Skip to main content

Comparing absentee and precinct voters: Voting on direct legislation

Abstract

This paper addresses issues related to how absentee voters actually cast their ballots on propositions. If the liberalization of absentee laws changed either the composition or behavior of the electorate, then the outcome of the election may be affected. This paper tests whether the electoral behavior of absentee and precinct voters differs in regards to voting on propositions. The analysis is based on a sample of actual absentee and precinct voter ballots drawn from the approximately three million ballots cast in Los Angeles county for the 1992 general election. The analysis uses a nested model of voter participation and is estimated using the weighted exogenous sampling maximum likelihood method. We find that precinct and absentee voters do differ on both the propositions on which they cast votes and in their propensity to vote “Yes” for a proposition. For example, absentees appear to vote on fewer bonds and initiatives than do precinct voters. They also vote on fewer propositions dealing with state taxes, food taxes, and property taxes. In addition, given that a voter casts a valid vote, the propensity for absentee voters to vote “Yes” is higher on initiatives and propositions related to education, welfare, and health care than it is for precinct voters.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • Bowler, Shaun, Donovan, Todd, and Happ, Trudi (1992). Ballot propositions and information costs: Direct democracy and the fatigued voter.Western Political Quarterly 45: 559–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnham, Walter Dean (1965). The changing shape of the American political universe.American Political Science Review 59: 7–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • California Secretary of State (1992).Ballot Book.

  • California Secretary of State (1992).Ballot Image Rental File.

  • California Secretary of State (1992).Election Results Rental File.

  • Clubb, Jerome M., and Traugott, Michael (1972). National patterns of referenda voting: The 1968 election. InPeople and Politics in Urban Society (pp. 137–169). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Congressional Quarterly (1993).Congressional Districts in the 1990's. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.

  • Cook, Gale (1991). Mail-order voters tip the balance in close elections.California Journal 22: 101–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darcy, R., and Schneider, Anne (1989). Confusing ballots, roll-off, and the black vote.Western Political Quarterly 42: 347–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubin, Jeffrey A., and Gerber, Elisabeth (1992). Patterns of voting on ballot propositions: A mixture model of voter types. Social Science Working Paper 795, California Institute of Technology.

  • Dubin, Jeffrey A., and Kalsow, Gretchen A. (1994a). Participation in direct legislation: Evidence from the voting booth. Mimeo, California Institute of Technology.

  • Dubin, Jeffrey A., and Kalsow, Gretchen A. (1994b). Racial and ethnic differences in political participation. Mimeo, California Institute of Technology.

  • Dubin, Jeffrey A., and Kalsow, Gretchen A. (1995). Comparing absentee and precinct voters: A view over time. Mimeo, California Institute of Technology.

  • Dubin, Jeffrey A., and Rivers, R. Douglas (1988).Statistical Software Tools. Pasadena, CA: Dubin/Rivers Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, Maureen S. (1980). Computer democracy.California Journal 11: 1–15, (Special Report).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, Howard D. (1970). Direct legislation: Some implications of open housing referenda.American Political Science Review 64: 124–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, Randy (1988). American all-mail balloting: A decade's experience.Public Administration Review 48: 860–866.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magleby, David B. (1984).Direct Legislation. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manski, C., and Lerman, S. (1977). The estimation of choice probabilities from choice-based samples.Econometrica 45: 1977–1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsusaka, John G. (1992). Economics of direct legislation.Quarterly Journal of Economics 107: 541–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, Daniel (1981). Econometric models of probabilistic choice. In Charles F. Manski and Daniel McFadden (eds.),Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, John E. (1969). Voting on the propositions: Ballot patterns and historical trends in California.American Political Science Review 63: 1197–1212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owens, John R., and Wade, Larry L. (1986). Campaign spending on California ballot propositions, 1924–1984: Trends and voting effects.Western Political Quarterly 39: 675–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, Charles M. (1975). The initiative: A comparative state analysis and reassessment of a Western phenomenon.Western Political Quarterly 28: 243–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teixeira, Ruy (1992).The disappearing American Voter. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderleeuw, James M., and Engstrom, Richard L. (1987). Race, referendums, and roll-off.Journal of Politics 49: 1081–1092.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis, Doug (1994). Absentee voting is increasing.Pasadena Star-News, October 17, Section B.

  • Wolfinger, Raymond E., and Greenstein, Fred I. (1968). The repeal of fair housing in California: An analysis of referendum voting.American Political Science Review 62: 753–769.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfinger, Raymond E., and Rosenstone, Steven J. (1980).Who Votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zisk, Betty H. (1987).Money, Media, and the Grass Roots. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dubin, J.A., Kalsow, G.A. Comparing absentee and precinct voters: Voting on direct legislation. Polit Behav 18, 393–411 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499095

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499095

Keywords

  • General Election
  • Likelihood Method
  • Maximum Likelihood Method
  • Nest Model
  • Electoral Behavior