Nate Silver is pretty highly regarded around our parts and for good reason.
So, I think it is helpful to look at his post measuring the effects of the new voter id laws
Many of us, including me, have been concerned about the effect of new voter id laws.
I believe that there is no significant, meaningful difference between the new voter id laws and the Jim Crow, poll tax laws previously. They are both intended to disenfranchise minority voters. The Republicans must do this for three reasons (1) they have zero character / zero integrity and (2) a majority of the members of their party, their base, certainly is bigoted and (3) this is their only chance at victory.
Prior to posting a few snips of his writing on the topic, I want to make a few comments:
(1) No matter what Nate says, we need to fight these laws - (a) by fighting them in court (b) by fighting them in the state legislatures (c) in the court of public opinion and (d) by getting our voters registered .
(2) No matter what, we need to work out hearts out if we want to win. There cannot be any complacency. Even if Nate's writing on this topic are more optimistic than what we guessed, we cannot be complacent. This diary in no way encourages us to do anything less than 100% to get President Obama reelected.
(3) Good News , when accurate, does not necessarily lead to complacency or less hard work. I have found good news encourages me to work harder.
(4) Unreasonably pessimistic interpretations of news do not make people work harder. They make many people more discouraged, less likely to perservere. Adopting an unnecessarily and unreasonably pessimistic perspective does not make one a better person or a more motivated Democratic voter or anything else. It is simply not a virtue.
Without further ado, let us hit some highlights from his excellent post :
He points out that he is asked about this almost every day and that we can use Google Scholar to do our own searching on the topic.
After he has read all of the articles, from a statistical standpoint, he concludes :
But if you read them in more detail, you’ll find that much of the disagreement is semantic rather than substantive.
There is something of a consensus in the literature, in fact, about the rough magnitude of the effects. The stricter laws, like those that require photo identification, seem to decrease turnout by about 2 percent as a share of the registered voter population.
So, he points out that there is a consensus among the academic literature on the topic. Now, outside of the academic literature, unreasonable fear may reign . But, taken together, academic literature gives a consensus - it will decrease turnout by 2 percent.
He points out a few factors why it is no more than 2 percent :
(1) overwhelmingly registered voters have valid id
(2) those without it, rarely vote
(3) provisional ballots can be cast in most cases
(4) campaigns are at work to get their voters registered
News media accounts, like some of those about the new voter ID laws in Pennsylvania, sometimes seize on the most dramatic estimates of the effects of these laws — rather than the most accurate ones
.
Nate is not impressed by the overly pessimistic attempts to scare the bejesus out of Democratic voters . He specifically refers to Pennsylvania and dings those claiming 750,000 voters will attempt to vote and not be able to for the following reasons:
The 750,000-voter figure, however, includes some cases where there are database-matching problems: for instance, a woman is listed by her married surname in one database and her maiden surname in another may be included on that list, even though she should have few problems voting. It includes some cases of voters whose registrations are inactive. And it includes voters who will have some valid form of ID other than that issued by the Department of Transportation, like a passport, which would still make them eligible to vote. Based on the experiences of other states, it is more likely that these laws will prevent something like 2 or 3 percent of registered voters from actually casting a ballot, rather than 9 percent.
He concludes that it gives Willard a net gain of 1.2% in Pennsylvania !
It only gives Willard Rmoney a net gain of 1.2 % in Pennsylvania.
I remember reading a children's book about the monster at the end of the book. And the character kept trying to stop us from turning to the next page. There would be brick walls and all sorts of other obstacles on the pages to prevent us from turning to the next page. And the character was so scared !!! And kept warning us not to turn to the next page becaust of the monster. And he gets worried because we don't listen to his theatrics. Then, finally, we turn the page and we discover that there was no monster. And the character says to the reader, "And you were so scared " .
Here is Nate's Conclusion :
The effects of the adjustment are ultimately fairly minor. In Pennsylvania, for instance, it reduced Mr. Obama’s chances of winning the state to 82.6 percent from 84.2 percent, according to the model’s estimate. Still, it makes Pennsylvania a little closer, and slightly increases the chance that it will be the tipping point state in the election.
One last thing to consider: although I do think these laws will have some detrimental effect on Democratic turnout, it is unlikely to be as large as some Democrats fear or as some news media reports imply — and they can also serve as a rallying point for the party bases. So although the direct effects of these laws are likely negative for Democrats, it wouldn’t take that much in terms of increased base voter engagement — and increased voter conscientiousness about their registration status — to mitigate them.
Still, there exists an 82.6 % chance that President Obama wins Pennsylvania.
I reject the thesis that Doublecounting is necessary in order to scare Democratic voters because that is the only way to motivate us to work hard for the President. Some people love drama. And some believe that this is the only way that Democratic voters won't get complacent. Fear ! Fear ! Be afraid ! Be very afraid ! Panic ! Panic !
Unreasonable fear is not a great motivator for me.
I repeat what I said at the top of the diary :
(1) No matter what Nate says, we need to fight these laws - (a) by fighting them in court (b) by fighting them in the state legislatures (c) in the court of public opinion and (d) by getting our voters registered .
(2) No matter what, we need to work out hearts out if we want to win. There cannot be any complacency. Even if Nate's writing on this topic are more optimistic than what we guessed, we cannot be complacent. This diary in no way encourages us to do anything less than 100% to get President Obama reelected.
(3) Good News , when accurate, does not necessarily lead to complacency or less hard work. I have found good news encourages me to work harder.
(4) Unreasonably pessimistic interpretations of news do not make people work harder. They make many people more discouraged, less likely to perservere. Adopting an unnecessarily and unreasonably pessimistic perspective does not make one a better person or a more motivated Democratic voter or anything else. It is simply not a virtue.
The fact that I am not buying the doublecounting, sensationalist, inaccurate fear that Pennsylvania is now a toss up state does not mean I am less motivated. If anything, I am more motivated. I believe that President Obama will win and I am going to do everything I can to make that happen !
Some good points below :
1. The attempt to disenfranchise voters, to move beyond the simple requirements in the US Constitution, is morally reprehensible.
I could not agree more !
2. It must be opposed and fought, regardless of outcome !
I could not agree more !
3. While Pennsylvania is probably not going to go to Rmoney due to this, one can definitely argue that Florida and North Carolina could change hands due to voter disenfranchisement. I think that we can still win those states and overcome the attempts of Republicans to win those states by wrongly disenfranchising our voters by doing a great job of registering our voters in those states. OFA is on this, aware of it, and working to minimize the effects of voter suppression. President Obama was a community organizer and his team knows how to organize and get voters registered. He knows how to combat this. I think holding the convention in North Carolina will help.
I think President Obama is the better campaigner and we have the better campaign message and the better campaign organization. So, I would expect we will win at least one of those two states in November, if we work as hard as we can, all things being what we expect November to look like.
4. Downticket races are very important :
This is very true. State legislatures are the source of most of the new voter suppression laws. They are also the reason why union busting bills are rammed through, why state legislatures are all anti choice all the time. The US House of Representatives is thoroughly screwed up by Republican and tea party members who dominate it.