An alternative approach to estimating who is most likely to respond to changes in registration laws

Political Behavior

Volumn 29, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 1-30

  Hanmer, Michael J ^a  

^a GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Election day registration; Election reform; Registration; Treatment effects; Voting

Indexed keywords

EID: 33847661013     PISSN: 01909320     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11109-006-9022-5     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Achen, C. H. (2002). Toward a new political methodology: Microfoundations and ART. Annual Review of Political Science, 5, 423-450.
2. Alvarez, R. M., & Ansolabehere, S. (2002). California votes: The promise of election day registration. DEMOS: A network for ideas and action. http://www.electiondayreg.com/files/research/california_votes.pdf, visited 7/26/02.
3. Alvarez, R. M., Nagler, J., & Wilson, C. H. (2004). Making voting easier: Election day registration in New York. DEMOS: A network for ideas and action. http://www.demos-usa.org/pub198.cf visited 8/1/05.
4. Brians, C. L., & Grofman, B. (1999). When registration barriers fall, who votes? An empirical test of a rational choice model. Public Choice, 99, 161-176.
5. Brians, C. L., & Grofman, B. (2001). Election day registration's effect on U.S. voter turnout. Social Science Quarterly, 82, 170-183.
6. Calvert, J. W., & Gilchrist, J. (1993). Suppose they held an election and almost everyone came! PS: Political Science and Politics, 26, 695-700.
7. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
8. Fenster, M. J. (1994). The impact of allowing day of registration voting on turnout in U.S. presidential elections from 1960 to 1992, a research note. American Politics Quarterly, 22, 74-87.
9. Hanmer, M. J. (2002). A Monte Carlo simulation and empirical investigation of scobit. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 29-September 1, 2002, Boston, MA.
10. Hanmer, M. J. (2004). From selection to election and beyond: Understanding the causes and consequences of electoral reform in America. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan.
11. Hanmer, M. J. (2006). An investigation of scobit. Working paper, Georgetown University.
12. Hardle, W. (1990). Applied nonparametric regression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13. Herron, M. C. (2000). Postestimation uncertainty in limited dependent variable models. Political Analysis, 8, 83-98.
14. Highton, B. (1997). Easy registration and voter turnout. Journal of Politics, 59, 565-575.
15. Highton, B. (2004). Voter registration and turnout in the United States. Perspectives on Politics, 2, 507-515.
16. Huang, C., & Shields, T. G. (2000). Interpretation of interaction effects in logit and probit analyses: Reconsidering the relationship between registration laws, education and voter turnout. American Politics Quarterly, 28, 80-95.
17. Jackson, R. A., Brown, R. D., & Wright, G. C. (1998). Registration, turnout, and the electoral representativeness of U.S. state electorates. American Politics Quarterly, 26, 259-287.
18. James, D. (1987). Voter registration: A restriction on the fundamental right to vote. Yale Law Journal, 96, 1615-1640.
19. Knack, S., & White, J. (2000). Election-day registration and turnout inequality. Political Behavior, 22, 29-44.
20. Manski, C. F. (1989). Anatomy of the selection problem. Journal of Human Resources, 24, 343-360.
21. Manski C. F. (1990). Nonparametric bounds on treatment effects. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 80, 319-323.
22. Manski, C. F. (1994). The selection problem. In: C. Sims (Ed.), Advances in econometrics, sixth world congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Manski, C. F. (1995). Identification problems in the social sciences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
24. Manski, C. F. (1997). Monotone treatment response. Econometrica, 65, 1311-1334.
25. Manski, C. F., & Nagin, D. S. (1998). "Bounding disagreements about treatment effects: A case study of sentencing and recidivism." In: A. Raftery (Ed.), Sociological methodology Basil-Blackwell.
26. Manski, C. F., Sandefur, G. D., McLanahan, S., & Powers, D. (1992). Alternative estimates of the effect of family structure during adolescence on high school graduation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87, 25-37.
27. Martinez, M. D., & Hill, D. (1999). Did motor voter work? American Politics Quarterly, 27, 296-315.
28. Mitchell, G. E. & Wlezien, C. (1995). The impact of legal constraints on voter registration, turnout, and the composition of the American electorate. Political Behavior, 17, 179-202.
29. Nagler, J. (1991). The effect of registration laws and education on U.S. voter turnout. American Political Science Review, 85, 1393-1405.
30. Nagler, J. (1994). Scobit: An alternative estimator to logit and probit. American Journal of Political Science, 38, 230-255.
31. Pepper, J. V. (2000). The intergenerational transmission of welfare receipt: A nonparametric bounds analysis. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 82, 472-488.
32. Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. (1988). Why Americans don't vote. New York: Pantheon Books.
33. Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. (1989). Government statistics and conflicting explanations of non-voting. PS: Political Science and Politics, 22, 580-588.
34. Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. (2000). Why Americans still don't vote: And why politicians want it that way. Boston: Beacon Press.
35. Powell, G. B. Jr. (1986). American voter turnout in comparative perspective. American Political Science Review, 80, 17-43.
36. Rosenstone, S. J., & Wolfinger, R. E. (1978). The effect of registration laws on voter turnout. American Political Science Review, 72, 22-45.
37. Silverman, B. (1986). Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. London: Chapman & Hall.
38. Teixeira, R. A. (1992). The disappearing American voter. Washington DC: Brookings Institute.
39. Traugott, M. W. (2004). Why electoral reform has failed: If you build it, will they come? In: A. N. Crigler, M. R. Just & E. J. McCaffery (Eds.), Rethinking the vote: The politics and prospects of American electoral reform. New York: Oxford University Press.
40. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. CURRENT POPULATION SURVEY: VOTER SUPPLEMENT FILE, 1980 [Computer file]. ICPSR version. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census [producer], (1981). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1999.
41. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. CURRENT POPULATION SURVEY: VOTER SUPPLEMENT FILE, 1996 [Computer file]. ICPSR version. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census [producer], (1997). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1997.
42. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. CURRENT POPULATION SURVEY: VOTER SUPPLEMENT FILE, 2000 [Computer file]. ICPSR version. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census [producer], (2001). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2001.
43. Wolfinger, R. E., & Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who votes? New Haven: Yale University Press.