Washblog

About that average 7.9% increase in turnout for special and primary elections...

King County already got that boost. To force the rest of the voters to use mail ballot will REDUCE voter turnout for the GENERAL ELECTIONS without increasing turnout for the specials.

Let me explain...

The studies show that mail balloting benefits motivated voters, the partisans. They're the ones that vote most every election.

The motivated voters also typically return their ballots earlier. Which is why special and primary elections have a higher percentage of ballots available to tabulate on election day. (And why elections officials cite numbers from special elections when making their tortured rationalizations for buying more equipment.)

By now, any one who wants to use a mail ballot has already signed up.

King County currently has the best of both worlds, as far as turnout goes. Meaning we get the boost in turnout for the specials, without incurring the hit (decrease) that forced mail voting would bring for the generals.

Congratulations! Job well done.

Now please well enough alone.

---

Just because some mail balloting is good doesn't mean that more is better.

Voters are not just one big group of similar like minded people. Mail balloting helps one group (the motivated partisans) and hurts the another group (the infrequent "presidential" voters).

So if the data are inconclusive, then all your "conclusions" amount to just what you accused Goldy of -- making stuff up.

You're simply not credible on this issue, Jason. The best I can say is that you're probably more credible than Gentry Lange.

Stick to the integrity of the ballots, where your work is more valuable. The polling place will go the way of the dodo bird soon.

If perception is reality, then the world must be flat and the sun must revolve around it.

I will merely note that Dwight Pelz is apparently convinced that it will increase voter turnout.

In his widely distributed email of June 29th, 2007, he wrote:

There is a very critical situation facing Democrats in Washington state.  38 counties will conduct the election in 2008 by all-mail balloting.  All-mail balloting is expected to bring in 3-6 additional percentage points in
voting. 850,000 votes were cast for Governor in 2004.  If 6% additional votes were cast due to all mail balloting in 2008; and if Gregoire gets 66% and Rossi 33%; then Gregoire will realize a net gain of 2% or 17,000 votes.

The Accurate Count prong is fairly accessible as a refutation:

• Factions within a single political Party may put up their own candidates[1] and certainly if the public is going to vote on and pay for the election, then the public deserves an open, fair and honest count... not one possibly engineered by whichever faction controls the Elections Department and the voting equipment.
  
• Ballot measures pertaining to issues such as taxation, annexation and the function of government itself may put We, The People in conflict with our elected officials and government itself. Certainly then We, The People have a Perfect Right to petition our government through the ballot box (what are the alternatives?) and again the only way to do that is with an open, fair and honest count.
  

What's interesting about the conclusion about fiddling with turnout between general and primary/special elections about going to all-mail voting is the light it shines on the practice of levys and other ballot measures being held in special/off elections... often with little or nothing else on the ballot:

• Is this about giving offerors of ballot measures better control of whether they get motivated voters or general voters?
  

[1] The changeover to the partisan primary ballot got us the Sommers/Woldt contest... anything else? So much for the "increasing choice" argument for that one.

[2] Paul Allen even paid for his own election if I recall correctly.

It is not uncommon for experts to assert with so much authoritativeness and persuasiveness the truth of unsubstantiated claims that subsequently  become public policy at great cost to the public.

Abstinence education is one of these issues... I can think of others.

Working as a librarian in medical libraries I came to do quite a bit of reading on evidence-based medicine.  Medical decisions prior to the rise of this methodology in the 1970s (and continuing today of course, but less so) were made on the basis of tradition, individual and anecdotal experience, and the teachings/advice of mentors and textbooks (and pharmaceutical salespeople)  rather than on the best evidence.  Archie Cochrane, considered the founder of evidence-based medicine, observed that obstetrics was the branch of medicine in which practice was least informed by the evidence.  Obstetric interventions made on the basis of what amounted to religious belief in the efficacy of certain procedures resulted injury, death, and miserable birth-experiences with life-long impact for  countless babies and mothers.  

Certainly, this harm was not purposeful.  The practitioners' devotion to their patients' wellbeing was as heart-felt as their belief in the helpfulness of destructive practices.   In making decisions for their patients, they looked to cultural factors -- such as the unshakeable beliefs of their mentors and respected colleagues -- rather than to the evidence.  

I have nearly zero doubt that this is what has happened in the adoption of vote-by-mail.  For all the passionate -- and highly credible and authoritative-sounding assertions that it increases voter turnout -- I have seen no credible evidence.  

I taught workshops on this subject -- how to evaluate research articles when deciding what weight to give them.  So I think in these terms. And over the months while I have heard all kinds of claims made and have been told they are the absolute truth, I have not seen a single study or assertion on the voter participation enhancement powers of vote-by-mail that meets the criteria that I look for in authoritative research.  Kousser and Mullins in the article Zappini links to here comment on some of the flaws in this previous research.  

This study by Kousser and Mullins study is compelling and appears to me to have real credibility -- more than the research I've seen on the other side of this question.  To me, it is  persuasive.  The principal author is a well-regarded and well-published researcher in the field of political science.  The foundation and university involved are solid.  And the study compares like with like.  It looks very solid.

But it doesn't offer definitive proof-- nor do the authors claim it to.  It's simply one (apparently) well-designed study.  However it does authoritatively debunk the claims that vote-by-mail has been proven to increase voter turnout.  It hasn't been proven.  Simply, it hasn't.

So we're making a mad rush to 100% vote-by-mail in WA on the basis of hopes and dreams and political calculus rather than on evidence.  But we're being told it's the evidence and that we're fools not to believe it.  I've heard that before.  Zappini is right to bring this up again, as the supposed "proof" that we are better off 100% VBM in 08 is the reason given for this horrible decision to adopt all these other new procedures and equipment.

I'll be interested to see what the verdict is on this Kousser/Mullins article.  It's recent enough that I don't see any reviews of it when I Google it.  I haven't had a chance to check Social Science Citations -- which would list articles that cite it, if enough time has elapsed.   Generally,  a number of studies need to be done on a research question  -- and then their results reviewed and compared -- before a theory or conclusion gains general acceptance.  My prediction is that, in 10 years, we'll pretty much know that 100% VBM was another unsubstantiated fad.