Bret Devereaux

I'm extremely skeptical it's possible to model that in a significant way. I think 100% turnout from heretofore disenfranchised populations would have to transform our politics in ways that would affect both parties

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.

We've argued about this before, I think liberal/conservative self-identification is next to useless when thinking about what kinds of actual policy would be driven by different groups of voters.

Perfectly possible for instance for "conservative" voters like the low-propensity GOP voters you're talking about to realign issues in ways the left would favor

I'm using terms as a means of twitter compression - there would be lots of complexity. David Shor has been showing up talking about some of the data, and his numbers suggest it is not clear 100% turnout would mean a uniform leftward movement as often supposed.

Anyway, if the left wants to embrace a pro-turnout approach on equity grounds, good for them. It is an equity issue. I just don't think they should fool themselves into thinking driving turnout up is going to shift issues in their favor; it's not clear it will.