A renewed, energetic interest in voting technologies erupted in political science following the 2000 presidential election. Spawned initially by the recount controversy in Florida, the literature has grown to consider the effects of voting technologies on the vote choice more generally. This literature has explained why localities have the voting technologies (lever machines, punch cards, etc.) they use. Although there are racial differences in the distribution of voting technologies used across localities, the strongest explanations for why local jurisdictions use particular technologies rest on legacies of past decisions. The bulk of the voting technology literature has focused on explaining how voting technologies influence residual votes, that is, blank, undervoted, and overvoted ballots. With the relative homogenization of voting technology since 2000, prospects for research that examines the effects of different machines on residual votes seem limited. However, opportunities exist to study the effect of voting machines historically, the effect of voting technologies on down-ballot rates, and the role of interest groups in affecting which voting technologies are made available to voters.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


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. [Google Scholar]
  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 [Google Scholar]
  5. Alvarez RM, Hall TE, Hyde SD. 2008. Election Fraud: Detecting and Deterring Electoral Manipulation Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. [Google Scholar]
  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 [Google Scholar]
  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 [Google Scholar]
  15. Asher HB, Snyder KC. 1990. Effects of voting systems on political participation: three technologies compared Annu. Meet. Midwest Polit. Sci. Assoc., 48th, Chicago [Google Scholar]
  16. Aslam JA, Popa RA, Rivest RL. 2008. On auditing elections when precincts have different sizes Work. Pap., Comput. Sci. Artifi. Intell. Lab., MIT [Google Scholar]
  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 [Google Scholar]
  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 [Google Scholar]
  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 [Google Scholar]
  27. California Secretary of State 2007. Top-to-Bottom Review http://www.sos.ca.gov/voting-systems/oversight/top-to-bottom-review.htm [Google Scholar]
  28. Caltech/MIT Voting Technol. Proj. 2001. Voting: What Is/What Could Be Pasadena, CA/Cambridge, MA: Caltech/MIT [Google Scholar]
  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 [Google Scholar]
  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: [Google Scholar]
  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 [Google Scholar]
  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. [Google Scholar]
  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

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error