Reilly (Northern Kentucky Univ.) and Ulbig (Sam Houston State) hypothesize that stress introduced into the voting process can have negative consequences for voters, causing some to decline to complete their ballots or to vote in ways inconsistent with their true policy preferences. Compelling introductions to each chapter pull from recent events covered in the news media and in previous research. The new contribution is data from a mock election experiment conducted at a large undergraduate university, with participants randomly assigned to having to wait to cast their ballots or being challenged at the polling place and directed to complete a provisional ballot. Prior to voting, participants completed a survey indicating their preferences on various issues; those issues were then incorporated into constitutional amendment ballot items on marijuana, abortion, and same-sex marriage. The estimated effect sizes are small and rarely statistically significant. Provisional ballots and long, arbitrary, and unexplained wait times do not seem to make voters more stressed or less able to express their preferences at the polls (at least in this one experiment). Further research is needed, but if the findings hold, this is good news for those who face adversity at the polls.



Summing Up: Recommended. Graduate students through faculty.

Choice Reviews

Reilly and Ulbig have produced a novel study on the impact of stressful polling place conditions on voters. They identify several areas where the voting process can be improved.

David Kimball, University of Missouri–St. Louis

Reilly and Ulbig creatively combine literature on “correct voting,” election administration, and stress. They present well-crafted evidence that “polling place pandemonium” causes stress that affects a voters’ ability to vote consistently with policy preference. This work advances convincing evidence that polling place problems are stressful and make it tough to vote “correctly.” Reilly and Ulbig show why it is so important to improve polling place processes and provide strong research that adds to the importance of making voting as smooth as possible on Election Day. Both scholars and election administrators should absolutely read this book.

Martha Kropf, University of North Carolina, Charlotte

Most prior works focus exclusively on variables that shape turnout or whether or not an individual will show up to vote on Election Day. . . . We need more works like The Resilient Voter, where the focus is not upon whether an individual turns out to vote but rather what happens to that voter between the time that the voter shows up to the polls on Election Day and when the final ballot is cast.

Public Opinion Quarterly