Suchergebnisse

I argue that voters do quite well translating their preferences to votes in ballot proposition races vis-à-vis presidential elections. Overall voters get it right almost 80% of the time, and on some ballot measures more than 85% vote correctly. Though some initiatives are 'harder issues' (see Carmines and Stimson 1980) and voters are less successful at voting correctly on those issues, they still get it right upwards of 70% of the time. Confusion, while not a clear cause of a status quo bias in direct democracy, does impair the ability of voters to vote correctly. Conversely, voters who are aware of political cues or heuristics are better able to match their stated preferences with their votes or more simply, vote correctly. No matter your judgment about the levels of correct voting, the 80% that get it right is a good level or the 20% that get it wrong is mind blowingly unacceptable, it is a rare occurrence that election results would actually change if everyone voted correctly

Introduction / Matthew T. Corrigan and Michael Binder -- The importance of Florida in presidential elections / Aubrey Jewett -- Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio: favorite sons who did not win / Matthew T. Corrigan, Dario Moreno, Ray Anthony Lastre -- Trump territory / Seth McKee and Daniel Smith -- I-4 corridor: the Sunshine State's premier battleground / Susan Macmanus, David Bonanza and Anthony A. Cilluffio -- Hispanic vote in Florida / Michael Binder and Peter Licari -- Early bird special: convenience voting in Florida's 2016 general election / Daniel A. Smith, Dillon Boatner, Caitlin Ostroff, Pedro Otálora, and Laura Uribe -- Rigged? Assessing election administration in Florida's general election / Daniel A. Smith, Brian Amos, Carl Klarner, Daniel Maxwell, Thessalia Merivaki, and Tyler Richards -- Conclusion / Matthew T. Corrigan and Michael Binder.

Research has shown religion to be an important predictor of attitudes toward state punishment, yet religious identity has rarely been included in studies of public opinion toward felon disenfranchisement. In November 2018, voters in Florida passed Amendment 4, the "Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative," to re‐enfranchise Floridians who have completed all the terms of their felony sentences, excluding those convicted of murder or sexual offenses. This study centers on the potential relationship between religious identity, particularly for evangelical Protestants, and punitiveness by examining religious identity as a predictor of attitudes toward felon disenfranchisement. Using data from a 2018 statewide survey of likely Florida voters, this study examines the effect of religious identity and other sociodemographic factors, such as race, on attitudes toward felon disenfranchisement. Results demonstrate that probable voters who identify as evangelical Protestant are less supportive of Amendment 4 (versus non‐religious), controlling for other demographics previously found to be significant in the literature. The lack of support for voter re‐enfranchisement among evangelical Protestants suggests they take a more punitive stance on this issue. Our findings demonstrate the continued salience of religious identity and the need for its inclusion in future studies examining attitudes toward felon disenfranchisement.