For example, as election officials would need to start planning quite soon for this highly-likely recall election, would we see a repeat of statewide universal voting-by-mail for a recall election?
And once the recall election date is set, and candidates start to file, how many people will file to be on the replacement ballot?
Dozens of candidates? Hundreds of candidates? In any case, it seems like this recall election will happen. There was some excellent research conducted about the gubernatorial recall election, and now is a great time to dust those papers off and re-read them. I will make one prediction. The recall election, assuming it happens, will be a lot more tumultuous than pundits today are suggesting.
There is likely to be a significant amount of litigation regarding the potential gubernatorial recall election, there will likely be a long ballot of replacement candidates, and the pandemic is likely to introduce complexity into the administration of a recall election.
Our Monitoring the Election project has released two briefs , reporting on preliminary results from a national survey of registered voters conducted immediately after the November 3, Presidential Election. These two briefs provide a glimpse into how the heated rhetoric about election and voter fraud before and during the general election has been received by the American electorate.
One of these briefs focuses on the general question of voter confidence in the election. We asked registered voters to answer four questions about their confidence regarding the presidential election: their confidence that their own ballot was counted as intended asked to registered voters who cast a ballot , and their confidence that ballots were counted in their county, their state, and across the nation the latter three asked to all registered voters. The topline results are shown in this graph from the report.
Voter Confidence. Those are also remarkable numbers, and in my opinion, a strong indication that American voters are overall quite confident that their local and state election administration was handled well in this contested election.
This lower level of confidence about the national administration of the election is concerning. Digging one layer deeper into the data, we looked at perceptions of confidence by partisanship and presidential vote.
We see high levels of confidences for both Republicans and Democrats, and for both those who voted for Trump or Biden. The other brief , authored by Yimeng Li, focuses on a number of questions in the survey asking registered voters about their perceptions that various types of election or voter fraud might occur, and also about hacking of the voting technology in the election.
The survey included questions asking whether the respondent thought that various types of election or voter fraud were common or not:. Yimeng found that there is a sizable proportion of the American electorate that believes that voter or election frauds like these occur or are common.
To quote from the report:. Ballot stealing or tempering, fraudulent casting of absentee ballots intended for another person, and non-citizen voting are perceived to be the top three types of election or voter fraud. Only about half of the voters believe each of the six types of fraud occurs infrequently or almost never. Like we saw regarding voter confidence in the Presidential election, the perceptions of the American electorate are very polarized along partisan lines.
Across the six different types of election or voter fraud we asked about in the survey Table 2 of the brief , we generally see that majorities of Biden voters believe that these types of fraud are infrequent or that they never occur, while majorities of Trump voters believe that these types of fraud are very common or that they occur occasionally. A good example of this regards non-citizen voting. It seems clear from these topline estimates from this survey that the American electorate remains confident that their own votes were counted, and that they are quite confident that votes in their counties and states were counted as intended.
Which is a good sign. But we see much less confidence in the national administration of the election, where opinions are deeply divided on party lines. We also see that a reasonably large segment of the electorate believes that various types of election or voter fraud occur, and that perceptions about the incidence of election fraud are polarized by partisanship.
This indicates that voters are picking up on elite partisan rhetoric about election and voter fraud, which have been going on since , and which of course has intensified in the past few weeks.
But does this mean that despite high levels of voter participation in the presidential election, will those who lack confidence or are concerned with fraud might be less likely to vote in future federal elections for example, the and elections? Will the lower levels of confidence in the national administration of federal elections, and concerns about election fraud for some segments of the electorate, lead to further erosion of trust in American democratic institutions?
But these survey results provide some cause for concern, and they show that we need to continue our work to inform the American electorate about the integrity of the presidential election. You can see our monitoring reports at Monitoring the Election. So what are we seeing? More later today as we get additional data, and after visiting a number of in-person voting centers today.
The Healthy Elections Project has been running a series of surveys in a half dozen battleground states, asking how voters intend to cast their ballots. I have previously published thoughts on Arizona, Florida , North Carolina , Pennsylvania , and Wisconsin , with a bonus posting about Georgia where we are not surveying, ourselves. This brief note focuses on Michigan.
First, about the intentions themselves. The table below shows that there was very little movement in reported intentions across the four waves of the surveys. Second, to convert these expectations to raw numbers, we need an estimate of turnout. In most of the other memos, I used a couple of ad hoc methods. For Michigan, the low and high estimates are 4. However, turnout in was 4. Third, here is what the combination of numbers above imply for the final distribution of votes in Michigan, by mode:.
Fourth, a final calculation needs to be made, if we want to estimate the number of mail ballots that will be requested, since not all mail ballots are returned. If that return rate holds for Michigan, then it should expect between 2.
There is one data issue that needs to be brought up here. Michigan does not have a full-bore early voting program. Rather, it allows in-person absentee voting, but it does not keep track of this separately. For that reason, and because so few survey respondents indicated they planned to vote in-person before Election Day, I will proceed by considering only mail balloting. The other data issue is that Michigan, unlike most of the other battleground states, does not provide an easily accessible absentee file to the public, nor even a daily report about these statistics.
Elections Project website for these statistics. As of yesterday, the U. Elections Project reports that 3,, ballots had been requested and 2,, mail ballots had been returned. The deadline for requesting mail ballots is this Friday, although the state really, the world has been encouraging voters to request their mail ballots as soon as possible. Therefore, it seems highly unlikely that anything more than 3. On the returns side, the past week has seen about 66, ballots returned per day.
This should pick up in the final days leading up to Election Day. Nonetheless, at this pace, and with the deadline for receipt on Election Day. That would yield another , ballots, or 2. As for Election Day, this is where the turnout estimate really matters. If we believe the low-end turnout projections of 4. If the high-end projection of 6. I have previously published thoughts on Arizona, Florida , North Carolina and Wisconsin , with a bonus posting about Georgia where we are not surveying, ourselves.
This brief note focuses on Pennsylvania. First, as to the intentions themselves. For Pennsylvania, the low and high estimates are 6. However, turnout in was 6. Third, here is what the combination of numbers above imply for the final distribution of votes in Pennsylvania, by mode:. If that return rate holds for Pennsylvania, then it should expect between 2. Pennsylvania does not have a full-bore early voting program. Rather, it allows in-person mail voting, which some cities, notably Philadelphia, have promoted.
The Pennsylvania voter file does not have a separate code for in-person absentee ballots, and the conventional way to figure out who was voting in person yielded an implausible number of early in-person voters.
To be included as a candidate on the ballot, any eligible Member or Fellow must be nominated in a particular year by five or more of the Members or Fellows eligible to vote.
Should there be two or more eligible candidates for a specific At Large Board Seat the Sub-Committee shall direct the Committee on Elections to conduct an election. Should there be only one eligible candidate for a specific At-Large Board Seat, by the deadline, the candidate shall be deemed to have been elected by acclamation. Should there be no eligible candidate for a specific At-Large Board Seat by the deadline the Board of Directors shall appoint a Member or Fellow to fill the seat for one year.
At least four months before the date of the next annual meeting, the Nominating Committee, acting as a Committee of the Whole, shall receive and review the nominations for President-Elect.
To be included on the ballot, any eligible Member or Fellow must be nominated in a particular year by five or more of the Members or Fellows eligible to vote.
Should there be two or more eligible candidates for President-Elect the Committee of the Whole shall direct the Committee on Elections to conduct an election. Should there be only one eligible candidate for President-Elect by the deadline, the candidate shall be deemed to have been elected by acclamation. Search Menu. Article Navigation. Close mobile search navigation Article Navigation. Volume Article Contents. Dickinson H.
Oxford Academic. Google Scholar. Cite Cite H. Select Format Select format. Permissions Icon Permissions. Article PDF first page preview. Issue Section:. You do not currently have access to this article.
0コメント