Search

State governments have experimented with a variety of election laws to make voting more convenient and increase turnout. The impacts of these reforms vary in surprising ways, providing insight into the mechanisms by which states can encourage or reduce turnout. Our theory focuses on mobilization and distinguishes between the direct and indirect effects of election laws. We conduct both aggregate and individual-level statistical analyses of voter turnout in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections. The results show that Election Day registration has a consistently positive effect on turnout, whereas the most popular reform-early voting-is actually associated with lower turnout when it is implemented by itself We propose that early voting has created negative unanticipated consequences by reducing the civic significance of elections for individuals and altering the incentives for political campaigns to invest in mobilization. dvocates, journalists, and politicians frequently propose changes to election laws out of the belief that making voting easier will increase voter turnout. It seems logical that making voting more convenient-through relaxed registration rules, registra­ tion on Election Day, voting prior to Election Day, or ex­ panded absentee voting-will encourage more people to cast ballots. We challenge this notion and show that the most popular reform-early voting-actually decreases turnout when implemented by itself, an unanticipated consequence that has significant implications for policy and for theories of how state governments can influence turnout. This result is counterintuitive, and it certainly runs against the grain of conventional wisdom. Our expla

Why do hundreds of amateurs challenge entrenched U.S. House incumbents every two years? Previous work offers a range of explanations, from naivetd to love of politics. The most systematic study of this question concluded that amateurs challenge incumbents because it maximizes their chances of being elected to the House. This article argues that distinctions must be drawn between "ambitious" and "experience-seeking" amateurs because no single theory can explain amateurs' motivations. Ambitious amateurs respond to favorable district and national conditions in their decision to run, like their experienced counterparts, while experience-seeking amateurs do not.