationship between ballot reforms and electoral malpractice? This article contributes to the growing comparative politics literature on the causes of election fraud in democratizing countries using the case of the 19th-century United States. We examine the adoption of the Australian ballot and disenfranchisement laws, and estimate their effects on multiple types of election fraud. Using a new measure of fraud in elections to the House of Representatives from 1860 to 1930, we find that the Australian ballot and disenfranchisement measures reduced vote-buying and voter intimidation. However, we further find that the Australian ballot had an “iatrogenic effect” of increasing registration and ballot fraud. Voting secrecy therefore led to substitution of one illicit electoral tactic for another.
AidtT. S.JensenP. S. (2017). From open to secret ballot: Vote buying and modernization. Comparative Political Studies, 50, 694-717.
2.
AlexanderM. (1916). History and procedure of the House of Representatives. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
3.
AllenH. W.AllenK. W. (1981). Vote fraud and data validity. In ClubbJ.FlaniganW.ZingaleN. (Eds.), Analyzing electoral history: A guide to the study of American voter behavior (pp. 153-191). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
4.
AltschulerG.BluminS. (2000). Rude republic: Americans and their politics in the nineteenth century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
AndersonG.TollisonR. (1990). Democracy in the marketplace. In CrainW. M.TollisonR. (Eds.), Predicting politics: Essays in empirical public choice (pp. 285-303). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
6.
AndersonM. L. (2000). Practicing democracy: Elections and political culture in imperial Germany. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
ArgersingerP. (1985). New perspectives on election fraud in the Gilded Age. Political Science Quarterly, 100, 669-687.
8.
BalandJ.-M.RobinsonJ. (2007). How does vote buying shape the economy? In SchafferF. E. (Ed.), Elections for sale (pp. 123-144). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
9.
BanfieldE. C.WilsonJ. Q. (1963). City politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
BarnesK. (1993). Who killed John M. Clayton? Political violence in Conway County, Arkansas, in the 1880s. The Arkansas Historical Quarterly, 52, 371-404.
11.
BarnettV. (1939). Contested congressional elections in recent years. Political Science Quarterly, 54, 187-215.
12.
BeaulieuE.HydeS. (2009). In the shadow of democracy promotion: Strategic manipulation, international observers, and election boycotts. Comparative Political Studies, 42, 392-415.
13.
BenselR. F. (1984). Sectionalism and American political development, 1880-1980. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
14.
BenselR. F. (2004). The American ballot box in the mid-nineteenth century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
BirchS. (2011). Electoral malpractice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
16.
BurnhamW. D. (1965). The changing shape of the American political universe. American Political Science Review, 59, 7-28.
17.
BurnhamW. D. (1974). Theory and voting research: Some reflections on Converse’s “change in the American electorate.”American Political Science Review, 68, 1002-1023.
18.
CampbellT. (2003). Machine politics, police corruption, and the persistence of vote fraud: The case of the Louisville, Kentucky, election of 1905. The Journal of Policy History, 15, 269-300.
19.
CampbellT. (2005). Deliver the vote: A history of election fraud, an American political tradition—1742-2004. New York, NY: Carroll & Graf.
20.
CarterD.SignorinoC. (2010). Back to the future: Modeling time dependence in binary data. Political Analysis, 21, 271-292.
21.
CollierP.VicenteP. (2012). Violence, bribery and fraud: The political economy of elections in Sub-Saharan Africa. Public Choice, 153, 117-147.
22.
ConverseP. E. (1972). Change in the American electorate. In CampbellA.ConverseP. (Eds.), The human meaning of social change (pp. 263-338). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
23.
CoxG.KousserM. (1981). Turnout and rural corruption: New York as a test case. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 646-663.
24.
DawesH. (1870). The mode of procedure in cases of contested elections. Journal of Social Science, 2, 56-68.
25.
DempseyJ. (1956). Control by Congress over the seating and disciplining of members (Doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
26.
DeschlerL. (1977). Deschler’s precedents of the United States House of Representatives. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
27.
DonnoD.RoussiasN. (2012). Does cheating pay? The effect of electoral misconduct on party systems. Comparative Political Studies, 45, 575-605.
28.
DonsantoC. (2008). Corruption of the election process under U.S. Federal Law. In AlvarezM.HallT.HydeS. (Eds.), Election fraud: Detecting and deterring electoral manipulation (pp. 21-36). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
29.
DubinM. (1998). United States congressional elections, 1788-1997. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
30.
DuganW.TaggartW. (1995). The changing shape of the American political universe revisited. The Journal of Politics, 57, 469-482.
31.
EggersA.SpirlingA. (2014). Guarding the guardians: Legislative self-policing and electoral corruption in Victorian Britain. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 9, 337-370.
32.
EngstromE.KernellS. (2014). Party ballots, reform, and the transformation of America’s electoral system. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
33.
ErieS. (1988). Rainbow’s end: Irish-Americans and the dilemma of urban machine politics, 1840-1985. Berkeley: University of California Press.
34.
FredmanL. E. (1968). The Australian ballot: The story of an American reform. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
35.
GingerichD. (2013). Can institutions cure clientelism? Assessing the impact of the Australian ballot in Brazil (Research Paper No. 428). Inter-American Development Bank.
36.
GistG. (1961). Progressive reform in a rural community: The Adams County vote-fraud case. The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 48, 60-78.
37.
GreenM. (2007). Race, party, and contested elections to the U.S. House of Representatives. Polity, 39, 155-178.
38.
HarrisJ. (1929). Registration of voters in the United States. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
39.
HarrisJ. (1934). Election administration in the United States. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
40.
HeckelmanJ. (1995). The effect of the secret ballot on voter turnout rates. Public Choice, 82, 107-124.
41.
HeckelmanJ. (2000). Revisiting the relationship between secret ballots and turnout: A new test of two legal-institutional theories. American Politics Quarterly, 28, 194-215.
42.
HydeS. (2011). The pseudo-democrat’s dilemma: Why election observation became an international norm. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
43.
JenkinsJ. (2004). Partisanship and contested election cases in the House of Representatives, 1789-2002. Studies in American Political Development, 18, 112-135.
44.
JenkinsJ. (2005). Partisanship and contested election cases in the Senate, 1789-2002. Studies in American Political Development, 19, 53-74.
45.
JensenR. (1971). The winning of the Midwest: Social and political conflict, 1888-1896. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
46.
KamC. (2017). The secret ballot and the market for votes at 19th-century British elections. Comparative Political Studies, 50, 594-635.
47.
KelleyJ. (2012). Monitoring democracy: When international election observation works, and why it often fails. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
48.
KeyssarA. (2000). The right to vote: The contested history of democracy in the United States (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.
49.
KingG.ZengL. (2001). Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis, 9, 137-163.
50.
KleppnerP. (1987). Continuity and change in electoral politics, 1893-1928. New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
51.
KleppnerP.BakerS. (1980). The impact of voter registration requirements on electoral turnout, 1900-16. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 8, 205-226.
52.
KousserM. (1974). The shaping of southern politics: Suffrage restriction and the establishment of the one-party south, 1880-1910. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
53.
KreuzerM. (1996). From co-optation to competition: Changing forms of electoral corruption in nineteenth century France. In LittleW.Posada-CarbE. (Eds.), Political corruption in Latin American and European perspective (pp. 97-114). London, England: Macmillan.
54.
LehoucqF. (2003). Electoral fraud: Causes, types, and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 233-256.
55.
LehoucqF.MolinaI. (2002). Stuffing the ballot box: Fraud, electoral reform, and democratization in Costa Rica. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
56.
LottJ. R.KennyL. W. (1999). Did women’s suffrage change the size and scope of government?Journal of Political Economy, 107, 1163-1198.
57.
LudingtonA. (1911). American ballot laws, 1888-1910. Albany: University of the State of New York.
58.
MaresI. (2015). From open secrets to secret voting: Democratic electoral reforms and voter autonomy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
59.
MartisK. (1989). The historical atlas of political parties in the United States Congress, 1789-1989. New York, NY: Macmillan.
60.
MayfieldL. (1993). Voting fraud in early twentieth-century Pittsburgh. Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 24, 59-84.
61.
MinniteL. C. (2010). The myth of vote fraud. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
62.
MooresM. (1917). Digest of contested election cases in the House of Representatives, 1901-1917. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
63.
O’LearyC. (1962). The elimination of corrupt practices in British elections, 1868-1911. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
64.
PermanM. (2001). Struggle for mastery: Disenfranchisement in the south, 1888-1908. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
65.
PivenF. F.ClowardR. A. (1988). Why Americans don’t vote. New York, NY: Pantheon.
66.
PolsbyN. (1968). The institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives. American Political Science Review, 62, 144-168.
67.
QuerubinP.SnyderJ. (2011). Wealth accumulation by U.S. congressmen, 1845-1875: Were the civil war years exceptional(ly good)?Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
68.
RammelkampC. H. (1905). Contested congressional elections. Political Science Quarterly, 20, 421-442.
69.
ReedT. (1891). Contested elections. North American Review, 151, 112-120.
70.
ReynoldsJ. (1980). “The silent dollar”: Vote buying in New Jersey. New Jersey History, 98, 191-211.
71.
ReynoldsJ. (1993). A symbiotic relationship: Vote fraud and electoral reform in the Gilded Age. Social Science History, 17, 227-251.
72.
RowellC. H. (1901). A Historical and legal digest of all the contested election cases in the House of Representatives of the United States from the first to the fifty-sixth Congress, 1789-1901. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
73.
RuskJ. (1970). The effect of the Australian ballot reform on split-ticket voting: 1876-1908. American Political Science Review, 64, 1220-1238.
74.
RuskJ. (1974). The American electoral universe: Speculation and evidence. American Political Science Review, 68, 1028-1049.
75.
SaltmanR. (2006). The history and politics of voting technology: In quest of integrity and public confidence. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
76.
SchafferF. (2008). The hidden costs of clean election reform. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
77.
SchedlerA. (2002). The menu of manipulation. Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 36-50.
78.
ScottJ. (1969). Corruption, machine politics, and political change. American Political Science Review, 63, 1142-1158.
79.
SeipT. (1983). The South returns to Congress: Men, economic measures, and intersectional relationships, 1868-1879. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
80.
SeymourC. (1915). Electoral reform in England and Wales: The development and operation of the parliamentary franchise, 1832-1885. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
81.
SikesE. (1928). State and federal corrupt-practices legislation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
82.
SimpserA. (2014). Why governments and parties manipulate elections. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
83.
StokesS.DunningT.NazarenoM.BruscoV. (2013). Brokers, voters, and clientelism: The puzzle of distributive politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
84.
StoneC. N. (1996). Urban political machines: Taking stock. PS: Political Science & Politics, 29, 446-450.
85.
SummersM. W. (2001). Party games: The art of stealing elections in the late-nineteenth-century United States. The Journal of American History, 88, 424-435.
86.
TeorellJ. (in press). Partisanship and unreformed bureaucracy: The drivers of election fraud in Sweden, 1719-1908. Social Science History.
87.
TroeskenW. (2009). Patronage and public-sector wages in 1896. The Journal of Economic History, 59, 424-446.
88.
TrounstineJ. (2006). Dominant regimes and the demise of urban democracy. The Journal of Politics, 68, 879-893.
89.
TrounstineJ. (2008). Political monopolies in American cities: The rise and fall of bosses and reformers. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
90.
ValellyR. (1995). National parties and racial disenfranchisement. In PetersonP. (Ed.), Classifying by race (pp. 188-216). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
91.
WareA. (2002). The American direct primary: Party institutionalization and transformation in the North. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
92.
WolfingerR. (2009). Why political machines have not withered away and other revisionist thoughts. The Journal of Politics, 34, 365-392.
93.
ZiblattD. (2009). Shaping democratic practice and the causes of electoral fraud: The case of nineteenth-century Germany. American Political Science Review, 103, 1-21.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
