In the most widely cited result on the turnout effects of voting by mail, Southwell and Burchett report that Oregon’s system increased turnout by 10 percentage points. We attempt to replicate this finding and extend the analysis to additional years to test whether the originally reported effect is due to the novelty of the first three voting by mail elections in 1995 and 1996. We are unable to reproduce earlier findings, either via replication or extending the time series to include 2010 electoral data. We find evidence for a novelty effect when all elections between 1960 and 2010 are included in our analysis, and a consistent impact of voting by mail on turnout only in special elections.
AldrichJ. H. (1993). Rational choice and turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 246-278.
2.
AlvarezR. M.AnsolabehereS.BerinskyA.LenzG.StewartC.IIIHallT. (2009). The 2008 Survey of the Performance of American Elections. Washington, DC: Pew Center on the States. Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=51164
3.
AlvarezR. M.HallT. (2004). Point, click, and vote. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
4.
AlvarezR. M.HallT.LlewellynM. (2008). Are Americans confident their ballots are counted?Journal of Politics, 70, 754-768.
5.
BeachC.MacKinnonJ. (1978). A maximum likelihood procedure for regression with autocorrelated errors. Econometrica, 46(1), 51-58.
6.
BerinskyA. J.BurnsN.TraugottM. W. (2001). Who votes by mail? A dynamic model of the individual-level consequences of voting-by-mail systems. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 178-197.
7.
BradburyB. (2006, November16). A better way to vote. Washington Post, p. B07.
8.
BrownK. (2010, September14). Statement by Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown before the Postal Regulatory Commission. Retrieved from www.prc.gov/Docs/69/69484/Brown2.pdf
9.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper.
10.
DyckJ.SeabrookN. (2009). The problem with voting-by-mail. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
11.
FiorinaM. (1976). The voting decision: instrumental and expressive aspects. Journal of Politics, 38, 390-413.
12.
FitzgeraldM. (2005). Greater convenience but not greater turnout—The impact of alternative voting methods on electoral participation in the United States. American Politics Research, 33, 842-867.
13.
FundJ. (2008). Stealing elections: How voter fraud threatens our democracy. New York, NY: Encounter Books.
14.
GiammoJ.BroxB. (2010). Reducing the costs of participation: Are states getting a return on early voting?Political Research Quarterly, 63, 295-303.
15.
GronkeP.Galanes-RosenbaumE.MillerP. (2007). Early voting and turnout. PS: Political Science and Politics, 40, 639-645.
HamiltonR. H. (1988). American all-mail balloting: A decade’s experience. Public Administration Review, 48, 860-866.
18.
HanmerM. J. (2009). Discount voting: Voting registration reforms and their effects. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
19.
HanmerM. J.TraugottM. W. (2004). The impact of voting by mail on voter behavior. American Politics Research, 32, 375-405.
20.
KarpJ. A.BanducciS. A. (2000). Going postal: How all-mail elections influence turnout. Political Behavior, 22, 223-239.
21.
KousserT.MullinM. (2007). Does voting by mail increase participation? Using matching to analyze a natural experiment. Political Analysis, 15, 428-445.
22.
LuechingerS.RosingerM.StutzerA. (2007). The impact of postal voting on participation: Evidence for Switzerland. Swiss Political Science Review, 13,167-202.
23.
MaglebyD. (1987). Participation in mail ballot elections. Western Political Quarterly, 40, 79-91.
24.
McDonaldM.PopkinS. (2001). The myth of the vanishing voter. American Political Science Review, 95, 963-974.
25.
MilyoJ.KoniskyD.RichardsonL. (2009). What determines public approval of voting reforms?Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Toronto, Canada.
26.
MinniteL. (2010). The myth of voter fraud. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
27.
RicheyS. (2005). Who votes alone? The impact of voting by mail on political discussion. Australian Journal of Political Science, 40, 435-442.
28.
RicheyS. (2008). Voting by mail: Turnout and institutional reform in Oregon. Social Science Quarterly, 89, 902-915.
29.
RikerW.OrdeshookP. (1968). A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review, 62(1), 25-42.
30.
RosenstoneS. J.HansenJ. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York, NY: Macmillan.
31.
SouthwellP. (1998). Vote-by-mail in the state of Oregon. Willamette Law Review, 34, 345-356.
32.
SouthwellP. (2004). Five years later: A re-assessment of Oregon’s vote by mail electoral process. PS: Politics and Political Science, 98(1), 89-93.
33.
SouthwellP. (2009). Analysis of the turnout effects of vote by mail elections, 1980-2007. Social Science Journal, 46, 211-217.
34.
SouthwellP. (2010). Voting behavior in vote-by-mail elections. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 10(1), 106-115.
35.
SouthwellP.BurchettJ. (1997). Survey of vote-by-mail senate election in the state of Oregon. PS: Political Science & Politics, 30(1), 53-57.
36.
SouthwellP.BurchettJ. (2000). The effect of all-mail elections on voter turnout. American Politics Research, 28(1), 72-79.
37.
StewartC.III. (2011). Adding up the costs and benefits of voting by mail. Election Law Journal, 10, 297-301.
38.
ThompsonD. (2004). Election time: Normative implications of temporal properties of the electoral process in the United States. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 51-64.
39.
ThompsonD. (2008). Election simultaneity: Expressing equal respect. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 487-501.
40.
TraugottM. W. (2004). Why electoral reform has failed: If you build it, will they come? In CriglerA.JustM.McCafferyE. (Eds.), Rethinking the vote: The politics and prospects of American election reform (pp. 167-184). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
