Richard Bensel has written a fascinating book on a timely subject, the nature of polling places in the United States at the juncture between the second and third party systems. His cogent description of how balloting actually took place raises provocative questions about the interpretation of nineteenth-century elections, the development of modern democracy, and the dilemmas inherent in electoral institutions.

This book is based on the records of 48 disputed congressional elections between 1850 and 1868, including more than 16,000 pages of testimony by the losing and winning candidates, party and government officials, and ordinary voters. Although not a representative sampling of period elections, these disputes are reasonably diverse, being, for example, roughly divided between free and slave states. Bensel is well aware of the inherent limitations of this kind of information but makes a persuasive argument that it reveals common electoral practices and not just controversial ones. These cases certainly contain a rich view of electioneering at the grass roots.

Bensel stresses the “sheer physicality” of voting during this period. Polling places were mostly set up in private buildings, ranging from farms and churches to lively stables and saloons. The ballot box and election judges were set apart, connected to the outside world by a constructed “voting window” and anterior platform. Voters presented themselves on the platform, and if judged eligible to vote, passed their tickets through the window to be put into the ballot box. However, the area outside the window and around the platform was unregulated. Typically filled with boisterous crowds, it was the province of party agents, who dispensed tickets, whisky, and petty bribes, and organized voter intimidation. Voting was a thoroughly masculine activity, and participants were expected to have enough “ordinary courage” to endure the regular mayhem.

Under these circumstances, the sociological context of a polling place had a strong influence on the outcome. Ethnic and religious identities were central to this spectacle, which regularly influenced voters' choice of tickets, whether they attempted to vote, and officials' judgments of their eligibility. Here Bensel describes four kinds of sociological contexts for the polling place: settled rural areas (where the personal histories of individuals were paramount); dense urban areas (where ethnic and religious stereotyping were common); the thinly settled frontier (where federal employees and improvisation were critical), and the special role of the army in voting during the Civil War (when loyalty to the Union was a crucial factor).

The author draws an ambivalent conclusion from these cases. On the one hand, such polling places were very undemocratic in that they regularly excluded unpopular minorities and substituted material incentives for purposive ones. But on the other hand, such polling places were quite democratic in that they allowed illiterate and impoverished men to participate in the choice of leaders and to have the same standing as the wealthy and powerful. This comment from the book's conclusion neatly captures the mixed assessment: “There was thus an independent, almost autonomous sociology to the American polling places in the mid-nineteenth century. Viewed from above, it constituted an underworld of small-time intrigue, petty scandal, and parochial gossip. But when seen from below, the American polling place was a rich brew of community norms, traditions, customs, and contestation—a place where popular culture met and was transformed by great political economic forces and interests” (pp. 296–97).

Bensel uses his case studies to raise some provocative questions about the literature on American political development. He notes that many interpretations of nineteenth-century elections assume that vote totals reflect the policy preferences of the electorate. In fact, the results may be contaminated by the biases of the sociological context and the machinations of party workers. Likewise, students of modernization argue that this kind of electoral politics was a necessary stage in the development of contemporary democracy, establishing national identity, socializing the masses, and providing political stability. These cases cast some doubt on the validity of these claims. And Bensel offers a solution to the much-commented-upon disjunction between the fierce policy debates in party platforms and the bitter ethno-religious conflict in campaigns during this period: Party agents were the crucial mediators between elite policy concerns and mass political consent.

Some readers may find Bensel's insights incompletely developed and thus unsatisfying. For example, if the sociological context of elections has contaminated election results, then how can an understanding of the context produce a more accurate assessment of the meaning of the vote? If the riotous nineteenth-century polling place was not a necessary step in the development of modern democracy, then what were the alternative paths? And did the mediating functions of party agents have an impact on policy debate and implementation? Perhaps his next book will address these kinds of questions more fully.

I read this book in the midst of worries about the contemporary polling place in the run-up to the 2004 election. The contrast between now and then starkly illustrates the dilemmas inherent in electoral institutions. The nineteenth-century polling place was largely in private hands, with some undemocratic consequences. The contemporary polling place is largely in public hands: Ballots are created by official authorities, the space around the polling place is free of electioneering, and voter eligibility is determined by bureaucratic processes. Even with its imperfections, this polling place is a far cry from the one Bensel describes so vividly. And yet this greater public role has had its costs as well. The official ballot limits voters' choices, elections are less likely to excite voter enthusiasm, and eligibility rules reduce voter participation. In short, the present polling place has some undemocratic consequences as well. This fine study demonstrates that even the type of polling places is not a neutral matter, revealing just how political politics really is.