Public opinion on high-visibility election rules can be expected to reflect elite-level party divisions. We explain how partisanship affects support for, and opposition to, low-visibility convenience voting reforms. We find state-level factors such as quality of polling-place voting and party polarization explain some variance in support. However, individual-level factors are paramount. Attitudes about election reforms are strongly conditioned by partisan predispositions, with Democrats more supportive and Republicans more opposed. In addition, we find younger people, those with lower incomes, nonvoters, and people with disabilities were more likely to support proposals that might make voting easier. Although this cannot demonstrate that increased convenience voting would alter the composition of the electorate, it shows that, above and beyond partisanship, people who faced greater barriers to voting were most supportive of making voting easier. However, the dominant role of partisan predispositions suggests limits to rules changes that might make voting easier.
AlvarezR. M.AnsolabehereS.WilsonC. H. (2002). Election day voter registration in the United States: How one-step voting can change the composition of the American electorate (Working Paper No. 5). Pasadena, CA: California Institute of Technology.
2.
AlvarezR. M.HallT. E.LevinI.StewartC.III. (2011). Voter opinions about election reform: Do they support making voting more convenient?Election Law Journal, 10, 73-87.
3.
AlvarezR. M.HallT. E.LlewellynM. H. (2002). Are Americans confident their ballots are counted?The Journal of Politics, 70, 754-766.
4.
AndersonC.TverdovaY. (2003). Corruption, political allegiances, and attitudes toward government in contemporary democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 91-109.
5.
AndrewsJ. T.JackmanR. W. (2005). Strategic fools: Electoral rule choice under extreme uncertainty. Electoral Studies, 24, 65-84.
6.
AnsolabehereS.HershE. (2012). Validation: What big data reveal about survey misreporting and the real electorate. Political Analysis, 20, 437-459.
7.
AnsolabehereS.PersilyN. (2008). Vote fraud in the eye of the beholder: The role of public opinion in the challenge to voter identification requirements. Harvard Law Review, 121, 1737-1774.
8.
AtkesonL. R.AlvarezR. M.HallT. E.SinclairJ. A. (2014). Balancing fraud prevention and electoral participation: Attitudes toward voter identification. Social Science Quarterly, 95, 1381-1398.
9.
AtkesonL. R.BryantL. A.HallT. E.SaundersK.AlvarezM. (2010). A new barrier to participation: Heterogeneous application of voter identification policies. Electoral Studies, 29, 66-73.
10.
BanducciS. A.DonovanT.KarpJ. A. (1999). Proportional representation and attitudes about politics: Results from New Zealand. Electoral Studies, 18, 533-555.
11.
BarretoM.Cohen-MarksM.WoodsN. D. (2009). Are all precincts created equal? The prevalence of low-quality precincts in low-income and minority communities. Political Research Quarterly, 62, 445-458.
12.
BawnK. (1993). The logic of institutional preferences: German electoral law as a social choice outcome. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 965-989.
13.
BenoitK. (2004). Models of electoral system change. Electoral Studies, 23, 363-389.
14.
BenoitK. (2007). Electoral laws as political consequences: Explaining the origins and change of electoral institutions. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 363-390.
15.
BenteleK. G.O’BrienE. E. (2013). Jim Crow 2.0? Why states consider and adopt restrictive voter access policies. Perspectives on Politics, 11, 1088-1116.
16.
BerinskyA. J. (2005). The perverse consequences of electoral reform in the United States. American Politics Research, 33, 471-491.
17.
BiggersD. R.HanmerM. J. (2017). Understanding the adoption of voter identification laws in the American states. American Politics Research, 45, 560-588. doi: 10.1177/1532673X16687266
18.
BirchS. (2011). Electoral malpractice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19.
BlondelJ.SinnotR.SvenssonP. (1998). People and parliament in the European Union: Participation, democracy, and legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20.
BowlerS.BrunellT.DonovanT.GronkeP. (2015). Election administration and perceptions of fair elections. Electoral Studies, 38, 1-9.
21.
BowlerS.DonovanT. (2013). The limits of electoral reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
BowlerS.DonovanT. (2016). A partisan model of electoral reform: Voter identification laws and confidence in State elections. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 16, 340-361.
23.
BowlerS.DonovanT.KarpJ. A. (2006). Why politicians like electoral institutions: Self-interest, values, or ideology?The Journal of Politics, 68, 434-446.
24.
BriansC. L.GrofmanB. (2001). Election day registration’s effect on U.S. voter turnout. Social Science Quarterly, 82, 170-183.
25.
CavariA.FreedmanG. (2017). Partisan cues and opinion formation on foreign policy. American Politics Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1532673X17745632
26.
ClaassenR. L.MaglebyD. B.MonsonJ. Q.PattersonK. D. (2008). “At your service” Voter evaluations of poll worker performance. American Politics Research, 36, 612-634.
27.
ConverseP. (1962). Information flow and the stability of partisan attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 26, 578-599.
28.
CrockerR. (2013). The National Voter Registration Act of 1993: History, implementation, and effects. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
29.
DaltonR. (2008). The good citizen: How a younger generation is reshaping American politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
30.
Delli CarpiniM. X.KeeterS. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
31.
DonovanT. (2011). Redistricting and direct democracy. In MoncriefG. (Ed.), Reapportionment and redistricting in the west. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
32.
DonovanT.SnippJ. R. (1994). Support for legislative term limitations in California: Group representation, partisanship, and campaign information. The Journal of Politics, 56, 492-501.
33.
DruckmanJ. N.PetersonE.SlothuusR. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107, 57-79.
34.
DyckJ. J.GimpleJ. G. (2005). Distance, turnout, and the convenience of voting. Social Science Quarterly, 86, 531-548.
35.
HallT. E.Quin MonsonJ.PattersonK. D. (2009). The human dimension of elections: How poll workers shape public confidence in elections. Political Research Quarterly, 62, 507-522.
36.
HanmerM. J. (2009). Discount voting: Voter registration reforms and their effects. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
HanmerM. J.TraugottM. W. (2004). The impact of voting by mail on voter behavior. American Politics Research, 32, 375-405.
38.
HoogheM. (2004). Political socialization and the future of politics. Acta Politica, 39, 331-341.
39.
HuntingtonS. P. (1957). Conservatism as an ideology. American Political Science Review, 51, 454-473.
40.
IynegarS.KinderD. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
41.
JostJ. T.GlasserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375.
42.
KarpJ. A. (1995). Explaining public support for legislative term limits. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 373-391.
43.
KeyssarA. (2009). The right to vote: The contested history of democracy in the United States. New York, NY: Basic Books.
44.
KnackS.WhiteJ. (2000). Election-day registration and turnout inequality. Political Behavior, 22, 29-44.
45.
NicholsonS. (2012). Polarizing cues. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 52-66.
46.
RenwickA. (2010). The politics of electoral reform: Changing the rules of democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47.
ShorB.McCartyN. (2011). The ideological mapping of American legislatures. American Political Science Review, 105, 530-551.
48.
SouthwellP.BurchettJ. (2000). The effect of all-mail elections on voter turnout. American Politics Quarterly, 28, 72-79.
StewartC.III. (2017). 2016 Survey of the Performance of American Elections (Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:/Mol52fZ59fx6OsPWIRsWw==). doi:10.7910/DVN/Y38VIQ
51.
TomzM.WittenbergJ.KingG. (2003). CLARIFY: Software for interpreting and presenting statistical results. Journal of Statistical Software, 8, 1-30.
52.
TsebelisG. (1991). Nested games: Rational choice in comparative politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
53.
WagnerA. F.SchneiderF.HallaM. (2009). The quality of institutions and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe: A panel analysis. European Journal of Political Economy, 25, 30-41.
54.
WattenbergM. P. (2008). Is voting for young people?Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: Routledge.
55.
WilsonD. C.BrewsterP. R. (2013). The foundations of public opinion on voter ID laws: Political predispositions, racial resentment, and information effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77, 962-984.
56.
WolfingerR.HightonB. (1998). Estimating the effects of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. Political Behavior, 20, 79-104.
57.
ZallerJ. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
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.
