Voting Technologies

Literature Cited

1. Allers M, Kooreman P. 2009. More evidence of the effects of voting technology on election outcomes. Public Choice 139:159–70 [Google Scholar]
2. Alvarez RM, Hall TE. 2004. Point, Click, and Vote Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.
3. Alvarez RM, Hall TE. 2006. Controlling democracy: the principal–agent problems in election administration. Policy Stud. J. 34:491–510 [Google Scholar]
4. Alvarez RM, Hall TE. 2008. Electronic Elections: The Perils and Promises of Digital Democracy Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
5. Alvarez RM, Hall TE, Hyde SD. 2008. Election Fraud: Detecting and Deterring Electoral Manipulation Washington, DC: Brookings Inst.
6. Alvarez RM, Hall TE, Roberts BE. 2007. Military voting and the law: procedural and technological solutions to the ballot transit problem. Fordham Urban Law J. 34:935–97 [Google Scholar]
7. Alvarez RM, Hall TE, Trechsel AH. 2009. Internet voting in comparative perspective: the case of Estonia. PS: Polit. Sci. Polit. 42:497–505 [Google Scholar]
8. Alvarez RM, Nagler J. 2000. Likely consequences of Internet voting for political representation. Loyola Los Angel. Law Rev. 34:1115–53 [Google Scholar]
9. Alvarez RM, Sinclair DEB, Wilson CH. 2004. Counting ballots and the 2000 election: What went wrong. ? In Rethinking the Vote: The Politics and Prospects of American Election Reform AM Crigler, MR Just, MJ McCaffrey Jr New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
10. Ansolabehere S. 2002. Voting machines, race, and equal protection. Elect. Law J. 1:61–70 [Google Scholar]
11. Ansolabehere S, Reeves A. 2004. Using recounts to measure the accuracy of vote tabulations: evidence from New Hampshire elections, 1946–2002 Work. Pap., Voting Technol. Proj. #11, Caltech/MIT
12. Ansolabehere S, Stewart C III. 2005. Residual votes attributable to technology. J. Polit. 67:365–89 [Google Scholar]
13. Ansolabehere S, Stewart C III. 2008. Function follows form. America Votes! A Guide to Modern Election Law and Voting Rights B Griffith, pp. 241–60 Chicago: ABA Publ. [Google Scholar]
14. Asher HB, Schussler R, Rosenfield P. 1982. The effect of voting systems on voter participation Presented at Annu. Meet. Midwest Polit. Sci. Assoc., 40th, Milwaukee
15. Asher HB, Snyder KC. 1990. Effects of voting systems on political participation: three technologies compared Annu. Meet. Midwest Polit. Sci. Assoc., 48th, Chicago
16. Aslam JA, Popa RA, Rivest RL. 2008. On auditing elections when precincts have different sizes Work. Pap., Comput. Sci. Artifi. Intell. Lab., MIT
17. Blaze M, Cordero A, Engle S, Karlof C, Sastry N. et al. 2007. Source Code Review of the Sequoia Voting System Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
18. Bowler S, Donovan T, Happ T. 1992. Ballot propositions and information costs: direct democracy and the fatigued voter. Western Polit. Quart. 45:559–68 [Google Scholar]
19. Brace KW. 1993. Election Data Book: A Statistical Portrait of Voting in America. 1992 Lanham, MD: Bernan [Google Scholar]
20. Brady HE, Buchler J, Jarvis M, McNulty J. 2001. Counting all the votes: the performance of voting technology in the United States Work. Pap., Dep. Polit. Sci., Univ. Calif., Berkeley
21. Brockington D. 2003. A low information theory of ballot position effect. Polit. Behav. 25:1–27 [Google Scholar]
22. Buchler J, Jarvis M, McNulty JE. 2004. Punch card technology and the racial gap in residual votes. Perspect. Polit. 2:517–24 [Google Scholar]
23. Bullock CS III, Hood MV III. 2002. One person—no vote; one vote; two votes: voting methods, ballot types, and undervote frequency in the 2000 presidential election. Soc. Sci. Quart. 83:981–93 [Google Scholar]
24. Burnham WD. 1965. The changing shape of the American political university. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 59:7–28 [Google Scholar]
25. Byrne MD, Greene KK, Everett SP. 2007. Usability of voting systems: baseline data for paper, punch cards, and lever machines. Proc. ACM CHI Conf. Human Factors Comput. Syst. San Jose, Apr. 28–May 3 171–80 New York: ASM [Google Scholar]
26. Calandrino JA, Feldman AJ, Alex HJ, Wagner D, Yu H, Zeller WP. 2007. Source Code Review of the Diebold Voting System Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
27. California Secretary of State 2007. Top-to-Bottom Review http://www.sos.ca.gov/voting-systems/oversight/top-to-bottom-review.htm
28. Caltech/MIT Voting Technol. Proj. 2001. Voting: What Is/What Could Be Pasadena, CA/Cambridge, MA: Caltech/MIT
29. Card D, Moretti E. 2007. Does voting technology affect election outcomes? Touch-screen voting and the 2004 presidential election. Rev. Econ. Stat. 89:660–73 [Google Scholar]
30. Carman C, Mitchell J, Johns R. 2008. The unfortunate natural experiment in ballot design: the Scottish Parliamentary Elections of 2007. Elect. Stud. 27:442–59 [Google Scholar]
31. Chaum D. 2004. Secret-ballot receipts: true voter-verifiable elections. CryptoBytes 7:213–26 [Google Scholar]
32. Chaum D, Ryan PYA, Schneider SA. 2005. A practical voter-verifiable election scheme. Proc. Eur. Symp. Res. Comput. Secur., 10th, Milan pp. 118–39. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer
33. Clubb JM, Traugott MW. 1972. National patterns of referenda voting: the 1968 election. People and Politics in Urban Society H Hahn Beverly Hills, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
34. Darcy R, Schneider A. 1989. Confusing ballots, roll-off, and the black vote. Polit. Res. Q. 42:347 [Google Scholar]
35. Dee TS. 2007. Technology and voter intent: evidence from the California recall election. Rev. Econ. Stat. 89:674–83 [Google Scholar]
36. Diebold Election Systems 2003. Checks and balances in elections equipment and procedures prevent alleged fraud scenarios Rep., Diebold Elect. Syst. North Canton, OH:
37. Engstrom EJ, Kernell S. 2005. Manufactured responsiveness: the impact of state electoral laws on unified party control of the presidency and House of Representatives, 1840–1940. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 49:531–49 [Google Scholar]
38. Everett SP. 2007. The usability of electronic voting machines and how votes can be changed without detection PhD thesis Rice Univ.180
39. Everett SP, Byrne MD, Greene KK. 2006. Measuring the usability of paper ballots: efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction. Proc. Annu. Meet. Hum. Fact. Ergonom. Soc. 502547–51 Santa Monica, CA: Hum. Fact. Ergonom. Soc. [Google Scholar]
40. Fischer EA. 2008. Election Reform and Local Election Officials New York: Nova Sci.
41. Fischer EA, Coleman KJ. 2008. Election reform and local election officials: results of two national surveys. CRS Rep. Congr. RL343643. Congr. Res. Serv., Washington, DC