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 …
-
Show this thread
-
Subjecting voting rights into analysis more suitable for, dunno, sports betting is not okay. Even if "the evidence" suggests little partisan impact, it should have no bearing on analysis—besides, this is necessarily weak evidence because social science isn't an oracle.
4 replies 57 retweets 391 likesShow this thread -
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.
7 replies 53 retweets 437 likesShow 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.
11 replies 44 retweets 379 likesShow 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.
4 replies 32 retweets 270 likesShow this thread -
For some questions, and added bonus we don't even know the consequences.
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.