Who's Afraid of an Undervote?

We examine the frequency of unrecorded (“residual”) votes in the 2000 presidential election, with three innovations. First, our analysis is based on a larger sample of counties than previous studies. Second, we examine several state-specific factors (ballot design, ballot access, restrictions on writein votes) that have largely been ignored in other studies. Third, rather than rely solely on ordinary least squares regression to estimate the effects of different factors, we demonstrate the need for a generalized least squares approach that weights each county by the number of ballots cast. In general, we find that residual votes are a function of multiple factors, some of which produce intentional abstention and some of which produce voter confusion and errors (such as making too many selections). More specifically, the percentage of uncounted presidential votes is substantially lower in states that include a straight-party option on the ballot. Furthermore, the straight-party device minimizes the disparity in invalidated ballots between highincome, white counties and low-income African-American counties. We also find that unrecorded votes were more common in the majority of states that restrict writein votes and in states that did not include Ralph Nader’s name on the ballot. Votomatic punch card machines perform substantially worse than other voting methods, although Datavote punch cards perform just as well as other methods. Among newer technologies, optical scan ballots produce a slightly lower share of unrecorded presidential votes than electronic voting machines. States that want to reduce the number of unrecorded votes should consider replacing Votomatic punch cards with optical scan ballots, including a straight-party option on the ballot, and adding a “None of These Candidates” ballot line for federal and statewide contests. Who’s Afraid of an Undervote? During the controversy following the 2000 presidential election and the Florida recount, many people learned of the difficulties some voters face in casting a valid ballot. By our calculations, roughly 2 million voters failed to record a choice for president in the 2000 elections. These were the result of “undervotes” (where voters make no selection) and “overvotes” (where too many selections are recorded). By now most are aware of reports that punch card ballots generate a higher rate of uncounted ballots, or “residual votes” (Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project 2001a) than other voting methods. Further studies indicate that the elevated rate of unrecorded votes associated with punch card ballots falls disproportionately on African-Americans and the poor (Hansen 2000; Knack and Kropf 2001; Lichtman 2001; cf. Lott 2001). These findings provided some momentum to the election controversy and raise concerns about unequal treatment of votes in American elections, especially in light of the Supreme Court opinion in Bush v. Gore that used an “equal protection” argument to decide the presidential election. In an effort to avoid similar election disputes in the future, several blue-ribbon commissions, government investigators, and academic panels have proposed election reforms designed to reduce the number of voting errors that contribute to unrecorded votes (see a listing of national election reform reports in the appendix). In addition, Congress and most state legislatures are considering legal changes in voting technology and election administration. 1 We thank Matt McLaughlin, Albert Prah, Cake, Matthew Taitt, and numerous election administrators for their assistance in completing this project.