Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T05:05:20.169Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beyond the Butterfly: The Complexity of U.S. Ballots

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 August 2003

Richard G. Niemi  and
Paul S. Herrnson
Richard G. Niemi
Affiliation:
Don Alonzo Watson Professor of Political Science at the University of Rochester ([email protected]). He is co-author or co-editor of a number of books, including Comparing Democracies 2, Term Limits in the State Legislatures, and Civic Education. He has written numerous articles on political socialization, voting, and legislative districting. His current research interests are civic education, term limits, and voting technologies
Paul S. Herrnson
Affiliation:
Director of the Center for American Politics and Citizenship and a professor in the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland ([email protected]). He is author of Congressional Elections; co-author of The Financiers of Congressional Elections; and author, editor, or co-editor of other books. He has written numerous articles on political parties and campaigns and elections. His current research interests are congressional elections, money and politics, and voting technologies.
The authors thank Matthew Stiffler for his assistance in collecting and checking ballots.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Curiosities and inconsistencies in the format of U.S. election ballots go far beyond the infamous “butterfly” ballot. Ballot instructions, candidate and party listings, party symbols, and, in general, variations that result from a complex and highly decentralized election system provide ample opportunity for all but the most sophisticated voters to misunderstand, mismark, or spoil their ballots and for all voters to feel confused and frustrated. We call attention to the enormous disparity in ballot designs across the states and to individual state designs that are inconsistent and needlessly complex. We recommend changes that would promote clarity and uniformity and yet allow room for state variations in the most politically potent aspects of ballot design. We also suggest steps by which reforms might be accomplished.

Type
Articles
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , June 2003 , pp. 317 - 326
Copyright
© 2003 by the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albright Spencer D 1940 The presidential short ballot American Political Science Review 34 5 955-9Google Scholar
Allen Philip Loring 1906 Ballot laws and their workings Political Science Quarterly 21 1 38 58Google Scholar
Aylsworth Leon E. 1930 The presidential short ballot American Political Science Review 24 4 966-70Google Scholar
Bain Henry M. Hecock Donald S. 1957 Ballot Position and Voter's Choice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Beard Charles A. 1909 The ballot's burden Political Science Quarterly 24 4 589 614 Google Scholar
Bridges Tyler. 2001 Ballots offer clues on intent: Experts see patterns in the overvotes The Miami Herald 11 May. Available at www.miami.com/mld/miami/news/2067477.htm. Accessed 12 October 2002Google Scholar
Campbell Angus, Philip E. Converse Warren E. Miller Donal E. Stokes 1960 The American Voter New York: Wiley
Cauchon Dennis, and Jim Drinkard. 2001 Florida voter errors cost Gore the election USA Today 11 May. Available at www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2001-05-10-recountmain.htm. Accessed 12 October 2002 Google Scholar
Darcy R. Anne Schneider 1989 Confusing ballots, roll-off, and the black vote Western Political Quarterly 42 3 347-64Google Scholar
Election Reform Information Project 2002 Ready for 2002, forgetting 2000: Election officials oppose federal standards and see only minor impact of election 2000. Princeton Survey Research Associates. Available at www.electionline.org/site/docs/pdf/eln_officials_report_final.pdf. Accessed 3 March 2003
Evans Eldon Cobb. 1917 A History of the Australian Ballot System in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Kimball David C. Chri T. Owens 2000 Where's the party? Eliminating one-punch voting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 29 April
Krosnick Jon A. Joann M. Miller Michae P. Tichy. An unrecognized need for ballot reform: Effects of candidate name order. In Rethinking the Vote: The Politics and Prospects of American Election Reform Ann N. Crigler Marion R. Just Edwar J. McCaffrey New York:Oxford University Press. Forthcoming.
National Association of Secretaries of State 1999 New Millennium Project, Part I: American Youth Attitudes on Politics, Citizenship, Government and Voting. Lexington, Ky
Nichols Stephen M. 1998 State referendum voting, ballot roll-off, and the effect of new electoral technology State and Local Government Review 30 2 106-17Google Scholar
Rusk Jerrold G. 1970 The effect of the Australian ballot reform on split ticket voting: 1876–1908 American Political Science Review 64 4 1,220-38Google Scholar
Snyder David. 2002 Write-in mayoral bid wins in Md. court. Washington Postm, 31 July, B1
Wand Jonathan N. Kenneth W. Shotts Sekhon Jasjeet S. Mebane Walter R. Jr. Michael C. Herron Henry E. Brady 2001 The butterfly did it: The aberrant vote for Buchanan in Palm Beach County, Florida American Political Science Review 95 4 793 810 Google Scholar