IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v83y2002i4p981-993.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

One Person—No Vote; One Vote; Two Votes: Voting Methods, Ballot Types, and Undervote Frequency in the 2000 Presidential Election

Author

Listed:
  • Charles S. Bullock, III
  • M. V. Hood, III

Abstract

Objectives. Political science long ignored the actual mechanics of voting—until the 2000 presidential contest. This research note offers a systematic empirical inquiry into the potential effects of various voting methods and electorate–specific variables on the rate at which citizens register a preference via the act of voting. Methods. Voting methods were analyzed in relation to the rate of undervotes recorded in Georgia’s 159 counties during the 2000 general election using a set of multivariate models. Results. Lever machines and fill in the oval optical scan ballots are associated with lower rates of undervoting. Counties with large numbers of new registrants, lower education levels, and a higher proportion of African–American voters were found to have higher error rates. Conclusions. The results of this study provide strong evidence that voting methods and ballot types, as well as electorate–specific characteristics, are key factors in determining the error rate associated with the process of voting at the county level.

Suggested Citation

  • Charles S. Bullock, III & M. V. Hood, III, 2002. "One Person—No Vote; One Vote; Two Votes: Voting Methods, Ballot Types, and Undervote Frequency in the 2000 Presidential Election," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 83(4), pages 981-993, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:83:y:2002:i:4:p:981-993
    DOI: 10.1111/1540-6237.00127
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.00127
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1540-6237.00127?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:83:y:2002:i:4:p:981-993. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.