New research on voting machine availability and voter turnout in Ohio

[Wilms]

Election Updates

New research on voting machine availability and voter turnout in Ohio

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

by Michael Alvarez

There is a paper by Ben Highton (UC-Davis) that is forthcoming in a political science journal (PS), "Long Lines, Voting Machine Availability, and Turnout: The Case of Franklin County, Ohio in the 2004 Presidential Election." Highton is a well-known scholar who has produced a series of good studies of a variety of issues associated with voter turnout.

Highton uses precinct-level data from Franklin County, Ohio, and undertakes a series of different statistical analyses to estimate the effect of availability of voting machines in precincts on 2004 voter turnout. There are some minor methodoligical quibbles here, in particular whether it is appropriate to model this as using a linaer model and what other specifications of the turnout model (especially including other control variables) might yield. But I doubt these methodological quibbles would have much of an effect on Highton's major conclusions from his analysis.


Highton's basic conclusion is:

The strong association between the availability of voting machines and turnout in Franklin County, Ohio in the 2004 presidential election was largely the result of factors unrelated to the causal effect of the availability of voting machines on turnout. That said, after controlling for other causes of turnout, the relationship does not disappear, suggesting that machine scarcity was a cause of lower turnout. The magnitude of the effect in terms of votes was about 22,000, which would have diminished George W. Bush’s statewide margin by about 6,000 had there been no scarcity of voting machines on Election Day. Thus long lines at polling places in Franklin County do not appear to have cost John Kerry the presidential election, but they do appear to have cost him votes.

Given that the Franklin County Board of Elections, like all Ohio county election boards, has four members, two Democrats and two Republicans, attributing the scarcity of voting machines and its consequent effects to partisan maneuvering is probably not warranted.

snip

http://electionupdates.caltech.edu/2006/01/new-research-on-voting-machine.html


Report .pdf
http://apsanet.org/imgtest/065-0681.pdf

[rfranklin]

1. If you add up all the little "mistakes." Kerry won handily...

It's a fact.

[Wilms]

2. Agreed. You caught that.

Because Franklin, in and of itself, didn't cost Kerry the win, they try to make it sound like Bush won. :grr:

[OnTheOtherHand]

6. "they try to make it sound" -- are you sure?

Do you have any particular reason to think that Benjamin Highton is part of some... I don't know how to word it... initiative to misrepresent 2004?

Folks, I don't really get how it is that flaming the social scientists most sympathetic to your position is supposed to make anything better. Good luck with that.

[lakeguy]

3. only one county and only one method of voter suppression.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. 6000 votes here, 6000 votes there, and pretty soon

you have an election.

[Boredtodeath]

5. The missing answer is.....

What percentage of the total vote of the county is that 6,000?

Many of us who have been watching this issue since 2002 would probably venture to guess it's right around 2-3% of the vote. That's the magic number they always seem to come up with in every county - just enough to skew the vote for a win, but not enough to a deeper look.

I haven't read anymore than the clip here. But, sight unseen, I'd bet on the percentage!

[OnTheOtherHand]

7. no need to wonder: just bookmark

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/ and you are a few clicks away from info for any state, any county (with another click -- scroll down to Election Data and Statistics, and click on "County Data (Graphs)"), any presidential election. Almost.

There were about 525,000 votes recorded for president in Franklin County, so 6,000 is about 1%.