Debunking the “Big Lie”: Election Administration in the 2020 Presidential Election

Author(s):  
David T. Canon ◽  
Owen Sherman
2018 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 854-868 ◽  
Author(s):  
Betsy Sinclair ◽  
Steven S. Smith ◽  
Patrick D. Tucker

The 2016 presidential election provided a unique opportunity to revisit two competing hypotheses for how voters establish their perceptions of electoral integrity. First, mass public opinion is believed to derive from elite messages. In the 2016 presidential campaign, candidate Donald Trump maintained that the election system was “rigged,” while election administration experts and officials received considerable media coverage in their efforts to counter Trump’s claims. Second, literature on voter confidence has established a “winner effect”—voters who cast ballots for winners are more likely than voters on the losing side to believe their vote was counted correctly. Thus, voters were exposed to two theoretically opposite effects. In this paper, we find that the “winner” effect mitigates the effects from strong pre-election cues from elites. We also show the effect of pre-election attention to the rigging issue, find a symmetry of the election outcome effect for winners and losers, and reconsider our explanations of the winner effect. Finally, we go beyond the existing studies of the winner effect to consider the kind of citizens who are most susceptible to that effect.


2019 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-78
Author(s):  
Thessalia Merivaki ◽  
Daniel A. Smith

Provisional ballots constitute a failsafe for voters who have their registration or voter identification questioned by poll workers. Scholars have yet to examine who is more likely to cast a provisional ballot, and more importantly, why some provisional ballots are rejected. We suggest that beyond individual-level factors, there are administrative reasons why some prospective voters are more likely to be required to cast provisional ballots than others, and why some provisional ballots are rejected. Drawing on county data collected by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission’s (EAC) biennial Election Administration and Voting Surveys (EAVS) from 2012 to 2016, and individual records of provisional ballots cast in the 2016 Presidential Election in North Carolina, we examine aggregate- and individual-level reasons to explain who casts provisional ballots and why some are rejected. Our findings raise normative questions concerning whether voters casting provisional ballots are treated equally under the law.


2020 ◽  
pp. 69-90
Author(s):  
Michael Ritter

Inequality in who votes matters. People with lower incomes are significantly less likely to participate in elections, creating a class bias in the electorate. Even if overall voter participation improves, can accessible elections shrink turnout inequality between higher and lower socio-economic class citizens? Chapter 5 empirically evaluates whether the voting laws and election administration lead to an increased probability of poor individuals (proxied as those at or below the federal poverty line) voting when comparing 2010 to 2014 midterm election turnout, and 2008 to 2012 presidential election turnout. The results show that no-excuse absentee/mail voting (in midterm elections) and same day registration (in both presidential and midterm elections) increases voter turnout among the economically disadvantaged. Better election administration also leads to improved outcomes for lower socio-economic citizens.


Author(s):  
Richard Johnston ◽  
Michael G. Hagen ◽  
Kathleen Hall Jamieson

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document