dc.contributor.author | Alvarez, R. Michael | |
dc.contributor.author | Ansolabehere, Stephen | |
dc.contributor.author | Stewart III, Charles H. | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2015-04-14T18:05:38Z | |
dc.date.available | 2015-04-14T18:05:38Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2004-11 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/96558 | |
dc.description.abstract | Professor Geralyn Miller reminds us of the range of voting administration practices across the United States. We use this variability to study the average performance of various types of voting equipment throughout the country (Ansolabehere and Stewart n.d.). Professor Miller suggests that the performance of equipment is, in fact, quite variable across states. Aparticular technology that performs poorly nationwide might perform well in a particular setting—either because the technology is well suited to the peculiarities of the setting or because a locality has been proficient in overcoming shortcomings that vex other jurisdictions. In making this point, Professor Miller examines two states, Wyoming and Pennsylvania, in the 2000 election. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
dc.publisher | Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | VTP Working Paper Series;21 | |
dc.subject | Data quality | en_US |
dc.subject | Data availability | en_US |
dc.subject | Residual votes | en_US |
dc.subject | Turnout | en_US |
dc.subject | Statistical consequences | en_US |
dc.title | Studying Elections: Data Quality and Pitfalls in Measuring the Effects of Voting Technologies | en_US |
dc.type | Working Paper | en_US |