Massachusetts Institute of Technology
For Research And Recommendations On Election Administration Practices
-
Amount$27,697
-
Program
-
Date Awarded11/12/2013
-
Term12.0 Months
-
Type of SupportProject
Overview
Unlike in many western democracies, in the United States the mechanisms through which elections are run (collectively referred to as election administration) are generally managed at the state and local rather than the national level - by 50 state laws across 4,600 jurisdictions and overseen by 13,000 administrators. This variation in oversight and practice, alongside technological and other challenges, contribute to a myriad of problems that impact citizens' ability to vote and to have their vote counted. These problems include the long lines referenced in President Obama's 2012 election night victory speech, which served as the impetus for the creation of the Federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) in 2013. The EAC has a broad mandate to explore possibilities ranging from improving poll worker recruitment and training to the management of voter rolls, but only a six month window in which to assess the problem and devise recommendations. This relatively narrow window and the political prominence of the effort creates both a challenge and an opportunity to advance research and identify promising reforms that otherwise would take years to develop. This grant would support America's top political scientists in election administration to assemble the best research available and to communicate that research to both the EAC and the public in the development of the EAC's finding and recommendations.
About the Grantee
Grantee Website
www.mit.edu
Address
77 Massachusetts Avenue 26-237, Cambridge, MA, 02139-4307, United States
Grants to this Grantee
for support of the Election Data and Science Lab
The MIT Election Data and Science Lab advances and disseminates scientific knowledge about the conduct of elections, primarily in the United States but with attention to the rest of the world. By addressing the multiple audiences of academic researchers, the general public, and practitioners, it serves a unique role among individuals and institutions dedicated to improving the conduct of American elections, and it supports a growing network of election science research centers across the U.S.
for a clean energy investment tracker
This grant will support the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, which will work jointly with the Rhodium Group to develop and maintain a comprehensive, independent, and publicly available tracking system for new investments supported by federal climate-related legislation passed in 2021 and 2022 (including the Inflation Reduction Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the CHIPS and Science Act). The data will help the climate community better understand the investment, fiscal impacts, and greenhouse gas impacts of these measures. (Substrategy: U.S. National Policy)
for J-PAL’s core efforts to reduce poverty by informing policy and practice with evidence
The Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was founded on the belief that anti-poverty programs can be made more effective — thus creating positive change in the lives of the poor — if policymakers have access to rigorous scientific evidence on what works and the capacities to apply it. J-PAL pursues three goals: (a) developing the capacity of researchers (including those from low- and middle-income countries) to lead randomized impact evaluations; (b) generating evidence through randomized evaluations that respond to pressing policy problems; and (c) promoting the systematic use and adaptation of evidence in informing policy windows and decision-making processes through tailored synthesis, targeted outreach, and technical assistance. These broad goals lay the foundation for achieving J-PAL's ultimate objective, which aligns with our Evidence-Informed Policymaking strategy: to improve the lives of the poor globally by closing the gap between research, policy, and practice.