IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v101y2020i5p1789-1809.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Distance Matter? Evaluating the Impact of Drop Boxes on Voter Turnout

Author

Listed:
  • William McGuire
  • Benjamin Gonzalez O'Brien
  • Katherine Baird
  • Benjamin Corbett
  • Loren Collingwood

Abstract

Objective This article examines the impact that reducing the distance to a voter's nearest ballot drop box has on turnout. Methods The placement of five new ballot drop boxes was randomized among six potential sites identified based on similar criteria. The randomization of the five boxes across the six sites created natural Treatment (those sites that received a new box) and Placebo (the site that did not receive a new box) groups. We then employed a difference‐in‐difference design to determine whether voters in the Treatment group were more likely to vote in the 2017 general election compared to those in the Placebo group. Results We find that a decrease of one mile to the nearest drop box increased the probability of voting by 0.64 percent. Conclusion Our finding indicates that drop boxes have a positive effect on voter turnout and that decreasing the distance to these boxes can lead to an increased likelihood of voting.

Suggested Citation

  • William McGuire & Benjamin Gonzalez O'Brien & Katherine Baird & Benjamin Corbett & Loren Collingwood, 2020. "Does Distance Matter? Evaluating the Impact of Drop Boxes on Voter Turnout," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1789-1809, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:101:y:2020:i:5:p:1789-1809
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12853
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12853
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.12853?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul S. Martin, 2003. "Voting's Rewards: Voter Turnout, Attentive Publics, and Congressional Allocation of Federal Money," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(1), pages 110-127, January.
    2. Kousser, Thad & Mullin, Megan, 2007. "Does Voting by Mail Increase Participation? Using Matching to Analyze a Natural Experiment," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(4), pages 428-445.
    3. Brady, Henry E. & Mcnulty, John E., 2011. "Turning Out to Vote: The Costs of Finding and Getting to the Polling Place," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(1), pages 115-134, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sara M. Constantino & Alicia D. Cooperman & Thiago M. Q. Moreira, 2021. "Voting in a global pandemic: Assessing dueling influences of Covid‐19 on turnout," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(5), pages 2210-2235, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mariella Gonzales & Gianmarco León-Ciliotta & Luis R. Martínez, 2022. "How Effective Are Monetary Incentives to Vote? Evidence from a Nationwide Policy," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 293-326, January.
    2. León, Gianmarco, 2017. "Turnout, political preferences and information: Experimental evidence from Peru," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 56-71.
    3. Ramírez-Álvarez, Aurora Alejandra, 2019. "Land titling and its effect on the allocation of public goods: Evidence from Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 1-1.
    4. Matthias Dahm & Robert Dur & Amihai Glazer, 2009. "Lobbying of Firms by Voters," Working Papers 080926, University of California-Irvine, Department of Economics.
    5. Andersen, Jørgen Juel & Fiva, Jon H. & Natvik, Gisle James, 2014. "Voting when the stakes are high," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 157-166.
    6. Elizabeth U. Cascio, 2014. "Valuing the Vote: The Redistribution of Voting Rights and State Funds following the Voting Rights Act of 1965," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 129(1), pages 379-433.
    7. Sean Richey, 2008. "Voting by Mail: Turnout and Institutional Reform in Oregon," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(4), pages 902-915, December.
    8. Paul Hufe & Andreas Peichl, 2020. "Beyond Equal Rights: Equality of Opportunity in Political Participation," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 66(3), pages 477-511, September.
    9. Kovenock, Dan & Roberson, Brian, 2011. "Non-partisan ‘get-out-the-vote’ efforts and policy outcomes," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 728-739.
    10. Roland Hodler & Simon Luechinger & Alois Stutzer, 2015. "The Effects of Voting Costs on the Democratic Process and Public Finances," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 7(1), pages 141-171, February.
    11. Jennifer Oser & Jan E. Leighley & Kenneth M. Winneg, 2014. "Participation, Online and Otherwise: What's the Difference for Policy Preferences?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1259-1277, December.
    12. Alan S. Gerber & Gregory A. Huber & David Doherty & Conor M. Dowling & Seth J. Hill, 2011. "Do Perceptions of Ballot Secrecy Influence Turnout? Results from a Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 17673, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Gérard P. Cachon & Dawson Kaaua, 2022. "Serving Democracy: Evidence of Voting Resource Disparity in Florida," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(9), pages 6687-6696, September.
    14. Seo‐Young Silvia Kim & Akhil Bandreddi & R. Michael Alvarez, 2024. "Partisanship is why people vote in person in a pandemic," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1042-1060, July.
    15. De Benedetto, Marco Alberto & De Paola, Maria, 2019. "Term limit extension and electoral participation. Evidence from a diff-in-discontinuities design at the local level in Italy," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 196-211.
    16. Hoffman, Mitchell & León, Gianmarco & Lombardi, María, 2017. "Compulsory voting, turnout, and government spending: Evidence from Austria," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 103-115.
    17. Rebecca L. Brown & Lee Epstein & Michael J. Nelson, 2023. "In Electoral Disputes, State Justices Are Less Reliable GOP Allies than the U.S. Supreme Court—That’s the “Problem†the Independent State Legislature Claim Hopes to Solve," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 708(1), pages 208-226, July.
    18. J. Andrew Harris & Catherine Kamindo & Peter van der Windt, 2020. "Electoral Administration in Fledgling Democracies:Experimental Evidence from Kenya," Working Papers 20200036, New York University Abu Dhabi, Department of Social Science, revised Jan 2020.
    19. Jamila Michener, 2022. "Race, power, and policy: understanding state anti-eviction policies during COVID-19 [Pandemic politics: Timing state-level social distancing responses to COVID-19]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(2), pages 231-246.
    20. Garance Genicot & Laurent Bouton & Micael Castanheira, 2021. "Electoral Systems and Inequalities in Government Interventions [“Distributive Politics and Electoral Incentives: Evidence from Seven US State Legislatures.”]," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 19(6), pages 3154-3206.

    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:101:y:2020:i:5:p:1789-1809. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.