IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v63y2019i4p920-935.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ballot Reform as Suffrage Restriction: Evidence from Brazil's Second Republic

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel W. Gingerich

Abstract

Few innovations in democratic institutional design are considered as fundamental as the introduction of voting through the use of a uniform, official, and secret ballot. One account claims that the official ballot liberates dependent voters from the dictates of local elites, thereby enhancing democratic competition. Another argues that in contexts of widespread illiteracy, its adoption may be tantamount to a suffrage restriction. This article adjudicates between these views by drawing upon an original data set of municipal‐level voting returns from Brazil's Second Republic (1945–1964). The unique staggered rollout of the official ballot during this period permits one to assess its impact with unprecedented accuracy. The article finds that the primary consequence of ballot reform was suffrage restriction. Rather than liberating poor and dependent voters, the official ballot made it exceedingly difficult for these individuals to vote. Moreover, parliamentary debates indicate that this was an anticipated and intended effect of the reform.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel W. Gingerich, 2019. "Ballot Reform as Suffrage Restriction: Evidence from Brazil's Second Republic," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(4), pages 920-935, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:63:y:2019:i:4:p:920-935
    DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12438
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12438
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajps.12438?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:63:y:2019:i:4:p:920-935. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.