1. I think this approach to the Georgia's new law is deeply flawed.
It focuses on the hypothetical effect of the law while skipping over the motivation and the impact on individual voters.
Follow along if interested.
It focuses on the hypothetical effect of the law while skipping over the motivation and the impact on individual voters.
Follow along if interested.
https://twitter.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1378393921529786369
2. First, we don't know the effect of this law in the future. Nate admits the shortened runoff period could impact "turnout in exactly the kind of close, low-turnout race where it could easily be decisive"
Well, a close runoff election just determined control of the Senate!
Well, a close runoff election just determined control of the Senate!
3. So I don't think running these changes through an algorithm is the right approach. We need to look at the intent. And this bill is sponsored by the people who falsely claimed the election was stolen from Trump. The intent of the bill is to validate Trump's claims.
4. We should not be making changes to the election code in order to justify a self-serving lie. Why should there be any chance that a future election is altered through reduced turnout based on an absolute falsehood?
Dismissing it as low-probability is the wrong approach.
Dismissing it as low-probability is the wrong approach.
5. Secondly, the NYT notes that most voters "brave the inconveniences" imposed by new voting restrictions. Maybe. But why should they?
IMO, it's wrong to make it more difficult to vote based on lies and then dismiss it because most people will power through.
IMO, it's wrong to make it more difficult to vote based on lies and then dismiss it because most people will power through.
6. Voters should be treated with respect. They shouldn't be forced to jump through hoops because of a conspiracy theory. People are busy.
And there are always people on the margins. If a future election is close, even a handful of votes can be decisive.
And there are always people on the margins. If a future election is close, even a handful of votes can be decisive.
7. And then of course, the NYT analysis doesn't even try to contemplate the impact of giving the legislature the ability to control local election decisions. But you can't separate that from the rest of the bill. All of these provisions work together. And they reveal the INTENT.
8. There are a bunch of smart people making this argument, but not every problem can be solved with a Monte Carlo simulator. Making it more difficult to vote based on lies is wrong REGARDLESS OF THE EFFECT. But the effect could be significant.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
