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

Feds bash Philly schools for enabling anti-Semitism

I once wrote, with sincerity, that Philadelphians divide their time between bragging about Philly, and…

9 hours ago

Inquirer scoreboard: Fails on objectivity, again

As part of my continuing scoreboard on Inquirer corruption of journalist norms, the Thursday edition…

3 days ago

Sixers Arena: Lots of leadership missing, and that’s no accident

[This was published in the Inquirer on Thursday, Dec, 12. The subject is the Sixers…

7 days ago

Nuclear war: Making it thinkable

Not many things scare the crap out of me, including the threat of nuclear war.…

1 week ago

Inquirer scoreboard: It keeps pushing Open Borders

God knows I don’t want to be a noodge about it, but as long as…

2 weeks ago

The Ivy Leaguer and the Marine: Neither is a hero

By now you have either seen or heard of the online blockheads who are lionizing,…

2 weeks ago