Polling Place Location and the Costs of Voting
Many factors influence whether citizens vote in an election. Some, such as weather or the appeal of individual candidates, are largely outside the direct control of election policy. By contrast, the distance between a voter’s residence and their assigned polling place is shaped by administrative and legal decisions, making it an important channel through which election design can affect participation.
In “Polling Place Location and the Costs of Voting,” Gaurav Bagwe and his co-authors examine the role of distance to the polling place, reviewing data from over 15 million voters in Georgia and Pennsylvania during the 2018 elections. They focus on voters at the boundaries of election precinct borders i.e., these voters are in the same vicinity, sometimes even the same neighborhood, but would have to travel to different polling places depending on which side of the border their home falls. This increases voters’ shared characteristics, while separating the variable of interest: distance to the polling location.
Dr. Bagwe and his co-authors find that for every mile added to the distance, the likelihood of voting in person drops by 1 to 3 percentage points, overall. However, for voters who live closer to their polling places, increasing the distance they would need to travel to vote has an impact 2 to 3 times greater; voters already farther away are less sensitive to additional distance. In Georgia, where mail-in voting is broadly available, those who don’t vote in person are significantly more likely to substitute with voting by mail; thus, distance has a smaller effect on overall voting. But in Pennsylvania, where a justification of one’s absence is required, voters affected by distance are less likely to vote by mail, and thus less likely to vote overall. Understanding distance’s effect also requires factoring in additional context—for example, access to transportation can lessen the impact of increasing distance.
This research has important implications for how electoral design and policy could increase voting likelihood. For example, through counterfactual exercises, the authors identify turnout-maximizing public buildings that could be used as polling stations to increase turnout.
Related materials
Manager
