One thing I've been thinking about lately: how different is the optimal voting system in a low-trust and high-trust society? What about in a society where partisans will play no-holds barred to win, versus one where democratic norms are strong?
To take an easy example from 2020: maybe it's not optimal for the vote count to last three weeks in a low trust society. There's nothing wrong with it, strictly speaking. It could have advantages. But maybe it's not worth the risk if there are bad actors and low trust
I can imagine taking this to more extreme places where there would probably way more debate: say, arguing against multiple forms of voting with varying eligibility, as it creates distinct categories of voters/ballots that can be targeted by law, election admin, courts, etc
One interesting and common theme in the replies--and it's a really tough one--is the possibility that making democracy less vulnerable to attacks on its credibility would reward those who would baselessly attack it
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One of the best hope for polling is the theory that the error/bias was mainly just about the coronavirus, for instance. Our Oct. 2019 polls were way better than Oct. 2020! The poll averages in Feb/Mar 2020 were way better too. But I think the evidence is pretty inconclusive
That said, history offers plenty of reason to hope that polling could leave the hospital. So if that's the main @NateSilver538 position here, then he's right that we may not disagree as deeply as I think
I'd boil down the disagreement to one fundamental thing: I think low systemic bias is far, far more important than important for thinking about the polls than average error, while I think @NateSilver538 looks a lot more at average error
You can see both the magnitude of systemic bias in this chart, along with the case that there's a trend toward greater systemic bias. And fwiw, I think the D+5 bias is probably mitigated by some 'nonpartisan' firms that, tbh, aren't so nonpartisan or above the board
Would you support or oppose the following electoral system? (described in following tweets; poll in this tweet)
Basics:
--Four days of in-person early voting, including a weekend
--No excuse absentee voting, but application and ID required; ballot must be received by poll close (can drop off at staffed site (precinct)
--Same day and auto reg.
--Voter ID required, described in next tweet
Voter ID requirement met by one of the following: government issued photo-ID with address; two forms identification, both with name at least one with address (say, a utility bill and student ID); a sworn declaration by you and a reg. voter with ID who vouches for you.
No one is particularly interested in a grand bargain on election administration, but the new GOP focus on mail balloting really does open things up, on paper (emphasis on “on paper”)
Why? Well, for starters, and as I've said a few times--to the objection of many twitter replies lol--no excuse absentee mail voting is certainly something Democrats ought to be able to negotiate on from the standpoint of both self-interest and lower-case 'd' democratic values.
Obviously, that basic fact really opens up the room to negotiate (again, on paper).
At the same time, ending absentee mail balloting rationalizes many reforms to improve accessibility that Ds would ordinarily be alone in demanding (like a national election holiday)
This is only one obvious example of a broader tendency in Dem/progressive electoral thinking in recent years, which really wants to reduce elections to be turnout and electoral strategy to grassroots organization
It's a romantic view, since there's no secret of the progressive love of organizing. It's also a convenient view, since it shields activists from questioning their views or whether they represent who they say they do. It's also self-justifying: the solution is more campaign staff
And it was reinforced by the contrast of Democratic midterm losses in 10/14, which were certainly exacerbated by a less favorable turnout.
Democrats lost the plot when they tried to explain 2016 (and now 2020) away in the same way