EAC Releases Report on State Spending of Federal Funds in 2008 to Improve Election Administration
Source: U.S. Election Assistance Commission

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) released its annual report on state spending of nearly $3.2 billion in federal funds appropriated to improve the administration of elections. The 2008 Annual Report on Grant Programs…includes detailed tables on the amount each state received, spent and earned in interest through 2008.

The funds were authorized by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), which established EAC and charged it with disbursing monies appropriated under the act. States and U.S. territories spent 76 percent of the $2.96 billion (70 percent when accrued interest of $279 million is included) they have received as of September 30, 2008. Following is an approximation of how states spent the funds:

• $1.6 billion on voting systems,
• $355 million on voter registration systems,
• $155.3 million on election administration improvements,
• $77.1 million on educating voters and recruiting and training election workers,
• $34.2 million on uncategorized election administration activities,
• $29.8 million on improving polling places, and
• $3.7 million on provisional voting.

+ Full Report (PDF; 1.7 MB)

FEC Releases Federal Elections 2008 Report
Source: Federal Elections Commission

he Federal Election Commission (FEC) today released Federal Elections 2008 (http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2008/federalelections2008.shtml), a biennial publication that compiles federal election results in the 50 states, five territories and the District of Columbia for the offices of President, Senate, and House of Representatives, as well as Delegates. The comprehensive report is a research tool designed to provide an accurate, historical record of federal election results in a single volume.
…
Federal Elections 2008 is the 14th in a series of reports prepared by Commission staff using data provided by State election offices. The tables and maps showing official results of the 2008 elections are supplemented by comparative presidential general election statistics for 1996-2008.

The Commission appreciates the assistance provided by State election officials and staff in the preparation of this publication. Prior Federal Elections Reports can be found at http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/electionresults.shtml.

From the Announcement:

About 131 million people reported voting in the 2008 U.S. presidential election, an increase of 5 million from 2004, according to a new table package released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. The increase included about 2 million more black voters, 2 million more Hispanic voters and about 600,000 more Asian voters, while the number of non-Hispanic white voters remained statistically unchanged.

Additionally, voters 18 to 24 were the only age group to show a statistically significant increase in turnout, reaching 49 percent in 2008 compared with 47 percent in 2004. Blacks had the highest turnout rate among 18- to 24-year-old voters — 55 percent, an 8 percent increase from 2004. The increased turnout among certain demographic groups was offset by stagnant or decreased turnout among other groups, causing overall 2008 voter turnout to remain statistically unchanged — at 64 percent — from 2004.

Direct to Detailed Tables

Source: U.S. Census

The Swing States of America: Has the Electoral College Pushed President Obama Away from a 50-State Strategy?
Source: FairVote

With every passing election cycle, the inherent unfairness of the Electoral College becomes more and more apparent. Voters in a handful of states have an exclusive claim to political relevance, while a vast — and growing — majority of Americans sit on the sidelines. But this disregard extends beyond the campaign, as the few states with the power to swing a presidential election now seem to be receiving extra presidential attention between national contests. It remains in a sitting president’s interest to continue the long, long dance with those who brought him, leaving a dance hall full of wallflowers who can only watch the courtship from afar. Do our presidents care about the whole country? Of course. Does our system lead them to act otherwise? Let’s go to the numbers.

Why Policy Changes During Obama Presidency Will Be More Significant than During Clinton, Reagan Administrations
Source: PS: Political Science & Politics (via American Political Science Association)

Unlike the post-election disappointment that has followed many election outcomes, the Obama presidency will likely break through a structural bias in American politics favoring the status quo and bring about significant changes in policy. This prediction is made by a new study grounded in a scientific theory of politics and conducted by political scientist Jonathan Woon (University of Pittsburgh).

The findings are presented in an article entitled “Change we Can Believe In? Using Political Science to Predict Policy Change in the Obama Presidency” which appears in the April issue of PS: Political Science & Politics, a journal of the American Political Science Association.
…
“Based on the results of the 2008 presidential and congressional elections, an analysis using theories and methods of modern political science…suggests that the conditions are ripe for real policy change. Specifically, we should expect policies to move significantly in a more liberal direction, few or no policies should move in a conservative direction, and many of the outcomes will be moderate or somewhat left of center,” observes Woon. His study is based on the “pivotal politics” theory and employs the concept of the “gridlock interval” to assess the likelihood of policy change in Obama administration. Gridlock intervals define the political zone in which existing policies are unlikely to change given supermajority voting requirements for overriding vetoes on the one hand, and overcoming filibusters on the other. His study explains that the predictions of policy change are based on an expected shift in the gridlock interval, which is the result not only of Obama’s election but also of Democratic gains in the Senate.

The sheer magnitude of the study’s predicted policy changes during the Obama presidency is historically significant. For example, Woon determines the shift in favor of policy change that occurred in 2008 as being about twice as large as the one that occurred with Bill Clinton’s election in 1992. Perhaps even more telling is the study’s assessment that the shift favoring policy changes was 40% larger in 2008 than in 1980 when Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter, and even twice as large than in 1932 when FDR was first elected.

+ Full Paper (PDF; 167 KB)

Schumer Reveals Groundbreaking New Study from Voting Experts: Up to 7 Million Registered Voters were Prevented or Discouraged from Casting Ballots in ‘08 Election
Source: U.S. Senate Rules and Administration Committee

U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, announced Wednesday that, according to a groundbreaking new study conducted by leading election experts, as many as seven million registered voters were prevented or discouraged from casting their ballots in the 2008 election, demonstrating major malfunctions in the country’s election process.

“This report is beyond troubling. Hidden in the excitement of this past election was the fact that millions of voters, through no fault of their own, were shut out of this process due to fixable problems,” Schumer said. “More people than ever wanted to vote last year in a Presidential election that ignited greater interest than any election in decades. But for far too many of these energized voters, the trip to the polls ended in frustration, disappointment and disenfranchisement because of our flawed system of voter registration.”

The report was released at a hearing of the Rules committee, which is the panel that oversees elections. The study–produced by the Cooperative Congressional Election Survey, led by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology–detailed that as many as 3 million registered voters were prevented from voting due to a range of administrative mishaps. According to Stephen Ansolabehere of Harvard University, the study’s lead author, those factors include: a failure to provide photo identification; a failure to record the voter’s name on the rolls at the time of registration; an accidental purging of the voter from the rolls subsequent to registration; or an error in the initial recording of the voter’s information so that their actual information does not match the voter list. Schumer said these issues, while often made accidentally, can have a troubling cumulative effect.

+ Hearing — Voter Registration: Assessing Current Problems

Soft Money Political Spending by 501(c) Nonprofits Tripled in 2008 Election
Source: Campaign Finance Institute

Fueled by unlimited “soft money” donations, Section 501(c) nonprofit groups and Section 527 political organizations spent more than $400 million in the 2008 federal elections. This figure is largely based on CFI’s analysis of Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) reports. Since public disclosure of 501(c)s’ partisan activities is incomplete, we also analyzed group public statements, press reports, and past spending patterns, and interviewed a number of group representatives.

Our $400 million estimate represents a modest drop from 2004 when federal 527s alone disbursed $426 million and 501(c)s probably spent less than $60 million according to previous CFI research.1 In an unusual election where the Democratic presidential candidate raised astounding amounts of money, both major candidates discouraged soft money support, and the gathering recession discouraged some prospective wealthy individual donors, outside soft money still made a big impression — particularly in close Senate and House races.

What has changed dramatically since 2004 has been the balance between the two main categories of outside group soft money. Influenced by regulatory changes as well as political circumstances, federal 527s spent $200 million, only half of what they did in 2004, but 501 (c) (4) social welfare groups, (c) (5) labor unions and (c) (6) business leagues disbursed at least three times as much as in 2004 or 2006. (501 (c) educational, religious and charitable groups are prohibited from engaging in partisan campaign intervention)

Voters Had Positive Experience in 2008 Election, and Intend to Remain Active in Communities, Post- Election Survey Finds
Source: Public Agenda

Despite problems at the polls in 2000 and 2004, and fears that they would reoccur in the last election, the vast majority of Americans said they had a positive voting experience in 2008. Even more strikingly, citizens expressed strong enthusiasm about being engaged in their communities, according to a Public Agenda survey of voters conducted immediately following the presidential election.
…
The survey examined American voters’ views about the voting process and how those experiences affect their role as citizens and their engagement in their communites. Many observers believe that a troubled election system can undermine voter turnout, views of electoral legitimacy, and civic participation in general. This survey, fielded in the weeks following the presidential election, attempted to see what kinds of reactions people had to the voting experience.
…
Voting Experience Overwhelmingly Positive

The vast majority of voters were happy with their voting experience:

• 9 in 10 said that their voting experience was positive and that poll workers did a good job overall
• Very few reported long lines, technical problems or improper practices at their polling places
• 95% said they were glad they spent the time voting, no matter how long the lines
• Polling places got good marks compared to other institutions where people transact business in person. More people (79%) rate their polling place as “very-organized” than give good marks to their local bank (78%), post office (65%), Department of Motor Vehicles (54%) or fast food franchise (35%)
• 72% said that their voting experience was better than the last time they voted

+ Full survey results (PDF; 447 KB)