In light of Georgia voting rights news, here's my new working paper.
tl;dr I create & validate a measure of democracy in the states 2000-2018 and test theories of democratic backsliding. It's all about the national Republican Party.
In the ongoing crisis of US democracy, a lot of focus is on Washington. There's renewed interest in V-Dem, Polity, etc measures of democracy at the national level.
2/n
But the US has an especially decentralized form of federalism that puts election administration, districting, policing, and other democratic institutions at the state level. And that's where the crisis is.
3/n
Yet there's no comprehensive state level democracy measure like the cross-national measures. So I modeled a new measure of state democratic performance 2000-2018 based using 61 indicators and Bayesian IRT, which I call the State Democracy Index.
4/n
The State Democracy Index shows some major changes in state democratic performance, and partisan divergence, especially from gerrymandering & voter suppression post-2010.
5/n
I test theories of democratic expansion & contraction based in:
It's all about GOP control. When the GOP wins your state, it will reduce democracy.
6/n
(If you care about the diff-in-diff debates, the Callaway & @pedrohcgs ATT aggregations show even larger effects)
7/n
State democracy doesn't seem to be about local changes. States doing the most backsliding aren't experiencing especially big demographic changes, or polarization, or competitiveness.
8/n
This is really about the incentives facing the national GOP coalition, a coalition of big money and an electoral base motivated by white identity politics. Both of these groups have an interest in keeping democracy narrow.
This is a difficult discussion, and I want to be graceful about all mourning.
But the American liberal proverb "powerful political individual X doesn't owe you anything" must be destroyed. They're means to ends on behalf of millions of ordinary people, and nothing more.
For example: is descriptive representation a means or an end? The answer should be clear. It is, again, merely a means to an end via empowerment and increased participation of people with shared identities. It's not an end in an of itself.
Is the kid touching Obama's hair photo an end? Maybe to some extent. But more important is that it represents the inspiration and empowerment of young Black people, who will then participate and run for office and...ya know...implement policies that help regular Black people!
Why do 'moderates' do better in general elections? The most plausible theory consistent with the empirical research is that elites in business and media are very effective at tanking non-moderates (and yes, they use money to do it)
The Hall (2015) paper comes up a lot in these debates. What never comes up is the part of the paper on mechanisms. The most plausible mechanism is that moderates get more PAC (corporate, trade assn) money.
This theory is consistent with what we know about voter attitudes, too. On their own, few people vote based on, say, Medicare-for-All vs a public option. But elites (on all sides) use resources to frame policies, including in ways that interact with strongly held identities.
"Why a Green New Deal? Why not a standalone cap & trade or carbon tax?" you may ask.
The 2009-10 cap & trade strategy was that. The committee worked closely with industry, and the plan even had free credits to get buy-in from firms. It was a huge failure.
There's research. /1
The climate groups invited Theda Skocpol to write an "autopsy" of the cap and trade failure. Takeaways:
-Too concerned with broad public opinion, not *organization and intensity*
-Should have provided *dividends* to citizens
-Don't work with GOP
I also wrote a paper in Business & Politics about how the fossil fuel industry bargained with policymakers to weaken cap and trade while simultaneously working with outside groups to kill the bill: