Politics Department, Princeton university, 041 Corwin Hall, Princeton, NJ, 08544, USA.
Public Opin Q. 2001 Summer;65(2):178-97. doi: 10.1086/322196.
Election administrators and public officials often consider changes in electoral laws, hoping that these changes will increase voter turnout and make the electorate more reflective of the voting-age population. The most recent of these innovations is voting-by-mail (VBM), a procedure by which ballots are sent to an address for every registered voter. Over the last 2 decades, VBM has spread across the United States, unaccompanied by much empirical evaluation of its impact on either voter turnout or the stratification of the electorate. In this study, we fill this gap in our knowledge by assessing the impact of VBM in one state, Oregon. We carry out this assessment at the individual level, using data over a range of elections. We argue that VBM does increase voter turnout in the long run, primarily by making it easier for current voters to continue to participate, rather than by mobilizing nonvoters into the electorate. These effects, however, are not uniform across all groups in the electorate. Although VBM in Oregon does not exert any influence on the partisan composition of the electorate, VBM increases, rather than diminishes, the resource stratification of the electorate. Contrary to the expectations of many reformers, VBM advantages the resource-rich by keeping them in the electorate, and VBM does little to change the behavior of the resource-poor. In short, VBM increases turnout, but it does so without making the electorate more descriptively representative of the voting-age population.
选举管理人员和公职人员经常考虑修改选举法,希望这些修改能够提高投票率,并使选民更能反映出符合投票年龄的人口。最近的创新之一是邮寄投票(VBM),即通过向每个注册选民的地址发送选票来进行投票。在过去的 20 年里,VBM 已经在美国各地普及,而对其对投票率或选民分层的影响几乎没有进行实证评估。在这项研究中,我们通过评估一个州(俄勒冈州)的 VBM 影响来填补我们知识中的这一空白。我们在个人层面上进行了这项评估,使用了一系列选举的数据。我们认为,VBM 从长远来看确实会提高投票率,主要是因为它使现有选民更容易继续参与投票,而不是通过动员非选民进入选民群体。然而,这些影响并非在选民中的所有群体中都是一致的。尽管俄勒冈州的 VBM 对选民的党派构成没有任何影响,但它确实增加了选民群体的资源分层,而不是减少了这种分层。与许多改革者的预期相反,VBM 通过让资源丰富的选民留在选民群体中,从而使资源丰富的选民受益,而对资源匮乏的选民的行为几乎没有改变。简而言之,VBM 提高了投票率,但并没有使选民更能描述性地代表符合投票年龄的人口。