• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

2020 年鼓励邮寄投票的实地试验结果。

Results from a 2020 field experiment encouraging voting by mail.

机构信息

Department of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104;

Department of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104.

出版信息

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Jan 26;118(4). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2021022118.

DOI:10.1073/pnas.2021022118
PMID:33468656
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7848624/
Abstract

The ability to cast a mail ballot can safeguard the franchise. However, because there are often additional procedural protections to ensure that a ballot cast in person counts, voting by mail can also jeopardize people's ability to cast a recorded vote. An experiment carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic illustrates both forces. Philadelphia officials randomly sent 46,960 Philadelphia registrants postcards encouraging them to apply to vote by mail in the lead-up to the June 2020 primary election. While the intervention increased the likelihood a registrant cast a mail ballot by 0.4 percentage points ( = 0.017)-or 3%-many of these additional mail ballots counted only because a last-minute policy intervention allowed most mail ballots postmarked by Election Day to count.

摘要

邮寄选票的能力可以保障投票权。然而,由于通常有额外的程序保护措施来确保亲自投票的选票有效,邮寄投票也可能危及人们记录投票的能力。在 COVID-19 大流行期间进行的一项实验说明了这两种力量。费城官员在 2020 年 6 月初选之前随机向 46960 名费城登记选民发送明信片,鼓励他们申请邮寄投票。虽然干预措施使登记选民邮寄投票的可能性增加了 0.4 个百分点(=0.017)-或 3%-但许多这些额外的邮寄选票仅因为最后一刻的政策干预而被计入,该政策允许大多数在选举日邮戳的邮寄选票有效。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b753/7848624/37e79eb8e140/pnas.2021022118fig02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b753/7848624/0d107048ea6a/pnas.2021022118fig01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b753/7848624/37e79eb8e140/pnas.2021022118fig02.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b753/7848624/0d107048ea6a/pnas.2021022118fig01.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/b753/7848624/37e79eb8e140/pnas.2021022118fig02.jpg

相似文献

1
Results from a 2020 field experiment encouraging voting by mail.2020 年鼓励邮寄投票的实地试验结果。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Jan 26;118(4). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2021022118.
2
Emergency Mail-in Voting in Rhode Island: Protecting Civic Participation During COVID-19 and Beyond.罗德岛州的紧急邮寄投票:在新冠疫情期间及之后保护公民参与度
R I Med J (2013). 2020 Oct 1;103(8):14-17.
3
Emergency Absentee Voting for Hospitalized Patients and Voting During COVID-19: A 50-State Study.紧急情况下为住院患者提供缺席投票和在 COVID-19 期间投票:一项 50 个州的研究。
West J Emerg Med. 2021 Jul 15;22(4):1000-1009. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2021.4.50884.
4
America's electorate is increasingly polarized along partisan lines about voting by mail during the COVID-19 crisis.在美国 COVID-19 危机期间,通过邮件投票的问题上,美国选民越来越两极分化,党派立场鲜明。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Oct 6;117(40):24640-24642. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2008023117. Epub 2020 Sep 22.
5
Should I vote-by-mail or in person? The impact of COVID-19 risk factors and partisanship on vote mode decisions in the 2020 presidential election.我应该通过邮件投票还是亲自投票?COVID-19 风险因素和党派立场对 2020 年总统选举投票模式决策的影响。
PLoS One. 2022 Sep 15;17(9):e0274357. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274357. eCollection 2022.
6
Universal vote-by-mail has no impact on partisan turnout or vote share.普遍的邮寄选票对党派投票率或选票份额没有影响。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Jun 23;117(25):14052-14056. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2007249117. Epub 2020 Jun 9.
7
[Convenient, but Prone to Error: Invisible Uncounted Mail Ballots].[方便但容易出错:无形的未计票邮寄选票]
Polit Vierteljahresschr. 2021;62(4):597-619. doi: 10.1007/s11615-021-00358-3. Epub 2021 Nov 5.
8
Evaluating mail-based security for electoral processes using attack trees.使用攻击树评估基于邮件的选举过程的安全性。
Risk Anal. 2022 Oct;42(10):2327-2343. doi: 10.1111/risa.13876. Epub 2022 Jan 24.
9
Emergency Patient Voting Initiative in a Community Hospital During a Global Pandemic:: Lessons and a Call-to-Action for Expanded Voter Access.全球大流行期间社区医院的急诊患者投票倡议:扩大选民投票机会的经验教训与行动呼吁
Dela J Public Health. 2021 Jan 21;7(1):76-77. doi: 10.32481/djph.2021.01.015. eCollection 2021 Jan.
10
The voting experience and beliefs about ballot secrecy.投票体验和对选票保密性的看法。
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 7;14(1):e0209765. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209765. eCollection 2019.

引用本文的文献

1
Did private election administration funding advantage Democrats in 2020?2020 年,私人选举管理资金是否使民主党受益?
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024 May 28;121(22):e2317563121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2317563121. Epub 2024 May 21.
2
Organizational Identity and Positionality in Randomized Control Trials: Considerations and Advice for Collaborative Research Teams.随机对照试验中的组织认同与定位:协作研究团队的考量与建议
PS Polit Sci Polit. 2022 Oct;55(4):749-753. doi: 10.1017/S1049096522000026. Epub 2022 May 27.
3
A systems framework for remedying dysfunction in US democracy.

本文引用的文献

1
America's electorate is increasingly polarized along partisan lines about voting by mail during the COVID-19 crisis.在美国 COVID-19 危机期间,通过邮件投票的问题上,美国选民越来越两极分化,党派立场鲜明。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Oct 6;117(40):24640-24642. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2008023117. Epub 2020 Sep 22.
2
Universal vote-by-mail has no impact on partisan turnout or vote share.普遍的邮寄选票对党派投票率或选票份额没有影响。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Jun 23;117(25):14052-14056. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2007249117. Epub 2020 Jun 9.
美国民主功能障碍的系统修复框架。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Dec 14;118(50). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2102154118.