Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: If international observers are a signal that the election will be objectively evaluated according to international standards, and are associated with free and fair elections, why do opposition parties boycott the election even when they are present?

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The interaction between opposition parties and international actors during the volatile democratization process has been seldom studied. This paper explores this relationship from 1990-2000 and finds that, controlling for the level of electoral competition, the presence of international observers increases the probability that an opposition party will choose to boycott the election. We argue that this interaction occurs because opposition parties recognize that, under specific circumstances, an election boycott can draw additional international attention to electoral fraud and serve to discredit an incumbent who is striving to be recognized as democratic.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The paper examines six components of the 2008 presidential election and evaluates them for whether they favor the Democrats, the Republicans, or a close election. Partisanship, polarization, the nomination campaigns, and the open seat nature of the election favor a close election. Retrospective considerations favor the Democrats and prospective considerations may favor the Republicans. The context suggests another very close election and the polls, especially after adjusting for the competitive effect of the campaign and the partisan effect of the difference between registered and actual voters corroborates the analysis of the election's context.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The administration of elections is the responsibility of state and local governments, and important differences among and within states persist. The number of voters with access to “no excuse” mail voting is growing, but adoption rates vary widely. We explore various methods employed by local election officials to promote the availability of mail voting and the effects of these differential promotion rates on subsequent modes and rates of voting. Election officials play a major, but overlooked, role in the massive shift to convenience voting over the last several elections. One in 5 ballots were cast before Election Day in 2004 and may reach 1 in 3 in 2008. Currently we have neither an understanding of when or where mail balloting is promoted nor any estimation of the effects of these efforts on election administration and participation. Colorado provides a valuable case study as counties have taken different approaches to promoting permanent mail voting (passed in 2007) and administering the 2008 election. Using pre and post election surveys of Colorado’s County Clerks, we examine a wide range of techniques for promotion of mail balloting and explore the effects on subsequent modes and rates of voting across counties.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper examines the influence of campaign election laws on patterns of candidacy in state legislative elections. The decision by a candidate to seek office is a necessary condition for electoral competition to occur, however, few studies have considered the influence of various legal factors that may inhibit or enhance the likelihood that a candidate seeks office. Of particular concern in this analysis is the influence of campaign finance laws. Previous studies demonstrate that restrictions on campaign contributions vary dramatically from state to state and such variation affects levels of campaign spending and competition. But how do such conditions affect the likelihood that an incumbent is challenged in the primary or general election? How do these various restrictions on funding sources influence the probability that an independent challenger emerges? Do lower contribution limits actually level the playing field and result in greater contestation, as many reform-minded individuals would hope? A central question is not just whether such laws have an effect, but how important is this effect relative to other factors such as ballot access laws (filing fee and petition requirements) or state and district political conditions (legislative professionalism, partisan leanings of the district, etc.) A preliminary examination of state and district-level features in both primary and general elections during the 1994 and 1996 elections enables us to begin answering such questions.