ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Election-Campaign Law Blogs -> Election Updates

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Election-Campaign Law

: Election Updates

Meredith and Maholtra paper

By Paul Gronke

ADVERTISEMENTS

I read the Meredith and Maholtra paper cited by MIke, and while it’s a nice methodological effort, I think the authors significantly overreach on the conclusions.

In essence, what the authors show is that the candidate totals differ between VBM precincts and non VBM precincts.  They have an elegant design comparison, choosing precincts just over and just under 250 voters, thus addressing some of the selection problems that bedevil other research that relies on this “natural experiment.”  Table 1 does a very nice job assessing the differences between the precincts.

The paper is solid methodologically, bu the conclusions overreach.  It is no secret that candidate totals differed between absentee/by mail and precinct place ballots.  I reported in an earlier posting here that 80% of John Edwards’s votes in Contra Costa County were absentee, while 40% of Obama’s and Clinton’s votes came in via that mode (in line with the state average).

But does this say anything generalizable about “information loss” and “campaign momentum”?  The authors say yes:

We predict that late campaign information loss will cause John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, and Fred Thompson to perform better among VBM voters.  This is not to say that some voters do not prefer to vote for withdrawn candidates under full information as a protest or expressive vote; indeed John Edwards got more than seven percent of the vote in the West Virginia primary on May 13, 2008, months after he withdrew from the race.  Instead, we attribute any significant increase in support for withdrawn candidates when using VBM instead of polling place as evidence of late campaign information loss.

I would need to be convinced that this more complicated explanation is valid rather than the much simpler one: voters won’t cast a vote for a candidate who has withdrawn.

The analysis of Huckabee is a case where theory fits data much better–Huckabee’s momentum gains during this period are reflected (2-3 percentage points worth) in the vote by mail vs. precinct place votes.

Full post as published by Election Updates on October 15, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0025 secs (from cache 11/01/26 01:10:14)