Voting Technology and Democracy

IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
P. Schwartz
{"title":"Voting Technology and Democracy","authors":"P. Schwartz","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.325382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Voting Technology and Democracy, 77 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 625 (2002), examines a phenomenon that I term the \"voting-technology divide.\" The \"divide\" was caused by the deployment of election technology in November 2000 with better and worse levels of feedback to voters. Through an analysis of data from the contested Florida election of November 2000, this article demonstrates the critical importance of feedback in informing voters whether the technology they use to vote will validate their ballots according to their intent -- an advantage I find to have been distributed on unequal terms. In this article, I also examine the various judicial opinions in the litigation following the Florida election and argue that they differed most dramatically in their embrace of competing epistemologies of technology. Finally, I evaluate the ongoing efforts to reform the unequal distribution of voting technology in the United States. Some efforts at litigation and legislation have promise, but in many instances they are stalled, and in many others they exhibit shortcomings that would leave the \"voting technology divide\" in place for future elections.","PeriodicalId":47736,"journal":{"name":"New York University Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2002-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New York University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.325382","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Voting Technology and Democracy, 77 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 625 (2002), examines a phenomenon that I term the "voting-technology divide." The "divide" was caused by the deployment of election technology in November 2000 with better and worse levels of feedback to voters. Through an analysis of data from the contested Florida election of November 2000, this article demonstrates the critical importance of feedback in informing voters whether the technology they use to vote will validate their ballots according to their intent -- an advantage I find to have been distributed on unequal terms. In this article, I also examine the various judicial opinions in the litigation following the Florida election and argue that they differed most dramatically in their embrace of competing epistemologies of technology. Finally, I evaluate the ongoing efforts to reform the unequal distribution of voting technology in the United States. Some efforts at litigation and legislation have promise, but in many instances they are stalled, and in many others they exhibit shortcomings that would leave the "voting technology divide" in place for future elections.
投票技术与民主
《投票技术与民主》,77 N.Y.U. Rev. 625(2002),研究了一种我称之为“投票技术鸿沟”的现象。“分歧”是由2000年11月选举技术的部署造成的,对选民的反馈有好有坏。通过对2000年11月佛罗里达州有争议的选举数据的分析,本文展示了反馈在告知选民他们用于投票的技术是否会根据他们的意图使他们的选票生效方面的关键重要性——我发现这种优势是在不平等的条件下分配的。在本文中,我还研究了佛罗里达州选举后诉讼中的各种司法意见,并认为它们在接受相互竞争的技术认识论方面差异最大。最后,我评估了美国正在进行的改革投票技术不平等分配的努力。在诉讼和立法方面的一些努力有希望,但在许多情况下,它们停滞不前,在许多其他情况下,它们表现出的缺陷可能会在未来的选举中留下“投票技术鸿沟”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
8.30%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: The New York University Law Review is a generalist journal publishing legal scholarship in all areas, including legal theory and policy, environmental law, legal history, international law, and more. Each year, our six issues contain cutting-edge legal scholarship written by professors, judges, and legal practitioners, as well as Notes written by members of the Law Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信