Thread by @Nate_Cohn

What I implied is that new the law probably doesn't increase the length of lines, and could just as easily shorten lines.
I am not implying that lines don't matter to turnout (the article, in fact, says long lines affect turnout), or to human beings

https://twitter.com/fairfightaction/status/1379464786405101573?s=20

When it comes to the effect on in-person voting, there are provisions cutting in both directions.
An example in the negative direction: ending the Fulton County bus voting stations, which could directly alleviate a problem

An example in the positive direction: expanding early voting days and the provision requiring that large precincts with long lines (over an hour) either add staff, add machines or split apart.

I won't go into depth to try and game it all out. There are too many provisions of debatable and cross-cutting effects to confidently ascertain whether more or fewer people will stand in long lines

What I am really convinced of, though, is that long lines really matter, and the reformers may be making a mistake by focusing on expanded voting options (say, assuring no-excuse mail voting) as opposed to protecting the fundamentals (making sure there aren't long lines)

HR1 includes both kinds of provisions (there's a requirement for lines under 30 minutes iirc). But yet again, it's overlooked--and the proposed narrower versions of the bill don't include this kind of basic protection

Expanding/adding convenience voting is usually accompanied by a reduction in the availability of in-person/election day voting.
In the extreme, you get a state like Washington that's nearly all mail but just a single in-person site per county

https://twitter.com/LeRoi1000000/status/1379490714212519940?s=20

As a consequence, there are lot of the states with all three voting methods that manage to have awful lines, while there are (or were pre-20) states without advance voting but very few lines

For one, there's just a basic resource overstretch problem.
For another, optimizing resources can be more challenging when the way voters can turn out varies so much

You may recall, for ex, back in 2016 that the Arizona dem primary was horrible, as the state cut back on in-person options in part bc mail had been increasing steadily... then they crushed (no electoral gain, just bad administraiton)
cbsnews.com/news/phoenix-l…

And to be clear, there's no reason it can't work to have multiple voting methods! If you can make it all work, that's great. Some states do, even though others suck at it year after year. But multi method voting does create administrative challenges of its own