The outcome of the Austrian Presidential election has raised...

The outcome of the Austrian Presidential election has raised what I consider to be a very interesting question (especially for anyone with an interest in psephology) - do postal votes mirror the broader electorate? If so, why? If not, why not? Unless I have interpreted some of the above comments incorrectly (and I apologise if I have), concerns have been raised that the outcome of the postal votes have not reflected the outcome of the non-postal votes in the Presidential election.

Research on postal voting in Oregon (the first to introduce such voting in America in 1981) shows that differences can and do emerge between domestic voting (my phrase) and postal voting. Karp and Banducci (2000) examined the data from local and state elections in Oregon.

"While we must be careful in drawing inferences about individual behavior from these precinct data, they nonetheless suggest that VOBM [vote only by mail] increases turnout among those groups already most likely to vote—those who are white, educated, older, and have high incomes.15 This is consistent with our expectations that the primary appeal of voting by mail is that it makes voting more convenient for those who are inclined to vote. However, convenience alone will not do much to increase the participation rates among groups who are either uninterested or alienated from the political process and therefore do not vote" [1].

In another study of the effects of VBM [voting by mail] in Oregon, (Oregon appears to the the subject of much research on this topic!) Belinsky et al (2001) note that voting by mail does change who votes: "Those we would expect to vote—the resource- rich—are more likely to sustain their vote over the long haul. And those we would expect to abstain—the resource-poor—are more likely to stay out of the electorate over the long haul" [2]


In a broader study, Berinsky examines electoral reforms in the US designed to "increase the democratic representativeness of the electorate by reducing the direct costs of voting, thereby increasing turnout among less-privileged groups who, presumably are most sensitive to the costs of coming to the poll" [3]. This study includes posting voting. He concludes that "Rather than stimulating the unengaged, who are relatively deficient in political and economic resources, these reforms retain engaged voters—those who are rich in politically relevant resources. Thus, although electoral reforms may increase turnout, they do so by ensuring that politically engaged voters continue to come to polls election after election" (473).

Whilst the Austrian election wasn't VOBM/VBM, and acknowledging that these studies are US-centric, the research does indicate that differences can emerge between postal and domestic voting, at least in some locations. Given more time, I'm sure more research on this topic could the examined.



Sources:
[1] Karp & Banducci (2000), "Going Postal: How All-Mail Elections Influence Turnout," Political Behaviour (22/3): 233  
[2] Berinksy et al (2001), "Who votes by mail?: A dynamic model of the Individual-Level Consequences of Voting-by-mail- systems," Public Opinion Quarterly (65/2): 193
[3] Berinsky (2005), "The Perverse consequences of electoral reforms in the United States," American Politics Research (33/4): 471
[4] Berinsky (2005), "The Perverse consequences of electoral reforms in the United States," American Politics Research (33/4): 473