IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v57y2013i3p537-551.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Perceptions of Ballot Secrecy Influence Turnout? Results from a Field Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Alan S. Gerber
  • Gregory A. Huber
  • David Doherty
  • Conor M. Dowling
  • Seth J. Hill

Abstract

Although the secret ballot has been secured as a legal matter in the United States, formal secrecy protections are not equivalent to convincing citizens that they may vote privately and without fear of reprisal. We present survey evidence that those who have not previously voted are particularly likely to voice doubts about the secrecy of the voting process. We then report results from a field experiment where we mailed information about protections of ballot secrecy to registered voters prior to the 2010 general election. Consistent with our survey data, we find that these letters increased turnout for registered citizens without records of previous turnout, but they did not appear to influence the behavior of citizens who had previously voted. The increase in turnout of more than three percentage points (20%) for those without previous records of voting is notably larger than the effect of a standard get‐out‐the‐vote mailing for this group. Overall, these results suggest that although the secret ballot is a long‐standing institution in the United States, beliefs about this institution may not match the legal reality.

Suggested Citation

  • Alan S. Gerber & Gregory A. Huber & David Doherty & Conor M. Dowling & Seth J. Hill, 2013. "Do Perceptions of Ballot Secrecy Influence Turnout? Results from a Field Experiment," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(3), pages 537-551, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:57:y:2013:i:3:p:537-551
    DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12019
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajps.12019?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Casas, Agustin, 2020. "The electoral benefits of unemployment, clientelism and distributive politics," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    2. Conor M Dowling & David Doherty & Seth J Hill & Alan S Gerber & Gregory A Huber, 2019. "The voting experience and beliefs about ballot secrecy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, January.
    3. Enrico Cantoni & Vincent Pons, 2021. "Strict Id Laws Don’t Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel, 2008–2018," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(4), pages 2615-2660.
    4. Alan S Gerber & Gregory A Huber & Albert H Fang & Catlan E Reardon, 2017. "The effect on turnout of campaign mobilization messages addressing ballot secrecy concerns: A replication experiment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-7, August.
    5. Deniz Guvercin, 2019. "Going to the Polls or Feeding Children? An Empirical Investigation of Voter Turnout among Turkish Women with Children at Home," Bogazici Journal, Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies, Bogazici University, Department of Economics, vol. 33(1), pages 1-16.

    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:wly:amposc:v:57:y:2013:i:3:p:537-551. 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: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    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.