Privatized Democracy: The Role of Election Services Vendors in the United States

• Published date: 01 November 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/1532673X20920264
• Date: 01 November 2020
• Author: Nadine Suzanne Gibson
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X20920264

American Politics Research

2020, Vol. 48(6) 705 –708

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X20920264

journals.sagepub.com/home/apr

Article

Election Services Vendors

One of the least understood aspects of American elections is

the role of election services vendors. Election services ven-

dors are responsible for providing voting equipment as well

as the provision of vital election services to states and locali-

ties. When a jurisdiction purchases voting equipment, they

are actually purchasing the hardware and software along

with a variety of services for the initial implementation and

long-term service and support of the system.1 Localities of

all sizes spend roughly one third of their election administra-

tion expenditures on services from election vendors (see

Table A-2 in the Online Appendix), yet the research on the

costs of elections has largely overlooked the role of the pri-

vate sector in the conduct of elections, let alone election ser-

vices vendors. What scholarly research does exist on election

services vendors focuses primarily on the availability of vot-

ing equipment (University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School

Public Policy Initiative, 2016) and voting equipment func-

tionality (Herrnson et al., 2008).

More broadly, our understanding of the financial costs of

elections is limited at best. Only two major studies have

directly investigated county-level election expenditures since

the implementation of the Help America Vote Act of 2002

(HAVA). Hill (2012) and Mohr et al. (2019) offer two models

for understanding variation in absolute spending on elections

at the county level. The “public-sector cost model” presented

by Hill (2012) conceptualizes election expenditure as a func-

tion of the production costs of elections and the demand for

election services. Given this framework, Hill (2012) finds

that evidence for the choice of localities to switch voting sys-

tems and the type of voting system have an impact on the

production costs, while the size of a locality’s minority popu-

lation has an impact on the demand for election spending.

In response to Hill (2012), Mohr et al. (2019) offer the “The

Political Model of Election Administration Expenditure” as an

alternative model of county-level total election expenditures.

This model takes into account partisan electoral incentives and

the partisan policy preferences of local election officials. Mohr

et al. (2019) find that Republican county commissions in safe

Republican areas spend roughly 10% less than non-Republican

county commissions.

Although Hill (2012) and Mohr et al. (2019) use data from

California and North Carolina, respectively, both find evidence

for economies of scale in election spending. In other words,

counties with larger populations spend less per registered voter

than counties with smaller populations. This suggests some

variation in financial challenges facing counties of differing

sizes. Both studies, however, leave questions of how localities

are spending money on elections and whether spending trans-

lates into higher quality elections for future scholarship.

Outside the literature on the financial costs of elections,

only one study has directly investigated the impact of the

920264APRXXX10.1177/1532673X20920264American Politics ResearchGibson

research-article2020

1University of North Carolina Wilmington, USA

Corresponding Author:

Nadine Suzanne Gibson, University of North Carolina Wilmington, 601

South College Road, Wilmington, NC 28403-3201, USA.

Email: gibsonn@uncw.edu

Privatized Democracy: The Role of

Election Services Vendors in the

United States

Part of Special Symposium on Election Sciences

Nadine Suzanne Gibson1

Abstract

Election equipment in the United States is exclusively purchased from private-sector vendors. When a jurisdiction purchases

voting equipment, it is actually purchasing the hardware and software along with a variety of services for the initial

implementation and long-term maintenance and support of the system. Election services constitute roughly one third of

county-level election expenditures. The results of logistic regression analyses estimating the likelihoods of county purchases

of different election services from election services vendors suggest a relationship between purchasing decisions and county

demographics, namely the size of the minority population. Localities in states with centralized contracting systems were also

substantially more likely to purchase all forms of vendor services.

Keywords

voting equipment, spending, election services, election administration