Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T16:32:00.935Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Five Years Later: A Re-Assessment of Oregon's Vote by Mail Electoral Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2004

Priscilla L. Southwell
Priscilla L. Southwell
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Features
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , January 2004, pp. 89 - 93
Copyright
© 2004 by the American Political Science Association

In 1981, the Oregon State Legislature approved a test of all-mail elections in certain local contests, and, by 1987, a majority of counties began conducting all-mail elections for local races or ballot measures, primarily because of reduced costs.1

In general, the cost of conducting all-mail elections is 1/3 to 1/2 of the amount required for polling place elections. For example, the May 1994 polling place election in Oregon cost $4.33 per ballot while the May 1995 vote by mail election cost $1.24 per ballot. See State of Oregon (1995, 4).

The circumstances of Senator Bob Packwood's resignation, effective October 1, 1995, led to a primary and general election for his replacement. The “special” nature of both this primary in December 1995 and the general election in January 1996 allowed the secretary of state to adopt an all-mail format for these two elections. These were the first federal elections in the nation to be conducted entirely by mail.

From the onset of the campaign for this special election, vote by mail was controversial, increasingly so as the parties became concerned with the possibility of a particular advantage that might accrue to one party or another. The state Republican Party leaders initially supported vote by mail, as they believed that vote by mail would merely institutionalize the Republicans' previous efforts to get absentee ballots to elderly Republican voters. However, Republican activists began to express doubts about this electoral method when a Democrat senator was elected to replace Packwood in this 1996 election. Similarly, Democrats initially feared that vote by mail would be similar to absentee voting, which tends to facilitate the participation of likely Republican voters. (See Jeffe and Jeffe 1990; Hamilton 1988; Karp and Banducci 2001; Mutch 1992; Oliver 1996; Patterson and Caldeira 1988; Rosenfeld 1995). However, others have argued that the expected rise in voter turnout would help the Democrats (Burnham 1982; Piven and Cloward 1988; Radcliff 1994).2

Others have found that the partisan preferences of nonvoters do not differ from actual voters: Calvert and Gilchrist, 1993; Highton and Wolfinger, 1999; Nagel and McNulty, 2000; Quigley, 1995; Teixiera, 1992. DeNardo (1986) found that only the minority party benefits from elevated turnout.

Apart from the uncertainty over partisan advantage, supporters of all-mail elections tend to emphasize reduced costs, expected higher turnout, and the ease of voting for those individuals who have hectic schedules or experience unforeseen crises on election day (see Broder 2000; “Vote-By-Mail is a Winner” 1996; “Oregon's New Idea” 1996; “Mail-In Democracy” 1996). These arguments complement many of those used in defense of the “motor voter” bill.

Opponents of vote by mail are concerned about the possibility of voter fraud,3

In 2000, the Republican Party claimed that 1,204 Oregonians had registered in two counties and voted twice. An investigation by the Oregon Elections Division found that only a handful of voters were registered in two counties, and none cast more than one ballot (Prengaman 2003). These concerns may be tempered by the adoption of a statewide system (set for 2004) of voter registration, facilitated by the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

undue influence on the voter, loss of the polling place experience, or question whether the act of voting should be made easier (see Cain 2002; Rose 2002).

A certain portion of this controversy arises from the uncertainty of the impact of vote by mail on the nature of the electorate. What types of individuals vote in vote by mail elections, but might not vote if the election were held at the polling place? Are these “vote by mail” voters more likely to be Republican, as with absentee voters, or does this new electoral method draw other types of potential voters into the electorate? Would there be “winners” and “losers” under this new method of voting?

This uncertainty led to reluctance on the part of the 1997 Oregon State legislature to consider legislation that would have made vote by mail permanent (Oregon State Legislature 1997). However, the League of Women Voters then led a successful petition drive to put vote by mail on the 1998 general election ballot. The ballot measure passed with a 67% margin. Since that time, all elections in Oregon have been conducted entirely by mail.4

A vote by mail election officially begins when ballots are mailed to all registered voters approximately three weeks prior to Election Day. Ballots cannot be sent to a forwarding address. The voter marks his ballot, puts it in a “secrecy” envelope, then inserts this envelope inside a mailing envelope which must be signed on the outside. She then has three weeks to mail in (or drop off at a designated site) this signed envelope. Four days before Election Day, voters are advised to deliver their ballots in person to the county courthouse if they have not already been mailed. The voter's signature on the outside envelope is then compared with the signature on record when the voter initially registered to vote.

Public opinion surveys conducted immediately after this 1996 special election indicated widespread support among Oregonians for this new type of electoral format (Southwell and Burchett 1997; Traugott 1996). However, certain observers of vote by mail have suggested that its popularity and subsequent effect on turnout may have been influenced by its novelty. (Jeffe and Jeffe 1990; Magelby 1987). Others have noted that a crucial question about vote by mail is its effect on voting behavior over time (Berinsky et al. 2001). It has now been nearly five years since vote by mail was adopted for all elections in Oregon. This 2003 survey provides substantial public opinion data on vote by mail, as well as an updated analysis of its effect on turnout.

Data and Methods

This research uses data from the Oregon Annual Social Indicators Survey, conducted by the Oregon Survey Research Laboratory at the University of Oregon.5

The original collector of the data, OSRL, bears no responsibility for uses of this collection or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.

A random-digit-dialing (RDD) survey of 1,037 individuals in the state of Oregon was conducted between December, 2002 and January, 2003.6

The response rate was 62.28%.

For the purposes of this study, only registered voters (n = 695) were analyzed.7

Vote-by-mail is an electoral reform that can only have a direct effect on the turnout of registered voters. See Berinsky et al. (2001, 6) and Southwell and Burchett (2000, 78).

Preference for Type of Election

Table I provides a bivariate analysis of the respondents' preferences for either vote by mail or the polling place as a method of conducting elections. The overwhelming support for vote-bymail is apparent (80.9%), and this preference is consistent across all demographic and attitudinal subcategories. While certain groups had an even more positive view of vote by mail—specifically, women, Democrats, moderates, homemakers, retirees, and the disabled—these differences show only weak statistical significance.

These findings are consistent with previous indications of widespread public support for vote by mail, as reported in the surveys conducted in 1996 (Traugott 1996; Southwell and Burchett 1997). Although our recent 2003 survey did not ask the reasons for this preference for vote by mail, we can safely assume that a majority of these respondents favored the ease and convenience of vote by mail, as was mentioned by 78.5% of those who preferred vote by mail in the 1996 survey conducted by Southwell and Burchett (1997, 54). It appears that a majority of Oregon's voters have remained attached to this newly-adopted reform.

Effect of Vote by Mail on Turnout

This survey question, of course, only deals with preference; it is equally important to determine if these preferences have any effect on subsequent voting behavior. Table 2 provides a bivariate analysis of the respondents' view on whether they had voted “more often,” “less often,” or “about the same” since Oregon started conducting vote by mail elections. A clear majority of the respondents indicated that their level of participation stayed at the same level under vote by mail as it had been when elections were held at the polling place, and only a small percentage, 4.1%, said they voted less often. However, 29.3% of the respondents indicated that they voted more often since the adoption of vote by mail. Although we cannot determine the accuracy of this reported increase in voting, this elevated turnout is consistent with statewide turnout figures in Oregon since the adoption of vote by mail (see Southwell and Burchett 2000; Secretary of State, State of Oregon 2000).

There were significant differences among certain demographic groups on this question. For women, their preference for vote by mail, reported in Table 1, was also reflected in their perception that they voted more often as a result. Younger voters, in the 26–38 year range, as well as those who were either disabled or a homemaker, also indicated that they voted more often under vote by mail. Perhaps these women are the busy “soccer moms” or employed women who find that voting by mail is simply easier, as may also be the case with younger people who are paid an hourly wage or lack the means of transportation to get to the polling place.

In this analysis, we also included measures of reported vote for specific candidates in various races at the national and state level. There was no discernible difference with regard to partisan identification or candidate preferences. There appear to be no winners or losers with vote by mail, and any reported increase in turnout appears to draw diverse groups into the electorate. These findings suggest that the heightened degree of concern among party leaders about partisan advantage, while understandable, is unfounded.

Conclusions

It appears that voters in Oregon have retained their support for vote by mail, and this support varies only slightly across demographic and partisan groups with the electorate. A majority of all subcategories favor vote by mail over more traditional polling place voting. The consequences of vote by mail on the nature of the electorate is one of the most hotly debated aspects of this electoral reform, but this survey suggests that neither of the two major parties have much to lose or gain from vote by mail. Instead, the groups that reported that they vote more often under vote by mail are simply a set of individuals—women, young people, the disabled, and homemakers—who have found it more convenient to vote under a system that does not require them to be physically present on “the first Tuesday after the first Monday.” Although there may be additional concerns about vote by mail, the main effect on the electorate is primarily to increase its magnitude rather than change its composition.

References

Berinsky Adam, Nancy Burns, and Michael W. Traugott. 2001 “Who Votes by Mail? A Dynamic Model of the Individual-Level Consequences of Voting-by-Mail Systems.” Public Opinion Quarterly 65 (2): 178– 197.Google Scholar
Broder David S. 2000 “Vive Vote-By-Mail.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 30, A17.Google Scholar
Burnham Walter D. 1982 The Current Crisis in American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cain Brad. 2002 “Nation's Sole Vote-by-Mail System Gets Another Test.” The Associated Press State & Local Wire, May 4.Google Scholar
Calvert Jerry W., and Jack Gilchrist. 1993 “Suppose They Held an Election and Almost Everyone Came.” PS: Political Science and Politics 26 (4): 695– 670.Google Scholar
DeNardo James. 1986 “Does Heavy Turnout Help the Democrats?” American Political Science Review 80 (4): 1291– 1299.Google Scholar
Hamilton Randy H. 1988 “American All-Mail Balloting: A Decade's Experience.” Public Administration Review 48 (3): 860– 866.Google Scholar
Highton Benjamin, and Raymond E. Wolfinger. 1999 The Political Implications of Higher Turnout. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies.Google Scholar
Jeffe Douglas, and Sherry B. Jeffe. 1990 “Absence Counts: Voting by Mail.” The American Enterprise 1 (1): 19– 21.Google Scholar
Karp Jeffery A., and Susan A. Banducci. 2001 “Absentee Voting, Mobilization, and Participation.” American Politics Research 29 (2): 183– 195.Google Scholar
Magleby David. 1987 “Participation in Mail Ballot Elections.” Western Political Quarterly 40 (1): 79– 82.Google Scholar
“Mail-In Democracy.” 1996 New York Times, February 8, A24.Google Scholar
Mutch Robert. 1992 “Voting by Mail.” State Legislatures 18 (1): 29– 31.Google Scholar
Nagel Jack H., and John E. McNulty. 2000 Partisan Effects of Voter Turnout in Presidential Elections.” American Politics Quarterly 28 (3): 408– 429.Google Scholar
Oliver J. Eric. 1996 “The Effects of Eligibility Restrictions and Party Activity on Absentee Voting and Overall Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (2): 498– 513.Google Scholar
Oregon Annual Social Indicators Survey. 2003 Oregon Survey Research Laboratory, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
“Oregon's New Idea.” 1996 Washington Post, February 5, A20.Google Scholar
Oregon State Legislature, 1997 H.B. 3086, 69th Legislature, Regular Session.Google Scholar
Patterson Samuel C., and Gregory A. Caldeira. 1985 “Mailing in the Vote: Correlates and Consequences of Absentee Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 29 (4): 766– 788.Google Scholar
Piven Frances F., and Richard A. Cloward. 1988 Why Americans Don't Vote. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Prengaman Peter. 2003 “Oregon's Voting System to Get Revamped.” Associated Press State & Local Wire, August 10.Google Scholar
Quigley Fran. 1995 “Social Welfare and Ideological Attitudes of United States Nonvoters: Assessing the Potential Impact of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.” Journal of Political and Military Sociology 23 (2): 213– 227.Google Scholar
Radcliff Benjamin. 1994 “Turnout and the Democratic Vote.” American Politics Quarterly 22 (3): 249– 265.Google Scholar
Rose Melody. 2002 “Commentary: State's Vote-by-Mail Fails to Fulfill its Promise.” The Oregonian, October 20, F01.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld Margaret. 1995 “All-Mail-Ballot Elections.” Innovations in Election Administration. Washington, D.C.: The National Clearinghouse on Election Administration/Federal Election Commission.Google Scholar
Secretary of State, State of Oregon. 1995 “Oregon's Special Senate Election.” Salem, OR, November 11.Google Scholar
Secretary of State, State of Oregon. 2000 “Vote by Mail.” Salem, OR, March.Google Scholar
Southwell Priscilla L., and Justin Burchett. 1997 “Survey of Vote-by-Mail Senate Election in the State of Oregon.” PS: Political Science and Politics 91 (1): 53– 57.Google Scholar
Southwell Priscilla L., and Justin Burchett. 2000 “The Effect of All-Mail Elections on Voter Turnout.” American Politics Quarterly. 29 (1): 72– 80.Google Scholar
Traugott Michael. W. 1996 Report on the Characteristics of the Oregon Electorate Participating in the Special General Election for the U.S. Senate on January 30, 1996. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Preference for Election Type

Figure 1

Self-Reported Effects of Vote by Mail on Frequency of Voting

Figure 2

Appendix. Coding of Variables for Analysis