Proponents of all-mail elections argue that this type of election facilitates participation such that elevated levels of turnout occur. The research tests this assumption by analyzing 48 statewide elections from the state of Oregon. This analysis suggests that the all-mail format is a major stimulus to voter participation, second only to the impact of a presidential contest.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Beach, C.
, & MacKinnon, J. (1978). A maximum likelihood procedure for regression with auto-correlated errors. Econometrica, 46, 51-58.
2.
Erikson, R.
(1981). Why do people vote? Because they are registered. American Politics Quarterly, 9, 259-276.
Hamilton, R.
(1988). American all-mail balloting: A decade's experience. Public Administration Review, 48, 860-866.
5.
Jackson, R.
(1996). A reassessment of voter mobilization. Political Research Quarterly, 49, 331-351.
6.
Jacoby, J.
(1996, February 1). Election by mail? Here's a no vote. The Boston Globe, p. 9.
7.
Jeffe, D.
, & Jeffe, S. (1990). Absence counts: Voting by mail. The American Enterprise, 1, 19-22.
8.
Magleby, D.
(1987). Participation in mail ballot elections. Western Political Quarterly, 40, 79-93.
9.
Mail-in democracy. (1996, February 8). The New York Times, p. 24.
10.
Mutch, R.
(1992). Voting by mail. State legislatures, 18, 29-31.
11.
Norrander, B.
(1991). Explaining individual participation in presidential primaries. Western Political Quarterly, 44, 640-656.
12.
Oliver, J. E.
(1996). The effects of eligibility restrictions and party activity on absentee voting and overall turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 498-513.
13.
Oregon's new idea. (1996, February 5). The Washington Post, p. 20.
14.
Ornstein, N.
(1996, February 8). A vote cheapened. The Washington Post, p. 25.
15.
Ostrom, C. W., Jr.
(1990). Time series analysis: Regression techniques (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16.
Patterson, S.
, & Caldeira, G. (1985). Mailing in the vote: Correlates and consequences of absentee voting. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 766-788.
17.
Piven, F. F.
, & Cloward, R. (1988). Why Americans don't vote. New York: Pantheon.
18.
Radcliff, B.
(1994). Turnout and the democratic vote. American Politics Quarterly, 22, 259-277.
19.
Romano, Lois.
(1998, November 29). Growing use of mail voting puts its stamp on campaigns. The Washington Post, p. A1.
20.
Rosenfeld, M.
(1995). All-mail ballot elections. Innovations in election administration. Washington, DC: The National Clearinghouse on Election Administration/Federal Election Commission.
21.
Rosenstone, S.
, & Wolfinger, R. (1978). The effect of registration laws on voter turnout. American Political Science Review, 72, 22-45.
22.
Southwell, P.
, & Burchett, J. (1997). Survey of vote-by-mail Senate election in the state of Oregon. PS: Political Science & Politics, 30, 53-57.
23.
Squire, P.
, Wolfinger, R., & Glass, D. (1987). Residential mobility and voter turnout. American Political Science Review, 81, 45-65.
24.
State of Oregon. (1990-1996). Secretary of States's Office. Election report.
25.
State of Oregon. (1996, November 11). Secretary of State's Office. Oregon's special Senate by mail.
26.
Stein, R.
, & Garcia-Monet, P. (1995). Voting early but not often. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 657-671.
27.
Teixeira, R.
(1992). The disappearing American voter. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
28.
Traugott, M.
(1996). Report on the characteristics of the Oregon electorate participating in the special general election for the U.S. Senate on January 30, 1996. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
29.
Vote-by-mail is a winner. (1996, February 2). San Francisco Chronicle, p. 20.
30.
Will, G.
(1995, October 26). Mail vote subverts democracy. Register-Guard, p. 4.
31.
Wolfinger, R.
, & Rosenstone, S. (1980). Who votes?New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
