I think more precisely, the president is the one who thinks his party can't win if they don't cheat.
Sorry, but there's a lot of both-sidesism here. Your tit-for-tat analysis left out the most important and most popular part of the 2021 bill -- non-partisan redistricting commissions.
It's true that many partisan election issues don't actually favor one party over the other. However, the principle of Dem-favored initiatives is that free, fair, and accessible elections are a right, and that citizens shouldn't have to jump through hoops to solve a problems that doesn't exist (yes, technically address problems that have a vanishingly small effect on elections that also doesn't favor one party over the other).
The GOP leadership on the other hand spreads unpatriotic lies about our election system that serve to unjustly undermine Americans' confidence in it. Lies that divide and weaken our nation. Disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters for every invalid vote they hope to prevent is not a good tradeoff.
There is a big difference between those two stances; not just "they both think the other side has to cheat to win".
It IS interesting that some experts believe that mail-in ballots don't help Dems as much as they think or that voter ID laws don't help the GOP as much as they think, but that is where the both-sidesism stops. One party is preaching conspiracy theories about deep-state vote manipulation while gerrymandering to the max and attempting to restrict voting, whereas the other side is trying to expand voter rolls and make voting more convenient, and would be willing to end gerrymandering if only their counterparts would agree to do it. And of course, all of that completely misses what Southern states are doing to revert back to pre-civil rights era voting districts.
This is a disappointing take, Gabe. One side is working to expand voting rights, while the other is working to restrict them. One side supports party-neutral congressional districts; the other openly defends partisan gerrymandering. Those positions are not equivalent. The latter's increasingly partisan efforts are driving the former's efforts to protect electoral neutrality and broaden participation.
For me it's not the "winning," but the principle of democracy...one adult citizen=one vote. But that principle is grievously undermined by Citizens United and oligarchs (and their takeover of media ownership), where vast fortunes can sway the vote.
I hope you appreciate the considerable privilege you've enjoyed to cite recent voter studies to support your thesis. Particularly when the conservative courts are dismantling the voting rights act.
A US passport costs $165 today. 50% of US workers would have to work a seven hour day to pay for that passport, if they had a processing location within a commutable distance.
Countries with a voting holiday average 70% voter participation. Mandated voting with a holiday jumps to 90% participation.
I always appreciate your historical perspective and wake up calls, "Looking ahead to this November’s races, pluralities of both parties already preemptively smell fraud,".
No suprise that the two party system exagerates. But with the current threats of poll tax, gerrymandering, armed observers, and poll worker threats, this article feels like you made a Covid joke in June 2020. Well researched but out of touch.
Gabe, you cite one study (Quarterly Journal of Economics) that says voter suppression laws don't lead to a decline in voting. Even that study acknowledged there was voter suppression, but it was overcome by increased campaign efforts. Other studies show that voter suppression laws do have a negative impact on voter turnout: Brennan Center, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/lasting-effects-voter-suppression
Wikipedia on "voter suppression" cites numerous studies.
Hi Mark, thanks for writing. In addition to the Quarterly Journal of Economics study, I also linked to this study that came to the same conclusion on voter ID laws (https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.2217323120) and this paper that looks at election laws broadly (https://www.eitanhersh.com/uploads/7/9/7/5/7975685/effectslaws_062923.pdf). Although I didn’t link them, there are also numerous other studies that come to similar conclusions: this survey of Georgia voters after the very controversial SB2 was passed, for example (https://electionlab.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2024-05/5_sb202-MEDSLReport.pdf) or this study on election laws after the Supreme Court’s Shelby decision (https://cis.mit.edu/sites/default/files/paper-documents/attnZIPgHeEwYhvId.pdf), both of which found minimal effects. You’re certainly right that a big part of this dynamic is that these sorts of laws often have no partisan impact because of the counter-mobilization that takes place -- but either way that brings us to the same conclusion, which is that parties pass election laws in hopes of yielding a partisan benefit that does not materialize.
I've now examined several of the articles Gabe cites above, and (in my humble opinion) they do not support Gabe's assertion. In sum, the first article by PNAS, states, "We conclude that voter ID requirements motivate and mobilize supporters of
both parties, ultimately mitigating their anticipated effects on election results." In other words, voter ID laws have an effect on voter suppression, but that effect is counteracted by (Democratic) party efforts. And if the Dems have to use more money and energy here, they have less money and energy to use elsewhere. I encourage others to check out the articles.
Furthermore, the ability to counteract voter suppression may be achievable as an immediate response to recent voter suppression measures, but can it be sustained year after year?
Would this be an apt analogy: Someone keeps throwing gas on a fire, so another person throws on more water, resulting in the same level of fire. It would be wrong to conclude that throwing gas on the fire had no effect. Again, I haven't yet looked at Gabe's new sources.
I'm going to challenge the assertion that "If anything, the Bipartisan Policy Center analysis suggests that Trump’s SAVE America Act could slightly favor Democrats, because — even though members of the two parties have equal access to either a birth certificate or a passport — it is more common for Democrats that their accessible proof is a passport, which are more likely to have a voter’s current name than their birth certificate."
Poor and Minority people are far less likely to have a passport, and - to an extent - it is precisely those voters who the Save America Act is meant to disenfranchise. And those people are, I think, more likely to vote Democratic.
It’s not just one election! It is very clear over the last decade that working class voters have moved towards the GOP and upper income voters have moved towards the Democrats. “Where Have All the Democrats Gone?” is a great book on this class realignment
Regardless, it's still wrong... to put up barriers to prevent the poorer and more under-educated classes from voting. And it's not wrong to try to encourage them to vote. Doesn't really matter which "side" it helps or hurts.
Both sides anticipate vote-fraud: one side anticipates it because the other side is taking measures in plain day to try to pull it off, and the other side anticipates it as a war-cry to sound if/when they lose. That is not a parallel phenomenon.
I’m a voter who wants to be informed, not only about issues and candidates, but also that I’m following the rules so I can vote. I believe there is an obligation for each one of us to secure our right to vote and to exercise that right.
I respect your analyses on the politics of our nation, and I agree mostly with you than not. There's a tendency to be balanced, even when one side of the debate is not the equivalent, and does NOT deserve the same merit as the other. This occasion is one of them.
Bottom line, the Democratic Party wants to expand the universe of eligible voters by making it easier for all eligible voters to vote. The Republican Party wants to limit the universe of eligible voters by making it more difficult, or as difficult as possible, for all eligible voters to vote.
See where the YUGE difference is between the 2 parties? ELI-GI-BLE voters - US citizens 18 years and older, anywhere in the US and the world.
That is the fundamental difference that makes ALL the difference in the world! That's like a world-class runner saying, I only want to race against the weakest field in any race I run - the REPUBLICAN approach. As contrasted with the DEMOCRATIC approach that I want to run against the best in the world to prove myself as the best, and let the chips fall where they may.
As a former Californian, though roughly 70+ years there, I would be happy with a law that said all ballots had to be counted within 7 days, from the date of election, exempting only military ballots for a given period of time.
This requires additional funding, and I just read that the new California budget has more funding for elections.
Nationwide, election administration has gotten the short shrift on funding because people don't want to spend more money on something that typically only happens about twice a year.
This almost seems to be two essays. The first is a thoughtful discussion on the political myths within both parties, then the tone shifts to political sausage making and Trump blocking bipartisan bills. That was interesting but as a comparison I would have appreciated more details on how and if Biden's HR 1 delayed or crowded out other legislation. I mean Biden signed the bills but HR1 did take up political energy and capital.
I appreciate this specific analysis of voter behavior immensely. So much of what we as individuals believe will happen is based on our assumptions of what we think the others motives are. I tend to fall in the camp that much of what we attribute to malice or active harm we should actually attribute to inattention or forgetfulness. I experience this every day driving in the midst of others and I think the same can be said of being one voter in the sea of many. This is not dissimilar to a persecuted minority mentality when a group sees themself as not only in the minority and as such are ignored, but as giving a reason why they must be in power to counter the majority, when in fact, many of these folks experiencing themselves as the persecuted minority are in the majority already (hence winning elections but still thinking the other group cheated). Thanks again for your insights.
The adage goes that the day after the newly elected CongressCritter is elected he/she meets with their campaign staff, and after the High Fives are exchanged, the first question he/she asks of the staff is not about legislative priorities, but rather”How are we going to raise the dough for the next election?”
Is it practicality or corruption that motivates the inquiry?
And if it is both?
Like Jerry said-“Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil."
We have no official registry of citizens. Our Constitution is not explicit with respect to whether only citizens can vote. We have no federal voting rights law which explicitly states that only citizens can vote in federal elections or requires proof of citizenship to register. There is a law that makes it a criminal offense for non-citizens to vote but the manner in which a challenge can be made severely discourages challenge which is an equally viable explanation of why there are so few cases of voter fraud. The Voting Rights law was needed at the time it was enacted. Perhaps when the two major parties (and the fledgling parties) are so dependent on policies regarding immigration which primarily affect new arrivals to the country, and there is worldwide concern about migration, now is the time to enact specific laws which require proof of citizenship to vote.
I recently had a conversation with friends who argued that voter ID suppresses the votes of “the poor.” However, it appears that the same type of IDs are requisite for many of the government programs that benefit “the poor.” (Medicaid, SNAP) The ID requirement seems not to have discouraged use of these programs nor has it had insignificant effect on fraud in those areas which seems to arise from more ambitious schemes or government lassitude in enforcement of the law which exists.
I think more precisely, the president is the one who thinks his party can't win if they don't cheat.
Sorry, but there's a lot of both-sidesism here. Your tit-for-tat analysis left out the most important and most popular part of the 2021 bill -- non-partisan redistricting commissions.
It's true that many partisan election issues don't actually favor one party over the other. However, the principle of Dem-favored initiatives is that free, fair, and accessible elections are a right, and that citizens shouldn't have to jump through hoops to solve a problems that doesn't exist (yes, technically address problems that have a vanishingly small effect on elections that also doesn't favor one party over the other).
The GOP leadership on the other hand spreads unpatriotic lies about our election system that serve to unjustly undermine Americans' confidence in it. Lies that divide and weaken our nation. Disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters for every invalid vote they hope to prevent is not a good tradeoff.
There is a big difference between those two stances; not just "they both think the other side has to cheat to win".
Thank you. Came to point out the same both-sidesism that this heavily leans into.
It IS interesting that some experts believe that mail-in ballots don't help Dems as much as they think or that voter ID laws don't help the GOP as much as they think, but that is where the both-sidesism stops. One party is preaching conspiracy theories about deep-state vote manipulation while gerrymandering to the max and attempting to restrict voting, whereas the other side is trying to expand voter rolls and make voting more convenient, and would be willing to end gerrymandering if only their counterparts would agree to do it. And of course, all of that completely misses what Southern states are doing to revert back to pre-civil rights era voting districts.
This is a disappointing take, Gabe. One side is working to expand voting rights, while the other is working to restrict them. One side supports party-neutral congressional districts; the other openly defends partisan gerrymandering. Those positions are not equivalent. The latter's increasingly partisan efforts are driving the former's efforts to protect electoral neutrality and broaden participation.
For me it's not the "winning," but the principle of democracy...one adult citizen=one vote. But that principle is grievously undermined by Citizens United and oligarchs (and their takeover of media ownership), where vast fortunes can sway the vote.
I hope you appreciate the considerable privilege you've enjoyed to cite recent voter studies to support your thesis. Particularly when the conservative courts are dismantling the voting rights act.
A US passport costs $165 today. 50% of US workers would have to work a seven hour day to pay for that passport, if they had a processing location within a commutable distance.
Countries with a voting holiday average 70% voter participation. Mandated voting with a holiday jumps to 90% participation.
I always appreciate your historical perspective and wake up calls, "Looking ahead to this November’s races, pluralities of both parties already preemptively smell fraud,".
No suprise that the two party system exagerates. But with the current threats of poll tax, gerrymandering, armed observers, and poll worker threats, this article feels like you made a Covid joke in June 2020. Well researched but out of touch.
Gabe, you cite one study (Quarterly Journal of Economics) that says voter suppression laws don't lead to a decline in voting. Even that study acknowledged there was voter suppression, but it was overcome by increased campaign efforts. Other studies show that voter suppression laws do have a negative impact on voter turnout: Brennan Center, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/lasting-effects-voter-suppression
Wikipedia on "voter suppression" cites numerous studies.
Hi Mark, thanks for writing. In addition to the Quarterly Journal of Economics study, I also linked to this study that came to the same conclusion on voter ID laws (https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.2217323120) and this paper that looks at election laws broadly (https://www.eitanhersh.com/uploads/7/9/7/5/7975685/effectslaws_062923.pdf). Although I didn’t link them, there are also numerous other studies that come to similar conclusions: this survey of Georgia voters after the very controversial SB2 was passed, for example (https://electionlab.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2024-05/5_sb202-MEDSLReport.pdf) or this study on election laws after the Supreme Court’s Shelby decision (https://cis.mit.edu/sites/default/files/paper-documents/attnZIPgHeEwYhvId.pdf), both of which found minimal effects. You’re certainly right that a big part of this dynamic is that these sorts of laws often have no partisan impact because of the counter-mobilization that takes place -- but either way that brings us to the same conclusion, which is that parties pass election laws in hopes of yielding a partisan benefit that does not materialize.
I'll check this out. Not sure I'll agree, but appreciate the dialogue!
I've now examined several of the articles Gabe cites above, and (in my humble opinion) they do not support Gabe's assertion. In sum, the first article by PNAS, states, "We conclude that voter ID requirements motivate and mobilize supporters of
both parties, ultimately mitigating their anticipated effects on election results." In other words, voter ID laws have an effect on voter suppression, but that effect is counteracted by (Democratic) party efforts. And if the Dems have to use more money and energy here, they have less money and energy to use elsewhere. I encourage others to check out the articles.
Furthermore, the ability to counteract voter suppression may be achievable as an immediate response to recent voter suppression measures, but can it be sustained year after year?
...doing a "yadda yadda" on all the additional effort required to overcome new barriers is a pretty bad observation/conclusion to reach.
Would this be an apt analogy: Someone keeps throwing gas on a fire, so another person throws on more water, resulting in the same level of fire. It would be wrong to conclude that throwing gas on the fire had no effect. Again, I haven't yet looked at Gabe's new sources.
I'm going to challenge the assertion that "If anything, the Bipartisan Policy Center analysis suggests that Trump’s SAVE America Act could slightly favor Democrats, because — even though members of the two parties have equal access to either a birth certificate or a passport — it is more common for Democrats that their accessible proof is a passport, which are more likely to have a voter’s current name than their birth certificate."
Poor and Minority people are far less likely to have a passport, and - to an extent - it is precisely those voters who the Save America Act is meant to disenfranchise. And those people are, I think, more likely to vote Democratic.
The Republicans don't want Black people to vote.
Hi Bill, thanks for writing. It is true that lower-income people are less likely to have a passport, but not true that they are necessarily likely to vote Democratic. The 2024 exit polls split Americans into three income levels: less than $50K/year, 50K-99K, and 100K+. Trump won the first two groups. Harris only won the third, wealthiest group. In addition the BPC study, YouGov has also found Democrats are more likely to have passports (https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/35414-only-one-third-americans-have-valid-us-passport) and another analysis found that the states and groups that lean GOP are the ones least likely to have passports (https://securedemocracyusa.org/report/republican-voters-would-be-disproportionately-impacted-by-proof-of-citizenship-mandates/).
Sorry, one election doesn't prove your point.
It’s not just one election! It is very clear over the last decade that working class voters have moved towards the GOP and upper income voters have moved towards the Democrats. “Where Have All the Democrats Gone?” is a great book on this class realignment
Regardless, it's still wrong... to put up barriers to prevent the poorer and more under-educated classes from voting. And it's not wrong to try to encourage them to vote. Doesn't really matter which "side" it helps or hurts.
Both sides anticipate vote-fraud: one side anticipates it because the other side is taking measures in plain day to try to pull it off, and the other side anticipates it as a war-cry to sound if/when they lose. That is not a parallel phenomenon.
I’m a voter who wants to be informed, not only about issues and candidates, but also that I’m following the rules so I can vote. I believe there is an obligation for each one of us to secure our right to vote and to exercise that right.
I respect your analyses on the politics of our nation, and I agree mostly with you than not. There's a tendency to be balanced, even when one side of the debate is not the equivalent, and does NOT deserve the same merit as the other. This occasion is one of them.
Bottom line, the Democratic Party wants to expand the universe of eligible voters by making it easier for all eligible voters to vote. The Republican Party wants to limit the universe of eligible voters by making it more difficult, or as difficult as possible, for all eligible voters to vote.
See where the YUGE difference is between the 2 parties? ELI-GI-BLE voters - US citizens 18 years and older, anywhere in the US and the world.
That is the fundamental difference that makes ALL the difference in the world! That's like a world-class runner saying, I only want to race against the weakest field in any race I run - the REPUBLICAN approach. As contrasted with the DEMOCRATIC approach that I want to run against the best in the world to prove myself as the best, and let the chips fall where they may.
As a former Californian, though roughly 70+ years there, I would be happy with a law that said all ballots had to be counted within 7 days, from the date of election, exempting only military ballots for a given period of time.
This requires additional funding, and I just read that the new California budget has more funding for elections.
Nationwide, election administration has gotten the short shrift on funding because people don't want to spend more money on something that typically only happens about twice a year.
It may require more funding, the amount of time and money spent on election counters, supervisors, etc., would be cut from a month or more
to just a week, maximum. That should save some money.
If Florida can take a failed election in 2000, and create a system that takes less than three days to tally, California can as well.
This almost seems to be two essays. The first is a thoughtful discussion on the political myths within both parties, then the tone shifts to political sausage making and Trump blocking bipartisan bills. That was interesting but as a comparison I would have appreciated more details on how and if Biden's HR 1 delayed or crowded out other legislation. I mean Biden signed the bills but HR1 did take up political energy and capital.
I appreciate this specific analysis of voter behavior immensely. So much of what we as individuals believe will happen is based on our assumptions of what we think the others motives are. I tend to fall in the camp that much of what we attribute to malice or active harm we should actually attribute to inattention or forgetfulness. I experience this every day driving in the midst of others and I think the same can be said of being one voter in the sea of many. This is not dissimilar to a persecuted minority mentality when a group sees themself as not only in the minority and as such are ignored, but as giving a reason why they must be in power to counter the majority, when in fact, many of these folks experiencing themselves as the persecuted minority are in the majority already (hence winning elections but still thinking the other group cheated). Thanks again for your insights.
Typo in the last line. Practitioners.
The adage goes that the day after the newly elected CongressCritter is elected he/she meets with their campaign staff, and after the High Fives are exchanged, the first question he/she asks of the staff is not about legislative priorities, but rather”How are we going to raise the dough for the next election?”
Is it practicality or corruption that motivates the inquiry?
And if it is both?
Like Jerry said-“Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil."
As Ben said-"A Republic, if you can keep it.”
( Ben and Jerry? Franklin and Garcia)
We have no official registry of citizens. Our Constitution is not explicit with respect to whether only citizens can vote. We have no federal voting rights law which explicitly states that only citizens can vote in federal elections or requires proof of citizenship to register. There is a law that makes it a criminal offense for non-citizens to vote but the manner in which a challenge can be made severely discourages challenge which is an equally viable explanation of why there are so few cases of voter fraud. The Voting Rights law was needed at the time it was enacted. Perhaps when the two major parties (and the fledgling parties) are so dependent on policies regarding immigration which primarily affect new arrivals to the country, and there is worldwide concern about migration, now is the time to enact specific laws which require proof of citizenship to vote.
I recently had a conversation with friends who argued that voter ID suppresses the votes of “the poor.” However, it appears that the same type of IDs are requisite for many of the government programs that benefit “the poor.” (Medicaid, SNAP) The ID requirement seems not to have discouraged use of these programs nor has it had insignificant effect on fraud in those areas which seems to arise from more ambitious schemes or government lassitude in enforcement of the law which exists.
Gabe, the button to change credit cards so I can rejoin doesn't work. Please ask IT to fix this. Glad to anti up again.