I'm not an expert but I also assume these only have no particular partisan impact against the backdrop of a country in which most people don't vote; the electorate we're taking as a baseline is always already gerrymanderedhttps://twitter.com/jbouie/status/1378416124614877184 …
So I think transform parties is a different question from 'alter the balance between them.' We just had an incredible test-case for what happens if you massively juice voter turnout and the answer was very nearly static in terms of partisan balance.
-
-
BUT I think we can absolutely see that changes in the turnout model *are* changing the GOP - a lot of the Trumpy energy is coming from 'low propensity voters' after all who are just now turning out. It's caused a lot of sudden shifts in GOP positions e.g. on trade, etc.
-
I think there is an assumption that a 100% turnout democratic party would be much more progressive, but this doesn't seem to be borne out by the data - left-progressives already vote at high rates, the low-propensity democratic voters tend to be more conservative.
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
My argument is that the long-term makeup of our electorate and the current shape of our two parties are inextricably commingled factors.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.