How you stand on the voting process has become one of the most contentious issues of the day. Claims are made that specific voting reforms will throw the election to one party or the other. Voter ID laws and felon disenfranchisement will ensure that Republicans win, or generous absentee voting rules will bring in hordes of Democratic voters, tipping the election in their favor.
The truth is that the partisan effects of most voting reforms are best miniscule. And while our attitudes towards election administration, and even voter confidence in elections are more polarized in the past, the extent of the polarization is overstated.
First, all of the most talked about voting reforms are unlikely to significantly shift elections in a republican or democratic direction. A new paper by Justin Grimmer and Eitan Hirsch looks at this very issue. It turns out that most reforms don’t have dramatic turnout effects. And even if reforms affect one party more than the other, the tilt is often not dramatic. Combine these two phenomena, and you end up with very small partisan shifts for all of the most commonly discussed voting reforms.
Take voter ID for example. Studies have generally found a turnout effects are very small or statistically insignificant. And while the partisan effect of these laws may be somewhat more negative for Democrats, the combination of these two effects is that perhaps there is a very, very small negative effect on Democratic turnout.
Another example are reforms that improve the ability to get registered. Of all of the commonly proposed reforms they have the largest turnout increases, perhaps as much as five or 6% increase in voter turnout. But it’s not clear that there is much of any partisan effect of this reform. Democrats and Republicans are more or less proportionally represented in the increased turnout. The end result is that this reform is neutral and does not substantially benefit Democrats or Republicans.
Of course, there are many reasons to support particular election reforms other than worries about partisan effects. There are legitimate debates about whether photo IDs or other IDs should be shown, whether the collection of mail ballots should be regulated, whether we should have more voting by mail or drop boxes, or whether we should have paper ballots that can be hand counted if needed. But the arguments for these reforms are primarily directed to improved election administration, not preventing differential turnout.
Second, polling shows that there are divides in the American public on access versus integrity, and an increased polarization in some areas, especially during the 2020 election. But in other ways, voters are not as polarized as party activists.
Polling generally shows the Democrats emphasize reforms that increase access to the vote, while Republicans emphasize reforms related to the integrity of the voting process. And on a few specific issues we are polarized. In 2020 especially, we saw a big difference in attitudes towards voting by mail, with Democrats favoring it, and Republicans opposing it in favor of in person voting. But while the differences here are real, they also reflected deeper differences between the parties on the question of how safe it is to go out in public during a pandemic.
And on some issues, the average democrat or republican is less polarized than activist party members. Democratic poll respondents indicate that they strongly favor voter access, but a small majority of Democrats also favors voter ID. Similarly, Republicans favor voter integrity, but they also support early voting. In both these cases, the average voter, unlike party activists, saw the reforms as practical reforms, rather than looking at them solely through the access versus integrity lens.
Third, many commentators have noted the stark divide between the parties on their competence in elections, with Democrats feeling strongly competent, and Republicans not confident.
And while bedrock faith in the fairness of elections is important for a well functioning democracy, these numbers themselves tell a misleading story. Political scientists have long noted that after an election, the losing party expresses a lack of confidence in the election results. Much like attitudes toward the economy, the attitudes of a party and power that then loses an election switches opinions and becomes much more negative. If the next election goes the other way, both parties switch their attitudes in reaction to the election result.
After the 2020 election, the typical pattern prevailed, but the differences between the parties were much greater than usual. But it turns out that while Republicans were slightly more negative about the election results than a typical losing party, it was Democrats who moved much more dramatically than usual, to say that they had extremely high confidence in the election results.
Of course, we should work to shore up support for our democratic institutions. But the narrow measure of voter confidence in elections does not show a great permanent divide between the parties. Our voting wars are intense, the polarization is real, and both parties believe the stakes are high. But the picture of two parties with very different views on democracy is thankfully overstated.
Related
John Fortier
Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
View Video LibraryCommentary
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
How could RFK Jr. impact 2024 election?
Yesterday
Peter Zeihan
Global warming won’t impact Russian-Chinese shipping
Thursday
Peter Zeihan
Can other nations replicate success of US shale revolution?
Wednesday
Peter Zeihan
Peace between Israel and Iran, at least for now
Tuesday
Peter Zeihan
Voting reforms have minimal partisan impact on electoral turnout
Aug 31, 2023
By Straight Arrow News
As the 2024 presidential election approaches, politicians are questioning whether certain voting reforms may have impacted the 2020 presidential election. After their 2020 defeat, Republicans have made efforts to reverse an executive order issued by the Biden administration, which aimed to strengthen election accessibility. In a counter move, Democrats have reintroduced their own proposed legislation to uphold the initiatives put forth by President Biden.
Straight Arrow News contributor John Fortier argues that voting reforms actually have very little partisan influence on voter turnout. Fortier reminds us that our perception of political polarization is actually larger than the problem of polarization itself.
How you stand on the voting process has become one of the most contentious issues of the day. Claims are made that specific voting reforms will throw the election to one party or the other. Voter ID laws and felon disenfranchisement will ensure that Republicans win, or generous absentee voting rules will bring in hordes of Democratic voters, tipping the election in their favor.
The truth is that the partisan effects of most voting reforms are at best miniscule. And while our attitudes towards election administration, and even voter confidence in elections, are more polarized than in the past, the extent of that polarization is overstated.
All of the most talked about voting reforms are unlikely to significantly shift elections in a Republican or Democratic direction. A new paper by Justin Grimmer and Eitan Hersh looks at this very issue. It turns out that most reforms don’t have dramatic turnout effects. And even if reforms affect one party more than the other, the tilt is often not dramatic. Combine these two phenomena, and you end up with very small partisan shifts for all of the most commonly discussed voting reforms.
How you stand on the voting process has become one of the most contentious issues of the day. Claims are made that specific voting reforms will throw the election to one party or the other. Voter ID laws and felon disenfranchisement will ensure that Republicans win, or generous absentee voting rules will bring in hordes of Democratic voters, tipping the election in their favor.
The truth is that the partisan effects of most voting reforms are best miniscule. And while our attitudes towards election administration, and even voter confidence in elections are more polarized in the past, the extent of the polarization is overstated.
First, all of the most talked about voting reforms are unlikely to significantly shift elections in a republican or democratic direction. A new paper by Justin Grimmer and Eitan Hirsch looks at this very issue. It turns out that most reforms don’t have dramatic turnout effects. And even if reforms affect one party more than the other, the tilt is often not dramatic. Combine these two phenomena, and you end up with very small partisan shifts for all of the most commonly discussed voting reforms.
Take voter ID for example. Studies have generally found a turnout effects are very small or statistically insignificant. And while the partisan effect of these laws may be somewhat more negative for Democrats, the combination of these two effects is that perhaps there is a very, very small negative effect on Democratic turnout.
Another example are reforms that improve the ability to get registered. Of all of the commonly proposed reforms they have the largest turnout increases, perhaps as much as five or 6% increase in voter turnout. But it’s not clear that there is much of any partisan effect of this reform. Democrats and Republicans are more or less proportionally represented in the increased turnout. The end result is that this reform is neutral and does not substantially benefit Democrats or Republicans.
Of course, there are many reasons to support particular election reforms other than worries about partisan effects. There are legitimate debates about whether photo IDs or other IDs should be shown, whether the collection of mail ballots should be regulated, whether we should have more voting by mail or drop boxes, or whether we should have paper ballots that can be hand counted if needed. But the arguments for these reforms are primarily directed to improved election administration, not preventing differential turnout.
Second, polling shows that there are divides in the American public on access versus integrity, and an increased polarization in some areas, especially during the 2020 election. But in other ways, voters are not as polarized as party activists.
Polling generally shows the Democrats emphasize reforms that increase access to the vote, while Republicans emphasize reforms related to the integrity of the voting process. And on a few specific issues we are polarized. In 2020 especially, we saw a big difference in attitudes towards voting by mail, with Democrats favoring it, and Republicans opposing it in favor of in person voting. But while the differences here are real, they also reflected deeper differences between the parties on the question of how safe it is to go out in public during a pandemic.
And on some issues, the average democrat or republican is less polarized than activist party members. Democratic poll respondents indicate that they strongly favor voter access, but a small majority of Democrats also favors voter ID. Similarly, Republicans favor voter integrity, but they also support early voting. In both these cases, the average voter, unlike party activists, saw the reforms as practical reforms, rather than looking at them solely through the access versus integrity lens.
Third, many commentators have noted the stark divide between the parties on their competence in elections, with Democrats feeling strongly competent, and Republicans not confident.
And while bedrock faith in the fairness of elections is important for a well functioning democracy, these numbers themselves tell a misleading story. Political scientists have long noted that after an election, the losing party expresses a lack of confidence in the election results. Much like attitudes toward the economy, the attitudes of a party and power that then loses an election switches opinions and becomes much more negative. If the next election goes the other way, both parties switch their attitudes in reaction to the election result.
After the 2020 election, the typical pattern prevailed, but the differences between the parties were much greater than usual. But it turns out that while Republicans were slightly more negative about the election results than a typical losing party, it was Democrats who moved much more dramatically than usual, to say that they had extremely high confidence in the election results.
Of course, we should work to shore up support for our democratic institutions. But the narrow measure of voter confidence in elections does not show a great permanent divide between the parties. Our voting wars are intense, the polarization is real, and both parties believe the stakes are high. But the picture of two parties with very different views on democracy is thankfully overstated.
Related
SCOTUS case on threat of disinformation raises thorny questions
The Supreme Court recently heard arguments concerning government communications with social media platforms in Murthy v. Missouri. Plantiffs in the case claim that government agencies pressured social media companies to remove or restrict posts spreading disinformation about vaccines, elections and COVID-19. Straight Arrow News contributor John Fortier delves into the complex questions raised by the…
Mar 28
Trump v. Anderson is more complicated than it looks
The Supreme Court case Trump v. Anderson will decide whether former President Donald Trump is eligible to run as a candidate for president in 2024. Some constitutional law experts have argued that Trump cannot run as a candidate, citing what they say is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, which…
Feb 29
Era of Iowa, New Hampshire kicking off election season is ending
In American politics, tradition dictates that Iowa and New Hampshire kick off the election season as the two major parties elect their primary candidates. Recently, however, Democrats have suggested revising this tradition, arguing that Iowa and New Hampshire do not present an optimal, comprehensive sample of American voters, and suggesting states like South Carolina or…
Feb 1
Why the frenzy over Georgia’s voting laws was misplaced
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) changed state voting laws after President Joe Biden narrowly won Georgia’s electoral votes over former President Donald Trump in 2020. Voting advocacy groups responded and the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the legislation. These lawsuits alleged that the Georgia GOP in the state legislature aimed to restrict…
Dec 28
Changing speakers isn’t actually going to help Republicans
After three weeks without a speaker and three unsuccessful attempts to secure the required votes for a new one, the U.S. House of Representatives elected a little-known Congressman from Louisiana, Rep. Mike Johnson. But was the decision to elect Rep. Johnson, who leans hard-right and pro-Trump, a wise move for the Republican Party? Straight Arrow…
Nov 2
Underreported stories from each side
Biden’s 13th-Quarter Approval Average Lowest Historically
8 sources | 13% from the left
AP Images
Jamie Raskin Slams Supreme Court Over Trump Immunity Case: ‘Acting Like A Bunch Of Partisan Operatives’
6 sources | 0% from the right
AP Images
Latest Stories
Biden uses NFL draft ad to try to connect with young voters
Watch 2:16
Yesterday
Powering pot: Energy for US cannabis industry could electrify 13.5M homes
Watch 1:29
Yesterday
Allies plan for Trump to have more control over interest rates
Watch 3:07
Yesterday
FDA: Bird flu found in 1/5 commercial milk samples, suggests greater spread
Watch 1:21
Yesterday
China permanently deploys warships to second overseas base
Watch 2:58
Yesterday
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
House Speaker Johnson’s foreign aid bill shows a focused GOP
Yesterday
Star Parker
Trump’s own behavior betrays his guilt
Yesterday
Dr. Rashad Richey
Portraying far-left and far-right as equal in ‘Civil War’ is wrong
Thursday
Jordan Reid
Who will Trump pick for vice presidential running mate?
Thursday
Matthew Continetti