When, Where, and How We Vote: Does it Matter?

Abstract

Objectives In this article, we explore the different ways Americans exercise their right to vote on Election Day and how these alternatives shape the voter's experience. Methods Our study draws on data collected from exit polls with Election Day voters in the 2008 Colorado presidential election. Colorado is unique among the 50 states in that it affords it voters the widest array of voting options, both before and on Election Day, and thus provides an ideal setting for testing our hypotheses. Results We find voting places that are more accessible and open (i.e., voters can vote at more than one location on Election Day) significantly enhance voter performance and evaluation. In several instances, this finding is attenuated for infrequent voters. Conclusions There are valuable lessons regarding the centralization and location of polling places that could be applied to precinct voting models. Counties might concentrate more attention on adequately equipping polling locations, particularly having a sufficient number of quality poll workers to assist voters with check‐in and the voting system.

Policy and Precinct: Citizen Evaluations and Electoral Confidence*

“…The quality of poll workers coupled with the ease or difficulty of recruitment has the potential to affect the experiences of voters (Claassen et al., ; Hall, Monson, and Patterston, , ). Machine type, machine usability, prior knowledge of the voting machine system (Claassen et al., ), and the location of polling places (Stein and Honahme, ) have also been shown to affect voter confidence. Utilizing exit polls, Classeen et al.…”

“…Additionally, voters report being more confident that an election will produce a fair outcome not only when they have fewer negative experiences on Election Day, but also when they are able to vote on direct recording electronic (DRE) as opposed to optical scan voting machines (Claassen et al., ) . Lastly, voters who are able to vote at more than one location report more favorable evaluations (Stein and Honahme, ).…”

“…The quality of poll workers coupled with the ease or difficulty of recruitment has the potential to affect the experiences of voters (Claassen et al, 2008;Hall, Monson, andPatterston, 2007, 2009). Machine type, machine usability, prior knowledge of the voting machine system (Claassen et al, 2013), and the location of polling places (Stein and Honahme, 2012) have also been shown to affect voter confidence. Utilizing exit polls, Classeen et al (2008), for example, find that long wait times, confusing voting equipment instructions, privacy while voting, and failure to check voter ID result in lower evaluations of poll workers.…”

Waiting to vote safely: How Covid‐19 safety measures shaped in‐person voter wait times during the 2020 election

“…Rather, they should be investigated further to determine how they can be implemented without burdening the election process, and their use should be guided by both their effects on voter wait times and related outcomes (e.g., evaluations of the voting process), as well as their efficacy in protecting voters. With that being said, future work should go beyond the voting experience evaluated here—voter wait times—and examine how these safety policies may go on to affect other voter experiences, such as how highly they rate their polling place, poll workers, and overall positivity of their voting experience (e.g., Stein and Vonnahme 2012 ), as well as their likelihood of reneging in the voting line and of returning to vote the next year (e.g., Lamb 2021 ; Pettigrew 2021 ). Additionally, future work should examine how these effects may be different for different voters (e.g., whether face masks deter those with hearing difficulties to a greater extent).…”

One does not simply tweet without consequence: a study of the electoral contest in Ashgrove

“…Newman announced his intention to run for the seat (ALP 50.7% -LNP 49.3%) (Walker & Barrett, 2012 (Evans & Ivaldi, 2012;Gosselin & Pétry, 2009;Klofstad & Bishin, 2012;Pickup, Matthews, Jennings, Ford, & Fisher, 2011;Stein & Vonnahme, 2012;Traugott & Wlezien, 2009;Vonnahme & Miller, 2013). The trend in increased pre-poll votes means that earlier polls are more important in terms of impact (Fitzpatrick, 2013).…”