TURNOUT TELL-ALL

The end of the pandemic is in sight. ~ Donald Trump (9/29/20)     

Here we are a mere 28 days before we choose whether the incumbent, possibly covid-filled president should remain in office or cast him out in favor of his eminently-laudable challenger.

But wait, a top-of-the ninth (or is it just the seventh inning stretch) colossal curve ball has been thrown into this political game, worthy of Sandy Koufax or Dwight Gooden. The curve ball is the Friday, October 2 announcement that #45 has covid-19. It’s highjacked the election, probably just as the president hoped. To no one’s surprise, his administration has itself become a super-spreader event.

Yup, viral reality has likely stricken our here-to-fore, ever-unmasked #45. I say likely because we should balance three concurrent realities. First, this virus’ months-long, utterly non-discriminatory and all-too-successful efforts to infect everyone; second, #45’s regular no-rules denials of fact, science and truth (see his quote above, QED); and third, #45’s on-going and widening deficit in election polls. Given this state of affairs, my amply well-founded, cynical self has pondered that he could be making up his infection for his own desperate advantage on November 3.

On Sunday, the seemingly non-stricken #45 briefly left his suite at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for a short, unannounced motorcade ride so he could wave to his supporters outside. The president’s un-sick behavior was properly labeled by doctors at Walter Reed as irresponsible “insanity.” It’s only insanity if he actually has covid-19. Imagine him triumphantly returning to the White House all too soon, saying he’s facilely “fired the virus.”  

Because of his nefarious approach to politics, I urge the Dems to walk a fine line and not to be too considerate about the president’s viral condition. If they are too thoughtful, as is their virtuous inclination, they could become hoodwinked toast. Remember not the Maine, but hopeful victory on the 3rd, please.

The Repubs haven’t stopped a single one of their negative ads against Mr. Biden, as the president waved to his fans in his SUV outside Walter Reed. The Dems have ceased theirs against #45. This befits a risky tactic of perhaps being overly empathetic of the president’s (alleged) medical malady. Joe, please restart your full court press and all your ads, now.

But back to the upcoming balloting for the presidency.

In this seemingly-interminable presidential election cycle, analysts have guesstimated that the number of “undecideds” may range from 3% to 11% of registered voters; most polls show 3% to 5% at most. For the life of me, I don’t know how our presidential choice this time can be at all puzzling; which is another way of saying that the media’s obsessive focus on allegedly “undecided” voters is a misplaced ruse. At this point, there aren’t any really “undecided” voters to speak of. But the giant media election apparatus really, really requires them for their stories as well as the debates. Remember the debates?  

The incentive for someone to say now they’re “undecided” rests solely on receiving a slender, Skinnerian pellet of spotlighted, momentary media attention. “You’re really undecided; that’s fabulous, can we please interview you?” The media’s spotlight is probably bright enough for a few people to apparently want to bath in it. To assist those very, very few remaining "undecided" voters, I suggest you take this handy quiz to learn what you should do on election day. 

Other analysts believe most of these very scarce “undecided” voters aren’t likely voters. Past information indicates all too many will not vote on November 3. From this perspective, there are mainly “undecided” non-voters.

Despite the intensity and importance of every US presidential election, vast swaths of eligible voters regularly decline their privilege. The US Elections Project has determined that 39.9% of our voting-eligible population, or 45.3% of our voting-age population, did not vote in November 2016. Our paltry election turnout-participation rate ranked the US 26th highest of the 35 listed, advanced democracies, just behind Estonia.[1] The hefty number of non-voting citizens is in part why election campaigns focus on improving turnout and “getting the vote out.”

The table below shows the voter turnout and related information for the 2018 primary and Congressional elections and the 2016 presidential election for several major voting groups. Voter turnout is the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in an election. In 2016, the national average turnout of voting-age people was 59%. Minnesota had the highest voter turnout of any state in 2016 and 2018.

Voter Turnout and Electorate Shares by Ethnicity and Age

Group	Voter Turnout 2018      2016	Share of Electorate 2018      2016	Share of 2019 Pop.
Non-Hispanic White	55.2%    64.7%	73.3%    73.6%	60.1%
Hispanic	36.9       44.9	9.4          9.1	18.5
Non-Hispanic Black	51.3       59.9	12.2        12.3	13.4
18-29 years old	32.6       43.4	13.8        15.7	16.4
60+ years old	65.5      71.4	37.3        33.6	16.5 (65+)

Sources: US Elections Project, US Census, Marketingcharts.com

As shown in the table, non-Hispanic White people and people 60 years old or over, aka elder voters, had the highest turnout, closely followed by non-Hispanic Black people, a key Dem constituency. Younger people, a hopeful Dem constituency, had the lowest turnout, half that of elder voters in 2018. These turnout rates are typical across many years’ elections. Elder voters account for a disproportionate share of the electorate, relative to their 2019 population share. The other groups’ population shares are more commensurate with their electorate shares.

Once again, the Dems are emphasizing increased turnout for young people and Hispanics, as well as non-Hispanic Black folks. If the Dems’ efforts succeed in improving these groups’ turnout it could likely benefit their candidates. But in past elections such efforts have largely come up short with regard to younger persons. Interestingly, California has a proposition on its ballot that would further expand youth voting privilege by allowing 17-year olds to vote in primaries and special elections if they will be 18 by the time of the next general election. OMG, say it ain’t so.

The Dems are also hoping to get Bernie Sanders’ and Elizabeth Warrens’ progressive believers to vote for Joe. Both Bernie and Elizabeth are thankfully far more engaged in promoting the Dems’ candidate than they were four years ago. The question remains whether Progs will really shed their puritanical mental frocks and actually cast a ballot for Biden, despite their believing he’s not “pure” enough. Fingers are crossed in hoping they are not all like Roger Williams, a strict Puritan leader, nearly 400 years ago.

The Dems’ challenges illustrate a long-running political dispute about election strategy: Is it better to persuade people who will likely support you to actually vote by increasing turnout or to win over swing voters and change the vote margin?

Both are important for achieving victory, but past elections indicate it is more valuable to win by changing the vote margin than by changing turnout. Why? Because successfully changing a persuadable voter to change her/his sides (change the vote margin) produces two votes: plus one for you, and minus one for your opponent. Getting an additional voter to cast a ballot through turnout is worth just one vote. Also, an election’s vote share/margin also tends to shift more than turnout from election to election. Thus, changing the margin ends up being more politically “efficient”, netting two votes versus one vote, but can entail more convincing efforts.

I’m trusting that despite #45’s relentless all tricks and no treats, the thoughts of #16’s Secretary of State William Seward (who bought Alaska for us at a pittance) remain true: “There was always just enough virtue in this republic to save it; sometimes none to spare, but still enough to meet the emergency.” In our current emergency we’ll find out soon if Sec. Seward was right, as I truly hope.

 

---

[1] For you national election geeks, Belgium has the highest voter turnout with 87.2% of the voting-age population actually casting votes in their latest national election.