mail ballots, voter turnout and election quality

[Neal McBurnett <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

There is a fascinating paper on why people vote, and how the quantity
and quality of the votes are affected by the option of mailing in your
ballot.

 "It may be that the most valuable payoff of voting is simply being
 seen at the polling place by your friends or co-workers."

It observes that in Switzerland, the option of mailing ballots in
didn't affect aggregate turnout significantly.  Turnout went slightly
up in big communities, and correspondingly down in small ones.

I think it will take techniques like those described at
 http://www.taoofdemocracy.com/

to both increase both the quantity and quality of democracy.

Below are some excerpts from the original paper.  Below that is a bit
from a New York Times article that touched on some of these themes,
brought to my attention by Peter Richards.

Neal McBurnett                 http://bcn.boulder.co.us/~neal/
Signed and/or sealed mail encouraged.  GPG/PGP Keyid: 2C9EBA60

Theory and Evidence on the role of Social Norms in Voting
 Patricia Funk, SITE, Stockholm School of Economics, Box 6501, 113 83
  Stockholm, Sweden. Tel.: ++ 46 8 736 9684   E-Mail: patricia.funk@...
 http://www.pubchoicesoc.org/papers2005/Funk.pdf 

  This paper investigates social norms and voting behavior. I argue
  that social norms create incentives for signaling, i.e. voting for
  the purpose of being seen at the voting act.  Empirical evidence on
  signaling can be gained by the introduction of optional postal
  voting in Switzerland. Even though the possibility of mail voting
  reduced voting costs substantially, it didn't increase
  turnout. Consistent with my model's predictions, voter turnout
  decreased more in the smaller communities, but in the meantime, the
  share of cooperators (= interested voters) was more positively
  affected there.

  ... The introduction of mail voting had no significant impact on
  (Cantonal) turnout at parliamentary elections.

  ...in small communities where social pressure forced a substantial
  share of people to go to the polls, turnout decreased as soon as
  mail voting and the possibility of cheating was given.

  ...At least for small communities... modern voting tools may
  decrease average turnout, but nevertheless increase the quality of
  the voting outcome.

  Mail voting never replaced the polls, but was offered as a further
  option.

---

 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magazine/06freak.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print

Why Vote? by Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt
 A Swiss Turnout-Boosting Experiment
 November 6, 2005  Freakonomics

 [When mail-ballot elections were introduced in Switzerland] voter
 turnout often decreased, especially in smaller cantons and in the
 smaller communities within cantons

 In other words, we do vote out of self-interest - a conclusion that
 will satisfy economists - but not necessarily the same self-interest
 as indicated by our actual ballot choice. For all the talk of how
 people "vote their pocketbooks," the Swiss study suggests that we may
 be driven to vote less by a financial incentive than a social one. It
 may be that the most valuable payoff of voting is simply being seen
 at the polling place by your friends or co-workers.