This work was supported in part by National Science Foundation grants EAI-0201634, IIS-0306698, and Carnegie Corporation of New York grant D05008. We would like to thank Benjamin B. Bederson, Frederick G. Conrad, and Michael W. Traugott for their collaboration on the larger project. We would also like to thank the voting system vendors, the participants in our study, the staff and undergraduate and graduate research assistants at the Center for American Politics and Citizenship of the University of Maryland, and numerous undergraduate and graduate research assistants at the University of Maryland, University of Rochester, and University of Michigan. For helpful comments we wish to thank Daniel Biggers, Ozan Kalkan, Irwin Morris, and participants in the University of Maryland American Politics Workshop, and the Rooney Center Visiting Scholar Speaker Series at the University of Notre Dame. We also wish to thank the five anonymous reviewers and the Editor for their close reading of the article and thoughtful suggestions and guidance. All errors are our own. The data used in this study can be found at http://www.capc.umd.edu/research/data_archive/Impact_of_Ballots_on_Voter_Errors_AJPS.html.
The Impact of Ballot Type on Voter Errors
Article first published online: 21 FEB 2012
© 2012, Midwest Political Science Association
American Journal of Political Science
Volume 56, Issue 3, pages 716–730, July 2012
How to Cite
Herrnson, P. S., Hanmer, M. J. and Niemi, R. G. (2012), The Impact of Ballot Type on Voter Errors. American Journal of Political Science, 56: 716–730. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00579.x
- Issue published online: 16 JUL 2012
- Article first published online: 21 FEB 2012
Online Appendix Figure 1 shows the voter information guides for the standard office-bloc ballot and for the office-bloc ballot with straight-party option.
Online Appendix Figures 2 and 3 show portions of the standard office-bloc ballot and the office-bloc ballot with straight-party option (in their paper ballot versions).
Online Appendix Pictures 1a and 1b show the ES&S Model 100 optical scanner without a ballot and with a ballot being scanned, respectively.
Online Appendix Pictures 2a and 2b show the Diebold AccuVote-TS opening screen and ballot with votes cast, respectively.
Online Appendix Table 1a presents the background characteristics of the study participants across the three locations.
Online Appendix Table 1b presents the background characteristics of the study participants as well as their characteristics, for each voting system, before and after the matching process.
Online Appendix Table 2 presents the coding of the variables.
Online Appendix Tables 36 present the statistical estimates used to generate Figures 1 and 2 in the text.
|AJPS_579_sm_suppmat.doc||863K||Supporting info item|
Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.