Politics

“Voter suppression”? Not so much, research shows


The long-held, but unchallenged, assumption that “voter suppression”  changes the outcome of elections, has now been challenged — and refuted.

The analysis comes from respected Emory University prof Alan Abramowitz, and his work has gotten far less attention than it should. And when it is published, his work is usually under the headline of “voter suppression.”

CNN’s Michael Smerconish gets wake up call from Prof. Alan Abramowitz

From the Left, any attempt to tighten voter security is seen as “suppression,” as if voters always had the “right” to vote a month before Election Day, to vote 24/7, to vote by mail, to dump ballots in drop boxes, and to not have to provide ID.

On the subject of ID, looking at 2016 and 2020 turnout, Abramowitz found an increase of 7% where ID was not required. And where ID was required? An increase of an almost identical 7%. Turnout, he concludes, is a function of voter passion more than anything else.

Measures to tighten the election process usually come from Republicans, and surely there is something political in their motives. And when Democrats fight any attempt at reform, that is also political.

As has been noted before, Democrats claim that Georgia’s new voting laws are “repressive,” despite record turnout and that Delaware’s laws are more restrictive than Georgia’s. That’s true for some other “blue” states, such as New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut. 

Michael Smerconish interviewed the professor on his CNN show, where he said the research was “counter-intuitive.”

Meaning, Smerconish’s assumption was that the new laws negatively affect turnout or result. That belief is on him. The research shows a minor effect on turnout and none in outcome. 

Well, the research affirms my intuition. And I’m glad to see it is supported by science, and that Smerconish was honest enough to air findings contrary to his beliefs. That makes him trustworthy.

The professor said that the expanded access to the polls, while liked by voters, had remarkably little effect on turnout, something I had detailed myself in a piece that reported that with the exception of 2020, turnout has rarely been out of the 50s for the past 90 years, regardless of all the expanded “access” to the polls. 

Far more serious, says Abramowitz, are new rules about who counts and validates the votes, with Trumpsters being appointed or elected to supervisory roles.

Again, I agree with the professor. That is the danger that must be confronted. 

Stu Bykofsky

Recent Posts

A taxing story on Philly’s soda tax

Philadelphia’s seven-year-old soda tax has increased health in the city, but maybe not, according to…

1 day ago

Life in a shelter, from a dog’s point of view

A shelter is about the worst place for a dog, and Philadelphia’s was once one…

5 days ago

No, Americans did not vote for fascism

The post mortem continues, with the Inquirer headlining, in the print edition, a story ,…

2 weeks ago

How can Trump make mass deportation work?

Donald J. Trump has a mandate for action, and if Republicans capture the House, in…

2 weeks ago

Ladies & Gentlemen: You are embarrassing yourselves

As you know, I enjoy spirited debate, and even creative name-calling. The election is over.…

2 weeks ago

Trump’s first appointment seems to troll Mark Cuban

Well, ain’t that something. In what I can’t help seeing as a trolling of Mark…

2 weeks ago