What makes Americans trust the electoral process? How can Democracy Fund work to build trust? We spend a lot of time thinking about these issues, since trust in elections and institutions more broadly are essential to healthy democracy. In order to inform our work on trust and election administration, we partnered with Reed College and the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study.*
Our survey of 1,000 Americans turned up two important results in the ‘trust’ framework. First, confidence in vote-counting depends in part on who wins or loses. At the same time, competent poll workers may help bolster voters’ trust in elections.
One way to measure trust in elections is to ask respondents about “voter confidence” – a measure of whether people feel confident that their own ballots were (or will be) counted as intended. (You can read about other measures here.) In order to help us find correlates of change, we asked about voter confidence both pre- and post-election.
Winner’s and loser’s effects
The table below reveals clear evidence of what political scientists call the winner’s effect. As far as we know, this is a psychological boost from seeing a preferred candidate win. Going into the election, only 65.9 percent of Trump supporters were “very” or “somewhat confident” that their votes would be counted as intended. Post-election, that changed to 93.2 percent — an increase of 27 points.
Other studies point to a loser’s effect. We did not find much of one in 2016. 86.3 percent of Clinton voters reported being “very” or “somewhat confident” after the election, a decline of only four points.
The importance of competent poll workers
We also found that people who rated their poll workers highly tended to express higher confidence. For example, 62 percent of respondents rated their poll workers as “excellent,” and 63.4 percent of those people were “very confident” in the counting of their votes.
Going a step further, we used logistic regression to test the relationship between the polling-place experience and change in one’s voter confidence. This analysis also accounted for age, race, gender, education, income, and vote choice.
On average, respondents who said their poll workers did an “excellent job” were less likely to report lower confidence post-election than those who said “poor job” – 4.5 times less likely among Trump voters and 2.5 times less likely for Clinton voters.
What made people rate poll workers highly? One factor stood out in our data: a perception that poll workers “knew the proper procedures.” 60.7 percent of respondents who reported that perception also said they were “very confident” that their votes had been counted as intended. This relationship held in a logistic regression controlling for age, race, gender, education, income, vote choice, and a raft of other potential reasons for rating poll workers highly (e.g., politeness, tending to voters waiting in line, et cetera).
Given the prevalence in 2016 of rhetoric about “hacking” and “rigging” —as well as other, more specific worries across partisan and racial groups—we were pleased to find that competent poll workers likely boost trust.
Based on analysis captured in our Elections & Public Trust systems map, Democracy Fund supports several organizations working on ways to raise the quality of election administration and improve the voter experience at polling places. The Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project, for example, offers a set of tools that election officials can use to reduce voter wait times and efficiently allocate polling-place resources. Other good examples come from the Center for Civic Design, which provides election officials with field guides that, among other things, include instructions on providing clear materials for poll worker training and making in-person voting a pleasant experience.
We hope these data and the good work being done by these and other grantees spark a larger conversation about the importance of recruiting and training poll workers. Americans rely on poll workers to understand and help voters navigate election processes. To further promote trust in elections, election officials and advocates can and should continue to support poll workers’ success.
This is the second in a series of blog posts that showcase our findings from the CCES, and we look forward to sharing more in the coming months. This post was first published in November 2017, and was updated in February 2018.
✩✩✩
* YouGov administers the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), which includes Common Content and invites participation from up to 50 academic teams. The Reed/Democracy Fund pre-election survey was administered to 1,000 respondents, and our post-election data includes answers from 845 respondents. More information about the CCES and its methodology is available at the Harvard Dataverse, found at: https://cces.gov.harvard.edu/data.
Paul Gronke is the Principal Investigator of the Reed College/Democracy Fund team module. Natalie Adona is the Research Associate for the Democracy Fund’s Elections Program and manages the roll-out of these findings, with support from Jack Santucci, the Elections Research Fellow. Please direct any questions about these survey findings to nadona@democracyfund.org.
Democracy Fund is proud to announce a new grant to the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT). With demonstrated expertise in data privacy and a deep understanding of the unique challenges of election administration, CDT is positioned to be critical bridge builder to help experts and policymakers better communicate, collaborate, and respond to threats to our election system.
Before I describe CDT’s voter registration and campaign data cybersecurity project, I’d like to offer a small window into our thinking about the importance of this line of work and how it supports Democracy Fund’s strategic priorities.
Voter Registration & the Increasing Challenges for Data Security
Increasing access to the Internet, the growing civic tech community, and improved technologies have paved a path for states to modernize voter registration systems. These modernization policies are appealing to many legislators and election experts who view them as a step toward cost-efficiency and an improved voter experience. For the last 15 years, states have been modernizing voter registration systems by offering online voter registration to citizens, facilitating collaboration between election officials and government offices covered under the National Voter Registration Act, and joining state-driven efforts like ERIC to keep voter rolls clean and identify eligible voters. As our systems map shows, these changes to registration systems help make voter lists more accurate, which leads to better election planning, and fewer problems experienced or perceived by voters on Election Day.
From an administrative perspective, modernizing voter registration improves the voter experience by allowing the voter to type in his or her own information into a database and streamlines the transfer of registration data between government agencies and elections departments. Registration data also helps political campaigns better understand the electorate and strategically reach out to potential voters. As these modernization policies are implemented in the states, election officials and other managers of election data have the enormous responsibility of maintaining these digital systems and protecting them from cyber-attacks—all while operating on limited budgets, preserving voting rights, and protecting individual privacy.
Election Integrity, Trust, and the 2016 Election
The tone and tenor of the 2016 presidential campaign raised our concerns about public trust in elections. While it is not unusual for the public to be concerned about possible voting fraud, the allegations from both presidential candidates that the election system was “rigged” or “hacked” in favor of a particular candidate or outcome felt atypical and worrisome. Irresponsible campaign rhetoric may have created (or reinforced pre-existing) misconceptions about the way elections are run. After the election was over and as fears about foreign interference in our elections were mounting, matters were further complicated by the NSA’s apparent documented evidence that the Russian government attempted to infiltrate voter registration systems in several states.
Calling into question the legitimacy of the election outcome without evidence of actual wrongdoing is harmful to the public’s faith in government and undermines our democracy. To reiterate: public concerns about election integrity are not unique to this past election cycle. However, public misconceptions about the way elections work and the real threats of foreign interference make the cybersecurity risks faced by campaigns and election officials even more significant. We must work toward sustainable solutions that give election officials and others the tools needed to protect the voices and votes of the American electorate.
Though difficult, it is not impossible to allay the public’s concerns. The increasing use of technology in election management makes the system more complex than ever before. It requires listeners to understand very technical administrative processes and makes it difficult for the news media to report about. However, election officials play a key role in shaping the public’s understanding of election process, and voters are very likely to listen. For these reasons, it is vital for stakeholders to balance the need to be responsive to public concerns with the needs of under-resourced election departments that could benefit from doable, sustainable best practice recommendations from the cybersecurity and civic tech communities.
Why We Invested
At Democracy Fund, we believe that every eligible American should have an equal opportunity to vote in elections that are free, fair, accessible, and secure. A healthy democracy requires election administrators and other government officials provide voters with confidence in the integrity of election outcomes and assurance that they have a voice in our democracy. Data-driven policies and new technologies can help reduce barriers to voting and improve the efficiency and security of our election system.
Based on analysis captured in our Election Administration & Voting System map, Democracy Fund invests in organizations and projects that are focused on expanding modern and secure voter registration systems; supporting voter-centric practices and tools in election administration to improve the voter experience; and fostering the public’s trust in elections by supporting a system that’s worthy of their trust.
We invested in the Center for Democracy and Technology because technology experts and election professionals need a reliable and trusted cybersecurity resource. With our support, CDT will:
Conduct a 2-year research effort to identify opportunities and challenges with cybersecurity in state election offices and national political campaigns;
Generate a set of best practices for election officials and the public; and
Distribute “campaign data hygiene” recommendations for all political parties.
Convene experts and stakeholders to learn from each other and co-create solutions to election security challenges.
You can learn more about these efforts in CDT’s press release announcing our grant and the project.
Political professionals should be able to keep discussions about campaign strategy internal; election officials should have the tools necessary to combat any type of outside interference; and voters should feel confident that our elections result in legitimate outcomes. We believe Joe Lorenzo Hall and the CDT team will fortify the field with research that deepens our shared understanding, create opportunities for learning and collaboration, and equip election officials and the managers of voter data with the solutions they need to protect voters and encourage participation in future elections.
In 2016, the Democracy Fund participated in the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) in partnership with Reed College. (1) Through this partnership, we sought to gain a better understanding of public opinion about election administration and voting, use the data to inform Democracy Fund’s strategic priorities, and add to the growing body of knowledge in election policy. The Reed/Democracy Fund module, which was administered pre- and post-election, includes several questions, grouped in the following categories:
Voting behavior and the voter experience;
Election administration;
Election integrity, fairness, and trust; and
Policy preferences.
As National Voter Registration Day approaches, I’d like to offer a preview and some initial thoughts about our findings—specifically, those covering certain aspects of the registration process. As I explain below, our findings suggest that voters need ongoing education to understand key aspects of the voter registration process. The data also suggest that election officials are well positioned to provide clear, easy-to-understand information about registration and to continue educating the public about the availability and benefits of online voter registration.
Public perceptions of the voter registration process
States have a long history of requiring registration before a person may vote. However, voters and potential voters might not be completely familiar with, and may even be confused by, certain aspects of the process. Missing the state registration deadline or experiencing a significant life change like a marriage or a move without updating registration can lead to a person being unable to cast a valid ballot.
In our survey, we asked participants about some key aspects of the registration process so that we could better understand and then address potential gaps in voter education. Because it’s available in 35 states and DC, and is a relatively recent change in election policy, we included questions about respondent’s knowledge and use of online voter registration (OVR). (2) We also wanted to know whether people understand when to update their registration and how respondents find out about voter registration deadlines.
1) Knowledge and use of OVR
When asked about whether their states offer OVR, about 51 percent of respondents did not know. Over 17 percent answered incorrectly; of those respondents, 56 percent believed that their state did not offer OVR, and 44 percent believed that the state does offer it. (3) Of the third of respondents who provided the correct answer and had access to OVR, over 60 percent of them had not registered or updated their registration using the state’s online system.
At first glance, these data may be discouraging and reflect the need for stronger efforts to educate voters about the availability and benefits of OVR. There are, however, some caveats to these results that prompt the need for further study:
Many respondents were already registered. Almost 86 percent of CCES respondents answered that they were registered to vote. Though questions of this type are sometimes susceptible to social desirability bias, we assume that CCES respondents answered truthfully, and might not have had the need to use OVR at the time they completed the survey. So, while we encourage states to offer OVR to their citizens, some groups of voters may not use it for several years.
Some respondents prefer the paper form. While 49 percent of respondents answered that they would prefer to use OVR, 35 percent indicated that they preferred a paper form. It is unclear whether those answers reflect a lack of trust in using OVR or were motivated by some other reasons. However, these data make it clear that states should not completely phase out paper—at least, not while a significant number of people prefer paper or lack access to the Internet.
Some respondents may have been registered at DMV. Even though the CCES does not ask about the manner in which respondents registered to vote, we assume that some may have registered through their state department of motor vehicles (DMV). Data from the United States Election Assistance Commission shows that, between 2014 and 2016, election officials received 33 percent of registrations from DMVs, which is the largest single source of registration applications compared to in person (12 percent), by mail (17 percent), online (17 percent), and other sources (15 percent).
2) Updating registration upon moving
Most respondents knew that they need to register or update their registration after a move; however, a significant percentage of people did not. To challenge our respondents on the basics of registration, we presented them with various scenarios that may trigger registration updates, e.g., moves across town, other counties, or other states.
There were varied responses to our scenarios about moving. While most of our respondents understood that a move to another state requires them to change registration, 46 percent of respondents either did not know or said “no” when asked if an across-town move triggers this need. Nearly 30 percent of respondents answered incorrectly when asked about an out-of-county move, and about 23 percent erroneously thought that they did not need to re-register after an out-of-state move.
We do not yet know what role the DMV might play in shaping the public’s understanding of the registration process, and whether DMV interactions may explain the difference in these responses, if at all. Given the large percentage of people who register through DMVs, we look forward to using these CCES findings as a jumping off point for future analysis.
3) Finding voter registration deadlines
When asked about the top three resources that they turn to for voter registration deadlines, about 70 percent of our respondents said that they rely on their county election website; about as many rely on their state’s election website for the same information. Over 60 percent of respondents also use search engines like Google to look up voter registration deadlines—and very likely receive reliable information from the states, thanks to our friends at the Voting Information Project.
In contrast, relatively fewer respondents get information from other sources such as campaigns or friends and family. There may be a chance that some respondents chose these government websites as socially acceptable alternatives to admitting that they rely on other sources for registration information. But if it’s true that voters prefer the county or state website, then election officials have significant influence over how people understand voter registration requirements.
The need for voter education
From this snapshot of our findings, the need for information about key aspects of voter registration is clear. The good news is, state and local election administrators are well positioned to educate voters about these aspects of the voter registration process and to communicate the availability and benefits of OVR. As the data indicates, voters pay attention to information from state and local election officials and would benefit from existing voter outreach and educational services.
However, simply building a website and expecting people to use it is not enough—ongoing voter education is needed to keep voters up to speed with voter registration processes and deadlines. Fortunately, election officials are not alone in this effort. Events like National Voter Registration Day are a wonderful opportunity for election officials, advocates, and community-based groups to engage with voters and potential voters, offer up-to-date information about the registration process, and provide the tools and resources that voters need to complete their registration forms and keep them updated—and well in advance of the next election.
This is the first in a series of blog posts that showcase our findings from the CCES. We look forward to sharing more in the coming months.
This blog was updated February 2018. It was first published in September 2017.
Sources
(1) The Cooperative Congressional Election Study is a survey administered by YouGov that includes Common Content and invites participation from up to 50 academic teams The Reed/Democracy Fund pre-election survey was administered to 1000 respondents, and our post-election survey includes answers from 845 respondents. More information about the CCES and its methodology is available at the Harvard Dataverse, found at: https://cces.gov.harvard.edu/data.
Paul Gronke is the Principal Investigator of the Reed College/Democracy Fund team module. Natalie Adona is the Research Associate for the Democracy Fund’s Elections Program and manages the roll out of these findings, with support from Jack Santucci, the Elections Research Fellow. Please direct any questions about these survey findings to nadona@democracyfund.org.
(3) Data on states with online voter registration as of the 2016 primary elections come from the National Conference of State Legislatures (see source #2).
Democracy Fund’s Elections Program is excited to share our Election Administration and Voting systems map! The map, which was a collaboration involving advocates, academics, election officials, and policy experts, informs our thinking about American elections and our strategies for improving them. Below, you’ll read about our mapping journey, about potential leveraging opportunities within the system, and a request for your help as we continue to learn.
Though many aspects of the past election cycle were unique, there are ongoing challenges in election administration that pre-date 2016, as well as emerging opportunities for change. We hope that our work in elections will inform and support election officials, policy experts, advocates, peer funders, and most importantly—the American electorate.
Before diving in, our team would like to recognize all our colleagues who provided valuable feedback, and poured their time, energy, and perspectives into pulling this map together. Our collaboration stretched across the political spectrum, which generated robust conversations that inspired us as we created the map and used it to plan our strategy. We extend special thanks to Professor Paul Gronke, who provided support and academic consultation that was vital to the completion of this map.
Mapping the Election System
In December 2014, we convened a group of elections and voting experts to help us more deeply understand the U.S. election system. We began with the framing question, “to understand the election system in the United States, you need to understand…” A core story and key dynamics that drive the election system emerged through several follow up workshops, small group conversations, and internal research.
Because our initiative focuses on election administration, as well as the difficulty of comprehensively describing every aspect of the system, we predicated map construction on two assumptions—that mistakes in election administration:
Are indicative of actionable problems, for which election officials require strong support to resolve; and
Have serious downstream impacts on voters, who do not always have the time or knowledge needed to address issues before Election Day.
As shown in our core story, when elections are run ineffectively, there’s high potential for decreased public trust in the system, either because a voter heard about or personally experienced a problem. Sometimes those real or perceived barriers to voting have a deterring effect on voter engagement. These factors—“effective election administration,” “public trust in elections,” and “decision to vote”—appear relatively larger on the map because they are the key factors that drive the system and inform our work.
Low public trust in elections and low turnout increase pressure on lawmakers to change election laws and processes. Sometimes, those proposed changes lead to laws that, when well-implemented and voter-centric, improve elections. However, election administration is uniquely prone to election law gamesmanship, i.e., political actors who attempt to manipulate the rules or pressure officials to act in a partisan fashion. If policy changes are either intended or perceived to influence an election outcome or otherwise shift political power, then such changes can be caught up in a vicious cycle of gamesmanship—ultimately leaving election officials stuck with policies and processes that do not lead to better run elections.
The rest of the map illustrates the key dynamics that drive the core story. Key dynamics appear in 11 cyclical loops, which are:
Voter Registration
Election Official Education
Election Management
Technology Innovation
Voting Equipment
Integrity and Security
Ease of Voting
Voter Engagement
Education About Elections
Barriers to Voting
Election Law Gamesmanship
We binned each of the factors (i.e., dots) within these loops into one of four major categories:
Politics, law, and policy (green),
Elections process (light blue),
Voter engagement (yellow), and
“Other” (orange) for any one factor that does not neatly fit into any of the above categories.
We invite you to take a closer look at our map and its narrative, here and in Kumu – the tool we used to visualize the map. While reading the map, please note that pluses (+) and minuses (-) on connections (i.e., arrows) represent an increase and a decrease of that factor, respectively; the direction of the connections provides more information on the relationship between factors. (For example: when looking at the core story—as effective election administration decreases, public trust in elections decreases.)
From Map to Strategy
Our election and voting process can and should be improved; many election officials and voter advocates are already heading in that direction. After consulting with experts in the field and through much deliberation, we found several bright spots and potential points of leverage in the election system that could avoid political gamesmanship through bipartisan appeal and which present a high potential for impact, including:
Reducing stress on voter registration systems: States are rapidly adopting online voter registration and are becoming members of the Electronic Registration Information Center. There is also significant momentum around improving registration processes at motor vehicle departments and other state agencies. Improving voter registration systems could potentially result in tens of millions of newly registered, eligible citizens.
Improving the quality of election planning and execution: The growing community of civic technologists seeking to improve elections presents new opportunities for collaboration. Cost savings generated by new technology allows election officials to solve complex problems with few funds. Improving election processes has the potential to have positive downstream impacts on the voter experience, increasing the public’s confidence in election outcomes.
Increasing election officials’ capacity to adopt and implement new technology: Adoption and evaluation of tech tools that support election officials are gaining momentum. There is increasing interest among election community leaders in using and iterating these tools. Improving support for election officials using technology could have a transformative effect on the way elections are administered and on the way voters interact with the system, and without feeling overwhelming for the election official.
Increasing the public’s trust in elections: unsubstantiated allegations of widespread voter fraud are damaging and undermine the legitimacy of those in elected office. To foster trust in the system, voters must, at minimum, have a better understanding of the system’s key security features. Increased attention to security presents an opportunity to educate the public about election processes and to show how their election officials protect the integrity of the ballot. Given the new concerns about attempted interference in our election system by foreign actors, policy and practice must allow for officials’ ability to defend against potential attacks.
It will not be easy to improve the election system, nor will challenges be solved by any one organization alone. We understand that officials, advocates, experts, and voters all play a role in improving and promoting a healthy election system. Now that we have a framework, we can more easily identify where actors and activities occur within the elections and voting ecosystem, and have a better sense of where we should address problems.
How You Can Help
The map reflects our current understanding of the elections system in the United States and we hope that it captures key cyclical patterns that occur at the federal, state, and local levels. Of course, we are not able to capture every aspect of the system; we hope that we can rely on our larger community of stakeholders (you!) to help. As you navigate the map, please feel free to provide us with any feedback, questions, or comments by emailing us at electionsmap@democracyfund.org.
Thanks for viewing! We look forward to hearing from you.
Voting is the foundation of a healthy democracy. Elections are fundamentally about everyday citizens expressing their views and participating in government. Legitimate election outcomes are predicated on a process that is free and fair for all qualified citizens. The American electorate deserves a modern, voter-centric election system that runs efficiently and inspires trust in electoral outcomes.
As we learned during the 2000 presidential election, problems with election administration can have serious ramifications on the public’s perceptions of electoral fairness. More recently, concerns over foreign influence, coupled with unsubstantiated allegations of widespread “rigging” during the 2016 presidential election, called the resiliency of the election system — and the legitimacy of the outcome — into question.
Despite these challenges, we believe that the election system remains resilient. In a time with a renewed spotlight on electoral fairness, and in consideration of the ongoing challenges that states face, the Democracy Fund seeks to better understand our election system’s most salient dynamics. Starting with the framing question, “to understand the election system in the United States, you need to understand…” we used systems thinking to identify three key factors that create pressures for change, both positive and negative: “effective election administration,” “public trust in elections,” and “decision to vote.”
The American election system is decentralized — as long as there is no conflict with federal requirements, localities have a significant amount of flexibility in the way elections are run. Election processes are determined by local, state, and federal requirements; administrative rules; and rapidly changing technology. Since election rules are highly varied among states and local jurisdictions, systems thinking helps us grapple with the complex nature of elections and allows us to find common occurrences that apply to every election.
Improvements to the election system will require legal and administrative changes, technological upgrades, and partnerships between election officials, lawmakers, and other key stakeholders. Many of these stakeholders were invited to participate in the generation and iteration of our Election Administration & Voting systems map. It is our hope that the map reflects our thinking about the election system and serves as a guide for Democracy Fund to do our part to improve the voter experience.
Understanding Our Analysis
Elections are about everyday citizens expressing their views and shaping their government. Effective election administration, high public trust in elections, and high levels of voter engagement are signs of a healthy election system and a healthy democracy. By “effective election administration,” we are referring to a process that balances security with access, and embraces policies that are well-implemented and voter-centric.
Election administration in the United States is ripe for dramatic improvement through common-sense reform. However, election policy is also uniquely prone to political gamesmanship, i.e., political actors may attempt to manipulate the rules in a partisan fashion. Policy changes that are perceived to influence an election outcome or otherwise shift political power will likely perpetuate a vicious cycle of election law gamesmanship. Whether intentional or not, election law gamesmanship ultimately makes it difficult for election officials to administer effective election processes.
Voter Registration
Two main challenges necessitate voter registration reform. First, voters might not understand or be able to easily register to vote. Second, administrators face challenges processing and maintaining accurate voter registration data.
Voter registration is the basis for all election planning. In nearly every state and jurisdiction, eligible citizens may only vote after registering. Registration can also serve as a potential barrier for those who:
Do not understand the requirements and timing of registration,
Do not know they are not registered,
Do not know how or when to update their registration record, or
Encounter administrative hurdles, e.g., not having the appropriate documents required by the state.
Under federal law, a state’s chief election official must maintain a statewide voter registration list. Registration roll accuracy is vital because election officials must determine voters’ eligibility, assign voters to precincts, and make critical decisions about the type and number of resources that are needed to serve voters, among other things. Because election planning depends so heavily on registration, inaccurate rolls can cause inefficiencies throughout the system, potentially decreasing voter confidence in election outcomes. A bad Election Day experience might even cause some people to stop voting altogether.
List maintenance is an enormous challenge for at least two reasons. First, people are more mobile than ever before and many voters do not update their address at the elections department. Second, the diverse sources of registration forms can lead to errors. Registration forms come from voters, motor vehicles departments, public service agencies, political parties, and third party registration groups. Though many states offer online voter registration, many state agencies and groups still use paper forms. So while handwritten forms offer another option for people to register, they also increase the potential for errors in the state registration rolls.
Election Official Education
As public servants, election officials must possess the technological acumen, public relations expertise, and adaptive decision-making skills essential to navigate our rapidly-changing environment. Most election officials receive regular professional training at the state and county levels. Though many are successfully implementing innovative practices, it is unclear to what extent these training programs create a culture of adaptation in election management.
Because election administration in the United States is decentralized, the availability and rigor of these training programs vary widely by state. Additionally, limited resources and regional cultural dynamics can make knowledge-sharing difficult. Although several tools offering best practices and assistance outside of state training programs exist, it is unclear if election officials effectively know about or access those resources. Furthermore, travel costs and other considerations can hinder networking opportunities for local election officials. Over time, these and other dynamics identified in our systems map can make it more difficult for election officials to maintain high-quality election planning.
Election Management
Election management refers to the decisions and processes for planning and administering elections. Election officials take steps to ensure that Election Day runs smoothly, even in the face of ongoing challenges. Election official capacity to meet voter needs depends not only on available budget, but also on their access to new ideas from professional education and training, use of line management tools and other technology, and their ability to collect and use election data.
Many election officials grapple with budget constraints, which directly impacts their ability to successfully plan and execute voter-centric elections. Resources — financial and otherwise — affect an official’s ability to, for example, purchase reliable voting equipment or offer early voting options. With insufficient resources, voters might experience long lines or an equipment malfunction. These experiences may also cause some voters to lose confidence in the election system.
Technology Innovation
Technology captures a large amount of very useful election data that officials must know how to harness. These data have the potential to provide election officials with key insights into voter behavior and organizational processes. Because elections are subject to a high level of scrutiny, there are also opportunities for officials to use these data transparently for the public’s benefit.
Election technology includes the products of for-profit voting machine vendors, as well as the digital tools created by academics and civic technologists. For many election officials, it is extremely difficult to keep up with the latest innovations. Some jurisdictions may be hindered by the cost of new equipment and some officials might find it risky to try new technologies in high salience elections. Adoption of new election technology is rapid in some respects (e.g., ePollbooks), and very slow in others (e.g., ballot on demand tools), which indicates that more information and education about these resources are required.
Importantly, adoption of new technology may impact voters’ perceptions about elections. First, many Americans are already exposed to the latest technological advances in other areas of their lives and may come to expect the same from election officials. Second, voter confidence in election outcomes is influenced by the voter experience. Lack of innovation or technology that fails could have a negative downstream impact on the voter experience.
Voting Equipment
A handful of for-profit companies build, sell, lease, and service voting equipment for the 10,000 election jurisdictions in the United States. Because elections are relatively low priority when compared to other budgetary considerations, most election jurisdictions will invariably rely on the vendor’s service contract to keep machines running for as long as possible. Reliance on these contracts, episodic purchases or upgrades to voting equipment, and the very limited marketplace for voting machines, have disincentivized major innovation among vendors.
Stories about voting machine failure, whether personal experience or not, can shake voters’ confidence in election outcomes. Continued reliance on service agreements and market stagnation increase the possibility of voting equipment failure or decertification. When reported widely, the impact of a machine malfunction in one jurisdiction can cause a negative ripple effect on the entire system.
Integrity and Security
Election integrity and security are vital components of a healthy system. Election officials create and implement a wide variety of security protocols and procedures, which range from pre-logic and accuracy testing of voting equipment to the post-election canvass. These processes encompass both the physical and electronic security of election materials and data, and are put into place for at least two reasons:
To ensure that ballots are protected and counted to the fullest extent of the law, and
To maintain the privacy of qualified individuals’ identifying information, to the extent that the law allows.
There are several advocacy groups focused heavily on either the voter access or election security aspects of election integrity. At the end of the day, election officials must be able to strike a balance: create procedures that maintain system integrity without compromising the rights of voters.
Real threats test the integrity of the American election system. The recent news about unauthorized, unsuccessful attempts to digitally infiltrate statewide voter registration lists have come to the fore and put confidence in our election processes at risk. And while election officials have responded quickly to reduce cybersecurity risks and prevent future attempts at hacking, the high salience nature of these stories drowns out the important work that election officials do, which potentially reduces the public’s trust in elections.
Ease of Voting
In a 2014 report, after determining that voters need more opportunities to cast a ballot, the Presidential Commission on Election Administration recommended that states expand opportunities to vote before Election Day. Early voting periods allow campaigns and advocates to bank their base early so that they can concentrate on fewer voters for Election Day. As campaigns encourage more citizens to cast ballots early, pressure builds on election officials to increase access to early voting.
Currently, 37 states and the District of Columbia allow early in-person voting, no-excuse absentee voting, or both, and three states conduct elections exclusively by mail. Although early voting can reduce the obstacles to engagement for many people, it can also negatively affect voter confidence (in-person voters tend to report higher confidence levels than those who cast their ballots early by mail). Furthermore, as more voting options are made available, the financial, time, and personnel cost of election administration increases.
Voter Engagement
The decision to vote is complex. It is affected by “individual resources” (e.g., education, income, political interest), “social resources” (e.g., civic memberships, church attendance), and the efficacy of voter mobilization by organizations. These complex dynamics, combined with notions of confidence in government, form a tight bundle of social relationships often referred to as social capital. Elections build social capital and enrich and improve civic life. Higher levels of participation can lead to higher trust in government and in others. But at the same time, Americans have become less engaged with civic associations and have less trust in government; as result, they are less likely to vote.
Making voting easier by changing laws, policies, and processes can increase voter turnout, but it’s also important for citizens to think that elections — and government — matter to their daily lives. Voters can get basic public information about elections from multiple sources. However, basic information is not designed to help voters understand why an election matters. Campaigns, advocates, and media give context to the issues or offices on a ballot. The type of election (presidential, primary, state, local) is also key to understanding interest. The perceived importance of the offices and issues up for election are colored by voter attitudes, media attention, and peer pressure, among other factors.
Education About Elections
Making the effort to cast a ballot may seem small, but for many people the personal cost of participation might be high. And while early voting has made voting more convenient, a potential voter must take time and effort to arrive at the polling place, research ballot information, stand in line, and cast the ballot. The closer the election, the more critical basic information about voting becomes. If information is hard to obtain, it is hard to get voters interested in an election.
Citizens might not engage in civic life if they believe that government is hyper-partisan, ineffective, or irrelevant. Those who have a low capacity and tolerance for political debate may ignore competing information about the candidates and issues. Additionally, campaign behavior may make disengaged citizens feel even more disconnected from government and politics. Finally, our research suggests that partisan in-fighting turns people off from participation.
Barriers to Voting
Intentional and unintentional barriers to voting can arise through legal, legislative, and administrative decision making. When critical decisions are before lawmakers, judges, or election officials, it is vital that they weigh the impact those changes could have on discrete groups of voters, especially racial and ethnic minorities who have been subjected to purposeful disenfranchisement. Changes to election and voting laws may also have negative effects on women, persons with disabilities, individuals with language-access needs, residents in rural communities, and members of the overseas and armed services communities.
Litigation is one means of defending voters from the legal and procedural changes that negatively impact voting rights. Legal challenges require courts to evaluate a complex set of facts, laws, and procedures very quickly. In some cases, these suits are settled out of court, with issues partially or wholly alleviated. Even when well intended and especially when suits are brought close to Election Day, litigation and subsequent court decisions may give election administrators little time to make the mandated adjustments and could cause confusion for voters.
Election Law Gamesmanship
Changes to election laws and procedures are often viewed as efforts to game the election system and hurt political opponents. Regardless of actual motivation, the perceived intent of gamesmanship reduces the likelihood of bipartisan cooperation, undermines much-needed modernization efforts, and stalls politically neutral best practices — making bipartisan support for election policy changes more challenging.
The first conference on Election Sciences, Reform, and Administration* (ESRA) took place July 27-28, 2017 in the lovely and laid-back City of Portland, Oregon. Before I describe the conference, I’d like to take a moment to explain this “election science” thing I’m referring to, and why this conference is timely and important.
Defining election science
Election science is, in essence, the study of election administration and related matters. Studying election administration is important because it’s where the rubber meets the road; where election laws and regulations, organizational decision making, administrative efficiency, technology, voting rights, politics, and academic theories are put to the test on Election Day (or for many states, the voting period). Specifically, election scientists seek to better understand the following elements that election officials grapple with:
The policies and processes affecting the cost of elections;
The balance between efficiency, access, security, and voting rights;
The impact of technology on election conduct; and
The relationship between laws, rules, administration, and voter behavior.
Scholars who take part in this emerging discipline frequently partner with and provide support to election officials, as well as help policy experts, advocates, and other stakeholders better understand the way elections are run and the impact of policy changes on the electorate. Can administrative practices improve voter confidence? Who was added to the Oregon registration rolls when the state implemented automatic voter registration? How can local election officials reallocate resources to mitigate long lines at polling places? – This is a sample of the types of questions election scientists seek to answer and share with others.
Studying election administration and the importance of establishing networks
In the meetings that the Democracy Fund co-organized prior to this event, I gained a better understanding of the incentive structures in academia that motivate political scientists and inform their research agendas. I was surprised to find out that the number of academics studying election administration is small, and too few to successfully create an organized section. To make a long story short, this results in election scientists presenting their work at conference panels that don’t always fit neatly into established organized sections, and in front of an audience of peers that are not always able to provide nuanced feedback on the subject matter.
Providing election officials and academics the space to get to know each other on their own is key to enriching our shared understanding of election administration. In my work with the Elections team, I’ve had the opportunity to hear from several election officials from all parts of the country and the people who support improvements in elections. I’ve been fortunate enough to learn from them, celebrate their successes, and listen and think carefully about their shared pain points. Because election scientists present primarily at academic conferences, it leaves little opportunity for election officials, who don’t often have the time or resources to attend, to inform research agendas and add richness and nuance to the existing body of research. And while those of us in philanthropy and in the advocacy space can serve as bridges, our networks remain fairly small. When connected with this academic community, election officials benefit from the analytical rigor and perspective on administrative processes that election scientists provide — a provision that helps administrators learn and take steps to improve their processes.
The ESRA conference
The purpose of the ESRA conference is to feature academic work in election science, not only for the benefit of scholars, but also to familiarize election officials with the work these scholars present. The conference organizers successfully brought together a mix of primarily election scientists and election officials, and also advocates, civic tech experts, and small (but mighty) group of bright young students interested in establishing their careers in academia. Because the ESRA conference was located in the West, studies about vote-by-mail, vote centers, and automatic voter registration were prominently featured – a timely regional theme that I hope will be replicated next year when the ESRA conference is held in the Midwest.
The ESRA conference included a healthy mix of panels and breakout sessions, all of which kept this group of about 50 people engaged and inspired. The sessions over the two days covered:
Administering Elections and Evaluating Capacity
Voter Registration Records and Data Administration
Assessing the Effectiveness of Voter Registration List Maintenance
Evaluating Elections Under Pressure (i.e., contingency planning and recounts)
Election Administration Professionalization
Modernizing Voter Registration (breakout session and plenary)
Intersection of Election Administration, Nonprofits, and Advocates
Alternative Polling Places of the Future (breakout session and plenary)
This inaugural conference was an enormous undertaking and was artfully planned and executed by Paul Gronke (who’s also a trusted consultant for the Democracy Fund’s Elections team) and Phil Keisling (who I hear knows a thing or two about elections) – a huge congrats to them and their team for successfully pulling off this important event. Also, it’d be remiss of me if I forgot to give a shout out to Paul Manson, Charles Stewart, Bernard Fraga, and Lonna Rae Atkeson, all of whom played a vital role in making the conference a success. I’m so grateful that I had the opportunity to attend, meet some smart and awesome election geeks who continue to teach me new things, represent Democracy Fund as dinner host, and speak at one of the panels. I’m encouraged by the enthusiasm and passion everyone has invested so far, and seriously hope that the heart of this scholarly effort continues to beat for years to come as new and useful research emerges.
*The ESRA conference was made possible with support from the National Science Foundation, the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, the Early Voting Information Center, the Center for Public Service at Portland State University, and the Democracy Fund.
** Photo credit goes to Cameron Wimpy, Research Director for the MIT Election and Data Science Lab.
This week the Democracy Fund is excited to welcome Tammy Patrick as a new Senior Advisor for the Elections program. A widely-respected leader in the election administration space, Tammy brings with her a strong background in using data, best practices, and practical approaches to make voting easier. In this new role, Tammy will help lead the Democracy Fund’s efforts to foster a voter-centric elections system and work to provide election officials across the country with the tools and knowledge they need to best serve their voters.
Tammy joins us from the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC), where she worked to promote the recommendations of the Presidential Commission on Election Administration (PCEA). BPC has had major successes working in states across the country to advance the PCEA’s recommendations, as identified in our recent progress report, available here. Tammy is also a former Commissioner of the PCEA, appointed by President Barack Obama in 2013. As a Commissioner, Tammy was an active contributor to the work that lead to a series of unanimous, bipartisan recommendations on how to improve elections in the United States.
Tammy spent 11 years working to infuse data and innovation in local election practices as a federal compliance officer for the Maricopa County Elections Department in Arizona, where she served over 1.9 million registered voters in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Her long list of accomplishments also includes the U.S. Postal Service’s Mailer’s Technical Advisory Committee, where she works on important issues related to the role the United States Postal Service place in our elections.
In addition to her work with the Democracy Fund, Tammy serves on the steering committee for National Voter Registration Day as well as the board of advisors for the Center for Technology in Civic Life and the MIT Election Data Science Lab. She also teaches Data Analysis for Election Administration for the Humphrey School at the University of Minnesota, which provides a certificate in public administration for election officials.
“We are thrilled to welcome Tammy to our team,” said Adam Ambrogi, Director of the Democracy Fund’s Elections Program. “With her unrivaled expertise on the challenges and nuances of elections administration in the United States and a proven ability to develop relationships with election officials, policy experts, academics, advocates from across the political spectrum, Tammy will be a tremendous asset in helping the Democracy Fund seek new ways to support election officials and improve the voting experience for all voters.”
Washington, D.C. – At the recent National Association of Secretaries of State’s (NASS) conference Democracy Fund facilitated a panel discussion on the pressing need to bolster voter confidence in light of the intense scrutiny during 2016.
Panelist David Becker, Executive Director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, stated that this was one of the best run elections in American history. Nevertheless, a Democracy Fund survey fielded days after the election revealed troubling voter perceptions. Democrats and Republicans alike question the process, believing that candidates or political parties can change the results at the ballot box, or that machine malfunctions can impact results.
“There is a need for voter education about why voters should trust the process and the results, even when their candidate loses,” said Rebecca Mark, Vice President at Porter Novelli, who assisted with the survey. “This mistrust ladders back to an intense feeling of frustration that voters have towards their government.”
Eighty-five percent of voters characterized their experience voting in November as pleasant, a testament to the hard work of officials like Secretaries of State, yet the undercurrent of concern could persist into future elections.
“That solid majority of positive voting experiences will be essential for building additional trust in both the outcome and in the process,” said Stacey Scholl, Senior Program Associate of Elections at Democracy Fund.
Showcasing transparency is critical to strengthening confidence among voters, such as efforts by Colorado Secretary of State Wayne Williams. The Secretary shared his election cycle experience, including the installation of recount room viewing windows so anyone – regardless of credentials – could watch a recount. He explained, “people need to have confidence their election officials are doing everything they can to maintain the integrity of the election, because if they have that confidence they will vote.”
To view full panel, covered by C-SPAN, click here.
Panelists included Hon. Wayne Williams, Colorado Secretary of State, Hon. Miles Rapoport, Senior Practice Fellow, Ash Center, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard, David Becker, Executive Director, Center for Election Innovation and Research, Rosalind Gold, Senior Director of Policy, Research and Advocacy, NALEO Educational Fund, Samidh Chakrabarti, Product Manager for Civic Engagement, Facebook, and Rebecca Mark, Vice President, Porter Novelli.
The Democracy Fund is a bipartisan foundation that invests in organizations working to ensure our political system can withstand new challenges and deliver on its promise to the American people. For more information, please visit www.democracyfund.org.
On February 17, 2017, at the National Association of Secretaries of State’s (NASS) annual winter conference, the Democracy Fund facilitated a panel discussion about the pressing need to bolster voter confidence in light of the intense scrutiny during 2016. “Promoting Voter Trust and Confidence in Elections” was a general session where panelists discussed ways election officials could boost voter confidence in our elections. Panelists included Colorado’s Republican Secretary of State, election experts, researchers and voter advocates. After discussing the results of surveys and evaluations, including a poll commissioned by the Democracy Fund, panelists took questions from the audience, which was comprised of state election officials, their aides, and invited guests from various stakeholder groups.
Featuring:
Hon. Wayne Williams, Colorado Secretary of State
Mr. David Becker, Executive Director, Center for Election Innovation and Research
Ms. Rosalind Gold, Sr. Director of Policy, Research and Advocacy, NALEO Educational Fund
Hon. Miles Rapoport, Senior Practice Fellow, Ash Center for Democratic Governance & Innovation, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
Mr. Samidh Chakrabarti, Product Manager for Civic Engagement, Facebook
Stacey Scholl co-authored this piece with Terry Ao Minnis.
In 2016 some Alaska Natives experienced something years in the making — the choice to use an election ballot in their primary language of Yup’ik, Inupiaq, or Gwich’in. “When people heard (about the changes) they got a lot more excited to be a part of the process,” an interpreter explained for Mike Toyukak as he voted in Alaska’s primary election. Mr. Toyukak lives and votes in Manokotak, Alaska and was a part of a lawsuit filed in 2013 resulting in Alaska providing election language assistance for 29 communities through 2020.
Currently, over 25 million U.S. residents have limited English proficiency. While ballots can be complicated and confusing even for proficient English speakers, those with limited English proficiency face more difficulty. In 1975, Congress amended the VRA to give these voters some relief and reinforce their value in our representative democracy by adding Section 203. This section mandates making voting materials and assistance available in languages where a community meets a certain threshold, and the language falls under Spanish, Asian languages, American Indian, or Alaskan Native languages, like the one used by Mr. Toyukak. Newly included Section 203 jurisdictions must develop a comprehensive language assistance plan over the next year; determining which dialects to cover for both written and oral language assistance, and deciding how to tailor the assistance precinct by precinct. As part of this comprehensive plan, a translation workflow will need to be created, including actual translators — not just a computer. In this regard it is essential to engage community leaders in the review process to ensure all materials are informationally and tonally correct. Jurisdictions must be proactive in recruiting the necessary workers to staff polling sites. And poll worker trainings should have a strong emphasis on language assistance and the existing laws that protect language minority voting rights. Election officials should reach into diverse segments of these communities, talking to business owners, teachers, religious, and civic leaders. This will put officials in the best position to formulate sound policies and tap into networks to recruit bilingual poll workers.
To this end, jurisdictions should put in the time to create culturally aware outreach programs and engage these voters year round — not just around election time. In an ideal scenario, an office would dedicate a full-time employee to be a liaison to respective language communities. Ultimately, these partnerships can help jurisdictions formulate their language plans by providing them with on-the-ground intelligence and experience.
Finally, ballot design must also ensure that translations meet state requirements for ballot design and are also easily understood by the voter. A human-centered design cannot be overstated when it comes to a well-run election.
Overall, the underlying standard for effectiveness of Section 203 compliance is whether voters using language services and exercising their language assistance rights are able to participate in the same manner as voters who are fully fluent and literate in English. Democracy Fund remains committed to helping jurisdictions achieve this level of effectiveness and encourage officials in newly covered jurisdictions to use the resources and information produced and collected by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, available at eac.gov.
Cookies Notice
This website uses cookies to provide you with an improved and personalized experience. By using this site you agree to our use of cookies. Please read our cookies policy for more information on the cookies we use and how to delete or block them.
