Explore the vast range of titles available.

This paper is the result of a nationwide study of polling place dynamics in the 2016 presidential election. Research teams, recruited from local colleges and universities and located in twenty-eight election jurisdictions across the United States, observed and timed voters as they entered the queue at their respective polling places and then voted. We report results about four specific polling place operations and practices: the length of the check-in line, the number of voters leaving the check-in line once they have joined it, the time for a voter to check in to vote (i.e., verify voter’s identification and obtain a ballot), and the time to complete a ballot. Long lines, waiting times, and times to vote are closely related to time of day (mornings are busiest for polling places). We found the recent adoption of photographic voter identification (ID) requirements to have a disparate effect on the time to check in among white and nonwhite polling places. In majority-white polling places, scanning a voter’s driver’s license speeds up the check-in process. In majority nonwhite polling locations, the effect of strict voter ID requirements increases time to check in, albeit modestly.

Voting is perceived as free and rational. Citizens make whatever choices they wish, shielded from external influences by the privacy of the voting booth. The current paper, however, suggests that a subtle source of influence—polling places themselves—can impact voting behavior. In two elections, people voting in churches were more likely to support a conservative candidate and a ban on same-sex marriage, but not the restriction of eminent domain. A field experiment found that people completing questionnaires in a chapel awarded less money (relative to people in a secular building) to insurance claimants seeking compensation for abortion pills, but not to worker's compensation claimants. A laboratory experiment found that people subliminally exposed to ecclesiastical images awarded less money (relative to people exposed to control images) to abortion pill claimants, but not to worker's compensation claimants. Exposure to ecclesiastical images affected only Christians; non-Christians' awards were unaffected by the prime. These findings show that polling locations can exert a powerful and precise influence on political attitudes and decision making.

In 'Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky', the Supreme Court held that a Minnesota law that banned \"political\" apparel from being worn in polling places on Election Day facially violated the First Amendment because the term \"political\" was too indeterminate in context. It did so despite the fact that the lower court had found the law valid as applied to the petitioner, a decision the petitioner did not challenge, and also despite the fact that the Roberts Court has generally expressed skepticism toward facial rather than as-applied challenges. Troublingly, the Court failed to engage directly with the question of why a facial challenge was appropriate in this case, and actively avoided mentioning the doctrine upon which its decision seemed to rest: vagueness. By glossing over the basis for its decision, the Court avoided grappling with the ways in which 'Mansky' is in tension with recent vagueness cases, leaving future litigants unclear about whether there is renewed leeway to bring facial challenges to certain categories of vague statutes.

On 13 November Fijians went to the polls to elect a new House of Representatives. Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama’s ruling Fiji First party won 27 of the 51 seats, while SODELPA (led by former a former prime minister, Sitiveni Rabuka), gained 21 seats. In all six parties took part in the contest. A multinational observer group, comprising diplomats or officials from ten nations, observed the electoral process. The elections passed without incident and represented a well-run and a credible expression of the electorate’s preferences. The outcome suggests that the new system, introduced in 2013, has established itself as robust and transparent.

Despite howls for reform, the only thing separating us from another election disaster of the kind that hit Florida in 2000, and that almost struck again in Ohio in 2004, may simply be another close vote. In this lucid and lively book, Heather Gerken diagnoses what is wrong with our elections and proposes a radically new and simple solution: a Democracy Index that would rate the performance of state and local election systems. A rough equivalent to the U.S. News and World Report ranking of colleges and universities, the Index would focus on problems that matter to all voters: How long does it take to vote? How many ballots get discarded? How often do voting machines break down? And it should work for a simple reason: no one wants to be at the bottom of the list. For a process that is supposed to be all about counting, U.S. elections yield few reliable numbers about anything--least of all how well the voting system is managed. The Democracy Index would change this with a blueprint for quantifying election performance and reform results, replacing anecdotes and rhetoric with hard data and verifiable outcomes. A fresh vision of reform, this book shows how to drive improvements by creating incentives for politicians, parties, and election officials to join the cause of change and to come up with creative solutions--all without Congress issuing a single regulation.

The First Amendment protects the free discussion of government affairs in order to promote an informed electorate who can meaningfully participate in government. To this end, it affords the public a protected right of access to some government proceedings. Recently, in 'PG Publishing Co. v. Aichele', the Third Circuit held that the First Amendment does not afford the public a protected right of access to polling places for news-gathering purposes. The Third Circuit's application of public access doctrine to polling places illustrates the flaws of simply considering whether there is a history of openness in the proceeding. Because it limited the historical inquiry of the doctrine to this question, the PG Publishing court did not consider the long history of racial discrimination and disenfranchisement that has accompanied the closed polling process. Courts should consider not only the facts of a proceeding's history but also the normative implications of that history in deciding whether to find a public right of access.

Making up 14.2 percent of the American population, Hispanics are now the largest minority group in the United States. Clearly, securing the Hispanic vote is more important to political parties than ever before. Yet, despite the current size of the Hispanic population, is there a clear Hispanic politics? Who are Hispanic voters? What are their political preferences and attitudes, and why? The first comprehensive study of Hispanic voters in the United States,New Faces, New Voicespaints a complex portrait of this diverse and growing population. Examining race, politics, and comparative political behavior, Marisa Abrajano and R. Michael Alvarez counter the preconceived notion of Hispanic voters as one homogenous group. The authors discuss the concept of Hispanic political identity, taking into account the ethnic, generational, and linguistic distinctions within the Hispanic population. They compare Hispanic registration, turnout, and participation to those of non-Hispanics, consider the socioeconomic factors contributing to Hispanics' levels of political knowledge, determine what segment of the Hispanic population votes in federal elections, and explore the prospects for political relationships among Hispanics and non-Hispanics. Finally, the authors look at Hispanic opinions on social and economic issues, factoring in whether these attitudes are affected by generational status and ethnicity. A unique and nuanced perspective on the Hispanic electoral population,New Faces, New Voicesis essential for understanding the political characteristics of the largest and fastest growing group of minority voters in the United States.

Papua New Guinea’s general election in 2007 attracted particular interest for several reasons. Not only did it follow what was widely acknowledged as the country’s worst election ever, in 2002 (in which elections in six of the country’s 109 electorates were declared to be ‘failed elections’), it was the first general election to be held under a new limited preferential voting system. It also followed the first full parliamentary term under the Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates, which had been introduced in 2001 in an attempt to strengthen political parties and create a greater degree of stability in the national parliament, and was the first to embrace a ‘whole-of-government’ approach to electoral administration, through an Interdepartmental Electoral Committee. This volume provides an analysis of the 2007 election, drawing on the work of a domestic monitoring team organized through the National Research Institute, and several visiting scholars. It addresses key issues such as voter education, electoral administration, election security, the role of political parties, women as candidates and voters, the shift to limited preferential voting, and HIV transmission, and provides detailed accounts of the election in a number of open and provincial electorates. It is generally agreed that the election of 2007 was an improvement on that of 2002. But problems of electoral administration and voting behaviour remain. These are identified in this volume, and recommendations made for electoral reform.

Since the 2000 presidential election, the United States has been embroiled in debates about electronic voting. Critics say the new technologies invite tampering and fraud. Advocates say they enhance the accuracy of vote counts and make casting ballots easier--and ultimately foster greater political participation.Electronic Electionscuts through the media spin to assess the advantages and risks associated with different ways of casting ballots--and shows how e-voting can be the future of American democracy. Elections by nature are fraught with risk. Michael Alvarez and Thad Hall fully examine the range of past methods and the new technologies that have been created to try to minimize risk and accurately reflect the will of voters. Drawing upon a wealth of new data on how different kinds of electronic voting machines have performed in recent elections nationwide, they evaluate the security issues that have been the subject of so much media attention, and examine the impacts the new computer-based solutions is having on voter participation. Alvarez and Hall explain why the benefits of e-voting can outweigh the challenges, and they argue that media coverage of the new technologies has emphasized their problems while virtually ignoring their enormous potential for empowering more citizens to vote. The authors also offer ways to improve voting technologies and to develop more effective means of implementing and evaluating these systems. Electronic Electionsmakes a case for how e-voting can work in the United States, showing why making it work right is essential to the future vibrancy of the democratic process.

Cowinner of the International Studies Association’s Chadwick F. Alger Prize, Winner of the American Political Science Association’s Comparative Democratization Section Best Book Award, and Cowinner of the Yale University MacMillan Center’s Gustav Ranis International Book Prize. Why did election monitoring become an international norm? Why do \"pseudo-democrats\" (undemocratic leaders who present themselves as democratic) invite international observers, even when they are likely to be caught manipulating elections? Is election observation an effective tool of democracy promotion, or is it simply a way to legitimize electoral autocracies? This book uses cross-national data on election observations since 1960 and case studies of Armenia, Indonesia, Haiti, Peru, Togo, and Zimbabwe to explain international election monitoring with a new theory of international norms.