Political Behavior

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 215–235 | Cite as

Voter Confidence and the Election-Day Voting Experience

  • Ryan L. Claassen
  • David B. Magleby
  • J. Quin Monson
  • Kelly D. Patterson
Original Paper


The scholarly literature provides mixed guidance on the question of whether DREs or optical scan systems inspire greater confidence. We bring new evidence to bear on the debate using a unique exit poll and a nationally representative survey, both of which examine a wide range of voting experiences. Having detailed information about voting experiences enables us to investigate both the direct effects of DRE/optical scan voting and the indirect effects through voting experiences. Doing so reveals new information about the relationships between voting technology, voting experiences, and voter confidence. Indeed, the type of machine one uses has very different direct and indirect effects on voter confidence—a finding that may help explain scholarly disagreement over voters’ reactions to different types of voting machines.


Voting Confidence Voting machine DRE Optical scan 

Supplementary material

11109_2012_9202_MOESM1_ESM.doc (754 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 753 kb)


  1. Alvarez, R., & Hall, T. E. (2008). Electronic elections: The perils and promises of digital democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez, R. M., Hall, T. E., & Hyde, S. D. (Eds.). (2008a). Election fraud: Detecting and deterring electoral manipulation. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  3. Alvarez, R. M., Hall, T. E., & Llewellyn, M. H. (2008b). Are Americans confident their ballots are counted? Journal of Politics, 70, 754–766.Google Scholar
  4. Ansolabehere, S., & Charles Stewart, I. I. I. (2005). Residual votes attributable to technology. Journal of Politics, 67, 365–389.Google Scholar
  5. Atkeson, L. R., & Saunders, K. L. (2008). Election administration and voter confidence. In B. E. Cain, T. Donovan, & C. J. Tolbert (Eds.), Democracy in the states: Experiments in election reform. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bishop, G. F., & Fisher, B. S. (1995). Secret ballots” and self-reports in an exit-poll experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 568–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bowler, S., & Karp, J. A. (2004). Politicians, scandals, and trust in government. Political Behavior, 26, 271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brace, K. W. (2006). “Almost 55 million, or one-third of the nation’s voters, will face new voting equipment in 2006 election” election data services, Inc. Press Release. Accessed January 19, 2009 from http://www.electiondataservices.com/images/File/ve2006_nrpt.pdf.
  9. Brace, K. W. (2008). Nation sees drop in use of electronic voting equipment for 2008 election—A first. Election Data Services, Inc. Press Release. Accessed January 19, 2009 from http://www.electiondataservices.com/images/File/NR_VoteEquip_Nov-2008wAppendix2.pdf.
  10. Brady, H. E., Buchler, J., Jarvis, M., & McNulty, J. (2001). Counting all the votes: The performance of voting technology in the United States. Mimeo: Survey Research Center and Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
  11. Cain, B. E., Donovan, T., & Tolbert, C. J. (Eds.). (2008). Democracy in the states: Experiments in election reform. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  12. Carter, J., Gerald R. F., Lloyd N. C., & Robert H. M., et al. (2002). To assure pride and confidence in the electoral process: Report of the national commission on federal election reform, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  13. Citrin, Jack. (1974). Comment: The political relevance of trust in government. American Political Science, 68, 973–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Claassen, R. L., Magleby, D. B., Quin Monson, J., & Patterson, K. D. (2008). ‘At your service’: Voter evaluations of poll worker performance. American Politics Research, 36, 612–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coleman, J. J., & Manna, P. F. (2000). Congressional campaign spending and the quality of democracy. The Journal of Politics, 62, 757–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Conrad, F. G., Bederson, B. B., Lewis, B., Peytcheva, E., Traugott, M. W., Hanmer, M. J., et al. (2009). Electronic voting eliminates hanging chads but introduces new usability challenges. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 67, 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Easton, David. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Gerken, H. K. (2009). The democracy index: Why our election system is failing and how to fix it. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Grimshaw, S. D., Christensen, H. B., Magleby, D. B., & Patterson, K. D. (2004). Twenty years of the Utah Colleges exit poll: Learning by doing. Chance, 17, 32–38.Google Scholar
  21. Hall, T., Quin Monson, J., & Patterson, K. D. (2009). The human dimension of elections: How poll workers shape public confidence in elections. Political Research Quarterly, 62, 507–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hansen, J. M. (2002). Sizing the problem. In C. Jimmy, R. F. Gerald, N. C. Lloyd, & H. M. Robert et al. (Eds.), To assure pride and confidence in the electoral process: Report of the national commission on federal election reform, (pp. 121–130). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hasen, Richard. L. (2005). Beyond the margin of litigation: Reforming U.S. election administration to avoid electoral meltdown. Washington and Lee Law Review, 62, 937.Google Scholar
  24. Herrnson, P. S., Bederson, B. B., Lee, B., Francia, P. L., Sherman, R. M., Conrad, F. G., et al. (2005). Early appraisals of electronic voting. Social Science Computer Review, 23, 274–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herrnson, P. S., Niemi, R. G., Hanmer, M. J., Bederson, B. B., Conrad, F. C., & Traugott, M. W. (2008a). Voting technology: The not-so-simple act of casting a ballot. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  26. Herrnson, P. S., Niemi, R. G., Hanmer, M. J., Francia, P. L., Bederson, B. B., Conrad, F. G., et al. (2008b). Voter reactions to electronic voting systems: Results from a usability field test. American Politics Research, 36, 580–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hetherington, M. J. (2005). Why trust matters: Declining political trust and the demise of American liberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Heufner, S. F., Tokaji, D. P., Edward, B. F., & Cemenska, N. A. (2007). From registration to recounts: The election ecosystems of five midwestern states. Columbus: The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law.Google Scholar
  29. Keeter, S. (2006). The impact of cell phone noncoverage bias on polling in the 2004 presidential election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 88–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Knack, S., & Kropf, M. (2003). Voided ballots in the 1996 presidential election: A county-level analysis. Journal of Politics, 65, 881–897.Google Scholar
  31. Levi, M., & Stoker, L. (2000). Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 475–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Magleby, D. B., Quin Monson, J., Patterson, K. D., & Makin, J. R. (2005). The effects of campaign volume on public confidence in elections. New Orleans, LA: Presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  33. McClendon, M. J. (2002). Multiple regression and causal analysis. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  34. Merkle, D. M., & Murray E. (2000). A review of the 1996 voter new service exit polls from a total survey error perspective. In J. L. Paul, & W. T. Michael (Eds.), Election polls, the news media and democracy. New York: Chatam House.Google Scholar
  35. Miller, A. (1974). Political issues and trust in government: 1964–1970. American Political Science Review, 68, 951–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miller, J., & Krosnick, J. (1998). The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 291–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nichols, S. M., & Strizek, G. A. (1995). Electronic voting machines and ballot roll-off. American Politics Quarterly, 23, 300–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nye, J. S., Philip D. Z., & David C. K. (Eds.). (1997). Why people don’t trust government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Price, V., & Romantan, A. (2004). Confidence in institutions before, during, and after ‘indecision 2000. Journal of Politics, 66, 939–956.Google Scholar
  40. Shocket, P. A., Heighberger, N. R., & Brown, C. (1992). The effect of voting technology on voting behavior in a simulated multi-candidate city council election: A Political Experiment of ballot transparency. Western Political Quarterly, 45, 521–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stewart, C. (2011, April 16–17). What hath HAVA wrought? Consequences, intended and not, of the Post-Bush v. Gore Reforms. Paper presented at the conference of “Bush v Gore, 10 years later: Election Administration in the United States,” Center for the Study of Democracy, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
  42. Tomz, M., & Van Houweling, P. R. (2003). How does voting equipment affect the racial gap in voided ballots? American Journal of Political Science, 47, 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan L. Claassen
    • 1
  • David B. Magleby
    • 2
  • J. Quin Monson
    • 3
  • Kelly D. Patterson
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceKent State UniversityKentUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Political ScienceBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA

Personalised recommendations