Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 378

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Voting Technology, Political Responsiveness, and Infant Health: Evidence From Brazil

Open access
Fujiwara, Thomas·2015·Econometrica

Abstract

THE EV TECHNOLOGY is a small screen and a set of keys closely resembling a touch-tone phone with the addition of three colored buttons, as Figure 1 illustrates.Panel B depicts the initial screen a voter faces.It provides an instruction to vote for a state legislator (deputado estadual).Once the voter types the number of his choice of candidate, her information (photo, name, and party) appears on the screen, as depicted on Panel C. A voter can then "confirm" his vote by pressing the green button or "correct" his vote using the orange button.The former option casts a vote and the latter restarts the process and returns to the initial screen.There are two ways a residual vote can be cast with EV.One is by pressing the "blank" (white) button.Another one is by typing a number that does not correspond to a candidate.Doing so will lead to the screen depicted on Figure A1.Pressing the "confirm" button at this point will lead to a residual vote.There are at least three features of the electronic technology that can reduce residual votes, especially from less educated voters.First, there is the introduction of visual aids (candidate photographs).Second, the machine provides instant feedback to the voter.When he types a wrong number, the machine informs him (Figure A1).Note that even a completely illiterate voter that could not read the "wrong number" message on the screen would notice that a picture has not appeared on the screen.Obviously, a piece of paper cannot provide this type of feedback.Third, the technology guides the user through the many votes (state legislator, federal legislator, senator, governor, president) he has to cast.It also informs the voter when all votes are cast, making it less likely that he forgets to vote for one office.Moreover, with paper ballots, a voter may misvote by, for example, writing the number of a state legislator in the federal legislator box.The electronic device also makes salient how many digits are needed for a vote so that even a completely illiterate voter can take this as a cue for which vote he hast to cast.For example, Figure 1 depicts the machine requesting the user for a 5-digit number, which has to be the case of a state legislator (as federal legislators have 4-digit and other offices use 2-digit numbers).In principle, another possible explanation for the reduction in residual votes is due to voting technology affecting electoral fraud at the vote-counting stage.However, this is unlikely to be the case.There is virtually no evidence of electoral fraud related to the electronic system, which is perceived as honest by

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3982/ecta11520

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 378

Metadata

Authors
Fujiwara, T.
Venue
Econometrica
Published
2015
Volume
83
Issue
2
Pages
423-464
ISSN
0012-9682 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2016552760
Cited by
378
References
14
FWCI
176.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.