All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Ballot Roll-off in Intermediate Appellate Court Elections
Unformatted Document Text:  4 might expect. The mean roll-off in Hall’s (2007) study of supreme court elections (654 elections from 1980-2000) was 25.63 percent, a difference of only 3.49 percent. 4 [Table 1 about here] Another similarity between roll-off in IAC and supreme court elections is that there is significant variance across states. If contextual factors did not influence potential voters, then roll-off would be random. In other words, the percentages should be nearly consistent across states. As Table 1 indicates, that is definitely not the case. For example, the average roll-off in Alabama (n=16) was only 8.1 percent compared to Michigan (n=12) where average roll-off was more than five times as high (roughly 42 percent). In one Texas IAC race, less than 1 percent of the electorate rolled off. At the other end of the spectrum, 64.34 percent of voters failed to cast a vote in an Arizona retention election. The standard deviations in Alabama and Oklahoma are miniscule, but they are quite large in Texas and Indiana. Clearly, then, roll-off in IAC elections is not random. As Hall (2007, 1140) writes about supreme court roll-off, “[T]he extraordinary variations that occur in citizen participation both across and within states do not speak to a consistently apathetic electorate and simply beg scientific explanation.” We now turn to those explanations. Modeling Ballot Roll-off Simply because roll-off in IAC elections, as in supreme court elections, is not random does not mean that differences do not exist between the two levels regarding the significant 4 Roll-off for both types of appellate court elections is higher than for most other offices or propositions for which people vote. Although admittedly the study only looked at roll-off in one election year in one state, Wattenberg et al. (2000) found that average roll-off for House and state legislative elections was only 4 percent and 8 percent, respectively. Even for low-information partisan statewide contests, such as controller or insurance commissioner, roll-off was only around 5 percent. In his study of statewide propositions, Magleby (1984) found that roll-off averaged between 15-18 percent, still substantially lower than roll-off in appellate court elections.

Authors: Streb, Matthew., Frederick, Brian. and LaFrance, Casey.
first   previous   Page 5 of 30   next   last



background image
4
might expect. The mean roll-off in Hall’s (2007) study of supreme court elections (654 elections
from 1980-2000) was 25.63 percent, a difference of only 3.49 percent.
4
[Table 1 about here]
Another similarity between roll-off in IAC and supreme court elections is that there is
significant variance across states. If contextual factors did not influence potential voters, then
roll-off would be random. In other words, the percentages should be nearly consistent across
states. As Table 1 indicates, that is definitely not the case. For example, the average roll-off in
Alabama (n=16) was only 8.1 percent compared to Michigan (n=12) where average roll-off was
more than five times as high (roughly 42 percent). In one Texas IAC race, less than 1 percent of
the electorate rolled off. At the other end of the spectrum, 64.34 percent of voters failed to cast a
vote in an Arizona retention election. The standard deviations in Alabama and Oklahoma are
miniscule, but they are quite large in Texas and Indiana. Clearly, then, roll-off in IAC elections
is not random. As Hall (2007, 1140) writes about supreme court roll-off, “[T]he extraordinary
variations that occur in citizen participation both across and within states do not speak to a
consistently apathetic electorate and simply beg scientific explanation.” We now turn to those
explanations.
Modeling Ballot Roll-off
Simply because roll-off in IAC elections, as in supreme court elections, is not random
does not mean that differences do not exist between the two levels regarding the significant
4
Roll-off for both types of appellate court elections is higher than for most other offices or propositions for which
people vote. Although admittedly the study only looked at roll-off in one election year in one state, Wattenberg et
al. (2000) found that average roll-off for House and state legislative elections was only 4 percent and 8 percent,
respectively. Even for low-information partisan statewide contests, such as controller or insurance commissioner,
roll-off was only around 5 percent. In his study of statewide propositions, Magleby (1984) found that roll-off
averaged between 15-18 percent, still substantially lower than roll-off in appellate court elections.


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 5 of 30   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.