tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post2971007435979481076..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: Who Does High Turnout Help?David Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-35706532099988717342020-11-26T06:47:36.459-08:002020-11-26T06:47:36.459-08:00"not tradeoff-in-expectation between doing th..."not tradeoff-in-expectation between doing the right thing about elections and winning them"<br /><br />Gosh, I hope not. If expanded voting rights are electorally neutral, then they will be much easier to pass; if they are seen by Republicans as a stalking horse for electoral domination they can't make it through. I want a settlement on the subject of substantive universal suffrage, not all this endless bullshit. (of course, it is hard to convince the Republicans that anything is a matter of principle.)Erlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07522602231234725809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-73210803828837575572020-11-24T21:47:51.194-08:002020-11-24T21:47:51.194-08:00There's another facet which you touched on but...There's another facet which you touched on but didn't analyze thoroughly - why are voters turning out in a given race/election who aren't reliable? <br />For example, my pet hypothesis is that membership in the crazy-colony that fundamentally distrusts media institutions (and therefore declines to participate in polls) is correlated to support for Trumpism independent of other weighted factors - this creates a hard-to-avoid self-selection bias in polling, which explains the repeat of 2016 polling error, even given methodological adjustments like accounting for the education realignment. So those people will turn out based on... not negative partisanship, but personality based activation with a key candidate?<br /><br />Whereas, there almost certainly continue to be lots of progressive-sympathetic voters who aren't participating because the system is unfriendly. (Total voter participation is still ... < 70% ?)<br /><br />The implication wolud be that there's not tradeoff-in-expectation between doing the right thing about elections and winning them: progressive voting *reforms* still systemically favor progressive policy because the procedural obstacles they remove are the primary reason that eligible progressive are inactive, but they are not the primary reason that eligible crazy-campers are inactive.<br /><br />Related, the whole "too much" vs "too little" debate going on about the US House elections etc. AOC claims that progressive wish-list items like "relied on AOC as a surrogate" and "endorsed Medicare for All" were correlated with success. I want that to be true, and also it seems obviously difficult to disentangle that data from any self-selection bias that's present - candidates who think AOC / progressive policies could hurt them in their particular districts aren't necessarily wrong just because they lost.<br />However, the Florida minimum wage initiative seems to be at least somewhat indepedent evidence in support of that hypothesis - more than 60% of the vote makes it vastly more popular than either presidential candidate, tying onself to it probably would have been a good choice<br />- based on some nth-hand analysis I read, essentially no FL democrats endorsed that initiative, and some who were running this year lost close-ish races in districts where the initiative was very popular. Was it somehow going to hurt a candidate to endorse something that did in fact get more votes than them in their own district?Benjamin Lewishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04115050650579749235noreply@blogger.com