No, no, no. The right to vote is a *right*; thus a normative question, not one to be analyzed on its presumed partisan effects (besides, social scientists cannot really predict these effects). Please, let's focus on if the law makes it harder to vote, and who the impact falls on.https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1378336504423051270 …
-
-
I'm open to articles arguing, say, the law is misunderstood & does not restrict voting rights and here's why, but not "it does restrict but meh, won't effect outcome because pissed off people will wait in even longer lines etc." That's not non-partisan analysis, it's just wrong.
Show this thread -
A few people have sent me comparisons of Georgia with New York's voting laws. I dunno if y'all noticed in the last election, but New York is *terrible* at this. We don't seem to pay attention because it's not as contested. Our voting system needs standards and to enforce rights.
Show this thread -
Also, I'll repeat: social science can analyze what happened in the past, but predicting *future* turnout effects in response to a complex new set of rules really isn't something that can be done with precision and confidence. This is reality, not a criticism of our research.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Right, and you never hear them say that it’s not about which party benefits or whether a party benefits. All this stuff continues the cycle of legislative agenda bias toward those with means
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Some events cannot be subjected to data analytics but must be construed in their historical context. Republicans in Georgia turned back the clock to the time when they controlled who voted and who didn't.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.