Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAlvarez, R. Michael
dc.contributor.authorAnsolabehere, Stephen
dc.contributor.authorStewart III, Charles H.
dc.date.accessioned2015-04-14T18:05:38Z
dc.date.available2015-04-14T18:05:38Z
dc.date.issued2004-11
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/96558
dc.description.abstractProfessor 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.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherCaltech/MIT Voting Technology Projecten_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesVTP Working Paper Series;21
dc.subjectData qualityen_US
dc.subjectData availabilityen_US
dc.subjectResidual votesen_US
dc.subjectTurnouten_US
dc.subjectStatistical consequencesen_US
dc.titleStudying Elections: Data Quality and Pitfalls in Measuring the Effects of Voting Technologiesen_US
dc.typeWorking Paperen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record