1. Gender Equality and EMBs Richard E. Matland Loyola University Chicago I.Issue of Separate Voting Booths vs. Same: Primarily issue in Islamic Countries II.Voter Turnout. I.Do Men and Women Vote at the Same Rate? II.We don’t know! III.Help Us out please: ACE

2. What do we Know? Male %Female %Difference Guatemala200361.847.3-14.5 India199865.757.9-7.8 UK20056261 Iceland199187.987.3-0.6 Liberia200571.972.80.9 Sweden199881.582.81.3 Ecuador200270.372.11.8 Malta200394.896.61.8 Chile200685.788.42.7 Puerto Rico199681.584.73.2 Finland200367.671.64 USA200861.565.74.2 Barbados199958.168.110**

3. Greetings from Political Science Forensic Political Science: Walter Mebane – Worked on 2000 Florida Presidential Election – Statistician & Political Scientist Bane’s Law – Statistically Random Numbers – Evaluate at Precinct Level – Guess What: Russians are Cheating

4. Nicaragua: Buying Votes Vote Buying and Social Desirability Bias: Experimental Evidence From Nicaragua Ezequiel Gonzalez-Ocantos Chad Kiewiet de Jonge Carlos Melendez Javier Osorio David W. Nickerson Forthcoming American Journal of Political Science

5. Dilemma Democracy is more than Just Voting: Clientelistic vs. Programmatic Campaigns How widespread is Vote Buying?? – Ethnographic Studies: it is widespread Striking, but Impossible to estimate how much. – Survey Results: barely exists 7% in Argentina, 2.4% in Nicaragua – Explanation: Social Desirability Solution: Unobtrusive Measure & Experimental Measure: James March

6. Split Sample List Experiment (ver 1) I am going to hand you a card that mentions various activities, and I would like for you to tell me if they were carried out by candidates or activists during the last electoral campaign. Please, do not tell me which ones, only HOW MANY. – They put up campaign posters or signs in your neighborhood. – They visited your home. – They placed campaign advertisements on TV or radio – They threatened you to vote for them.

7. Split Sample List Experiment (ver 2) – They put up campaign posters or signs in your neighborhood. – They visited your home. – They placed campaign advertisements on TV or radio. – They threatened you to vote for them. – They gave you a gift or did you a favor. Means – Treatment Sample (Ver 2): 2.31 [Note would be 2.06 if no buying] – Control Sample (Ver 1): 2.06 – Difference: 24.4% of the sample admits to selling vote – Note this is a LOW estimate – Randomization Tests: Age, Female%, Education, Income Category

8. Which Samples Targeted? Both Parties & Independents no big difference Rural & Urban equal Income: all bribed: maybe rich slightly less ? Women: 33% vs. Men: 15% _______________________________________ Older were more likely to be bribed – 41% of those over 50 years of age Biggest Difference: Can parties monitor your vote? – Can Monitor: 49% – Cannot Monitor: 6.3% – DK: 40%

9. Implications Messages from EMBs to Voters: Your Vote is Secure may decrease vote buying. – It will also INCREASE Voting. Connecticut Secretary of State Experiment. – Two Letters: Generic Letter vs. Safe & Anonymous Control: Election date, times, we implement all laws and run the elections, any questions just call us. Treatment: “We maintain the secrecy of the ballot. Poll workers keep only a list of who voted, not how they voted. No record of how you or any other voter filled out their ballot is created other than your anonymous ballot. Your choices cannot be matched with your name. Additionally, voting booths provide a private place for you to fill out your ballot. You place your ballot into the voting machine on top of the locked ballot box without anyone else looking at it.

10. Outcomes in 2010 Safe, Secure & Anonymous vs. Generic Message 3 TYPES of Voters - Ever-Voters (regular voters); increased turnout by 1%: 63.7% versus 62.6% - Recently Registered Non-Voters; increased turnout by 3.5%: 17.0% vs. 20.5% - Longstanding Registered Non-Voters; increased turnout by 4.3%: 13.2% vs. 17.5% - THIS IS CONNECTICUT!!! Love to try in Developing Democracy: Send me an E-mail