The Consequences of Compulsory Voting

This chapter reviews the growing literature on compulsory voting’s consequences. Compulsory voting has an unsurprising upward impact on voter participation, which lessens the impact of many socioeconomic and demographic forerunners of turnout, thereby making the composition of the voting population better reflect the distribution of eligible voters. Further, invalid balloting tends to be more common under compulsory voting. Compelled voters are also less likely to cast ballots that correspond with their preferences. Many studies indicate that mandatory voting has an educative effect and can socialize people into political engagement, with others casting strong doubt on this possibility. A small number of studies have assessed whether compulsory voting shapes attitudes, election outcomes, the behavior of political parties, policy characteristics, and income growth and inequality, with few clear patterns yet established. Compulsory voting laws have the greatest impact where sanctions for abstention are enforced and meaningful.

Accessible Elections and Voter Turnout

Chapter 4 evaluates the impact of convenience voting laws (in-person early voting, no-excuse absentee/mail voting, and same day registration) and election administration on individual-level voter turnout change from the 2010 to 2014 midterm elections and the 2008 to 2012 presidential elections using lagged panel models. Results show that non-voters are more likely to become voters when living in states with absentee/mail voting, in-person early voting, same day registration, and high-quality election administration, controlling for other factors. Same day registration is the most important of the three in both midterm and presidential elections, while early voting and absentee/mail voting have the largest effects in midterm elections.

Why Studying State Voting Laws Is Not Enough

Early studies of the effects of voter laws on turnout often showed that early voting, absentee, and mail voting had limited impacts on voter turnout, with only same day registration consistently linked to higher turnout. Much of the previous research measured these laws in isolation (although most states have combinations of the laws), omitted measurement of election administration, did not account for possible selection bias in state adoption of the laws, focused on overall voter turnout rather than that for disadvantaged groups, and did not measure the effects of the laws on campaign mobilization strategies. Census data used in previous studies omitted variables (e.g., political interest and partisanship) known to influence voting decisions. Building on research from 2000s and 2010s, Chapter 3 emphasizes how causal inference research design and national voter files can lead to more precise estimations of the effects of convenience voting laws and election administration on voter turnout.

Conclusion

Chapter 8 reviews the main findings of the book and identifies areas for future research. The general findings indicate that each of the state convenience voting laws (in-person early voting, no-excuse absentee/mail voting, and same day registration) as well solid state election administration can improve voter turnout and promote greater voting equality between the socio-economic classes and among non-Hispanic whites and racial/ethnic minorities. The study demonstrates the value of an advanced causal inference design applied to a rich dataset on American adults (national voter files). It highlights the importance of measuring the effects of multiple convenience voting laws and election administration simultaneously. Future applications of the accessible voting framework can be used to understand the impacts of new election reform laws such as automatic voter registration, and to evaluate whether these factors also promote higher turnout among other historically marginalized voting groups such as the young and low-educated.

Measuring Accessible Elections

Chapter 2 develops the accessible elections theoretical framework used throughout the study. To evaluate the framework, the chapter discusses data to measure state voting and registration laws, election administration performance, and individual voting decisions in recent midterm and presidential elections. Special attention is paid to the Election Performance Index (EPI) to measure how well states conduct elections; previous research has not generally measured election administration to predict voter turnout. The states have different combinations of in-person early voting, no-excuse absentee/mail voting, same day registration laws, and election administration performance. The moderate correlation between the voting laws and election administration suggests that both must be taken into account to identify their independent effects on whether people vote. Research hypotheses posit that states with more convenience voting laws and higher performing election administrations will have higher voter turnout, campaign mobilization, and lower turnout inequality.

A Devotion Almost Idolatry

This chapter details the aftermath of the 1862 Maryland Campaign and the spirited debate within the Army of the Potomac over the preliminary emancipation proclamation. These opinions carried weight in the 1862 midterm congressional and state elections. Some army figures ran for political office, including General James S. Wadsworth. However, voting laws pushed by Democrats generally prohibited soldier absentee ballots, a fact that offended many in the ranks. The chapter then discusses the overwhelmingly negative reaction of officers and men to McClellan's removal from command, which prompted them to spurn the political class even further.

Early Voting Laws, Voter Turnout, and Partisan Vote Composition: Evidence from Ohio

We estimate effects of early voting on voter turnout using a 2010 homogenization law from Ohio that forced some counties to expand and others to contract early voting. Using voter registration data, we compare individuals who live within the same 2 × 2 mile square block but in different counties. We find substantial positive impacts of early voting on turnout equal to 0.22 percentage points of additional turnout per additional early voting day. We also find greater impacts on women, Democrats, independents, and those of child-bearing and working age. We simulate impacts of national early day laws on recent election outcomes. (JEL D72, K16)