Cambridge Journals Online

Cambridge Journals Online
Skip to content
Perspectives on Politics (2003), 1 : 317-326 Cambridge University Press
Copyright © 2003 by the American Political Science Association
doi:10.1017/S1537592703000239
Published online by Cambridge University Press 27 Aug 2003
 
Perspective on Politics (2003), 1:2:317-326 American Political Science Association
Copyright © 2003 by the American Political Science Association
doi:10.1017/S1537592703000239

Articles

Beyond the Butterfly: The Complexity of U.S. Ballots

Richard G. Niemi a1 and Paul S. Herrnson a2
a1 Don Alonzo Watson Professor of Political Science at the University of Rochester (niemi@rochester.edu). He is co-author or co-editor of a number of books, including Comparing Democracies 2, Term Limits in the State Legislatures, and Civic Education. He has written numerous articles on political socialization, voting, and legislative districting. His current research interests are civic education, term limits, and voting technologies
a2 Director of the Center for American Politics and Citizenship and a professor in the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland (pherrnson@capc.umd.edu). He is author of Congressional Elections; co-author of The Financiers of Congressional Elections; and author, editor, or co-editor of other books. He has written numerous articles on political parties and campaigns and elections. His current research interests are congressional elections, money and politics, and voting technologies.

Abstract

Curiosities and inconsistencies in the format of U.S. election ballots go far beyond the infamous “butterfly” ballot. Ballot instructions, candidate and party listings, party symbols, and, in general, variations that result from a complex and highly decentralized election system provide ample opportunity for all but the most sophisticated voters to misunderstand, mismark, or spoil their ballots and for all voters to feel confused and frustrated. We call attention to the enormous disparity in ballot designs across the states and to individual state designs that are inconsistent and needlessly complex. We recommend changes that would promote clarity and uniformity and yet allow room for state variations in the most politically potent aspects of ballot design. We also suggest steps by which reforms might be accomplished.


Key Words: .

Footnotes

The authors thank Matthew Stiffler for his assistance in collecting and checking ballots.


back to top
Cambridge University Press