Political Behavior

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 247–270 | Cite as

Assessing the Impact of Alternative Voting Technologies on Multi-Party Elections: Design Features, Heuristic Processing and Voter Choice

  • Gabriel Katz
  • R. Michael Alvarez
  • Ernesto Calvo
  • Marcelo Escolar
  • Julia Pomares
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper analyzes the influence of alternative voting technologies on electoral outcomes in multi-party systems. Using data from a field experiment conducted during the 2005 legislative election in Argentina, we examine the role of information effects associated with alternative voting devices on the support for the competing parties. We find that differences in the type of information displayed and how it was presented across devices favored some parties to the detriment of others. The impact of voting technologies was found to be larger than in two-party systems, and could lead to changes in election results. We conclude that authorities in countries moving to adopt new voting systems should carefully take the potential partisan advantages induced by different technologies into account when evaluating their implementation.

Keywords

Voting technology Multiparty systems Field experiments 

Supplementary material

11109_2010_9132_MOESM1_ESM.docx (622 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 622 kb)

References

  1. Alvarez, R. M., & Hall, T. E. (2008). Electronic elections: The perils and promises of digital democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez, R. M., Katz, G., & Pomares, J. S. (2009). Up to the promise? The impact of electronic voting on trust in the election process in Latin America. Working Paper 89, Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project.Google Scholar
  3. Amado, A. (2006). Argentina 2005: Repensar la comunicación política. Diálogo Político, 2, 49–77.Google Scholar
  4. Ansolabehere, S., & Stewart, C., III. (2005). Residual votes attributable to technology. Journal of Politics, 67, 365–389.Google Scholar
  5. Bartels, L. M. (1996). Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 194–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bril, T. (2007). El colapso del sistema partidario de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires. Una herencia de la crisis argentina de 2001–2002. Desarrollo Económico, 47, 367–400.Google Scholar
  7. Buenos Aires Controller’s Office, AGCBA (2006). Informe de Auditoría - Gastos de Campaña 2005. Technical Report, February 2006.Google Scholar
  8. Calvo, E., Escolar, M., & Pomares, J. S. (2009). Ballot design and split ticket voting in multiparty systems: Experimental evidence on information effects and vote choice. Electoral Studies, 28, 218–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calvo, E., & Micozzi, J. P. (2005). The governor’s backyard: A seat-vote model of electoral reform for subnational multiparty races. Journal of Politics, 67, 1050–1074.Google Scholar
  10. Card, D., & Moretti, E. (2007). Does voting technology affect election outcomes? Touch-screen voting and the 2004 presidential election. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89, 660–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. COPUB, Centro de Opinión Pública de la Universidad de Belgrano. (2005). Elecciones legislativas 2005: valoración que los ciudadanos realizan del proceso electoral. http://www.ub.edu.ar/centros_de_estudio/copub/. Accessed 8 February 2010.
  12. Coan, T. G., Merolla, J. L., Stephenson, L. B., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2008). It’s not easy being green: Minor party labels as heuristic aids. Political Psychology, 29, 389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guimarães, P., & Lindrooth, R. C. (2007). Controlling for overdispersion in grouped conditional logit models: A computationally simple application of Dirichlet-multinomial regression. Econometrics Journal, 10, 439–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herrnson, P. S., Niemi, R. G., Hanmer, M. J., Bederson, B. B., & Conrad, F. C. (2008). Voting technology: The not-so-simple act of casting a ballot. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  15. Herron, M. C., & Wand, J. N. (2007). Assessing partisan bias in voting technology: The case of the 2004 New Hampshire recount. Electoral Studies, 26, 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2007). Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis, 15, 199–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lau, R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide. Information processing during election campaigns. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lechner, M. (2001). Identification and estimation of causal effects of multiple treatments under the conditional independence assumption. In M. Lechner & F. Pfeiffer (Eds.), Econometric evaluation of labour market policies (pp. 43–58). Heidelberg: Physica.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences tell us about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Loughin, T. M., & Scherer, P. N. (1998). Testing for association in contingency tables with multiple column responses. Biometrics, 54, 630–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Management Press. (2005). Informe cuantitativo audio-visual. Elecciones 2005. http://www.managementpress.com.ar. Accessed 15 October 2008.
  22. Mebane, W. R., & Sekhon, J. S. (2004). Robust estimation and outlier detection for overdispersed multinomial models of count data. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 391–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mondak, J. J. (1993). Public opinion and heuristic processing of source cues. Political Behavior, 15, 167–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Popkin, S. L. (1991). The reasoning voter: Communication and persuasion in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Reynolds, A., & Steenbergen, M. (2006). How the world votes: The political consequences of ballot design, innovation and manipulation. Electoral Studies, 25, 570–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schaffner, B. F., & Streb, M. J. (2002). The partisan heuristic in low-information elections. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 559–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tomz, M., & Van Houweling, R. P. (2003). How does voting equipment affect the racial gap in voided ballots? American Journal of Political Science, 47, 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wolak, J. (2009). The consequences of concurrent campaigns for citizen knowledge of congressional candidates. Political Behavior, 31, 211–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriel Katz
    • 1
  • R. Michael Alvarez
    • 1
  • Ernesto Calvo
    • 2
  • Marcelo Escolar
    • 3
  • Julia Pomares
    • 4
  1. 1.California Institute of TechnologyPasadenaUSA
  2. 2.University of HoustonHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Universidad de Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  4. 4.London School of EconomicsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations