I’ve always wondered that as well. If your party is doing well in the polls, you might not vote because you don’t have to. If it’s not doing well, you might not vote because your one vote isn’t going to make a difference.
I have to assume if this was actually a problem, these polls wouldn’t be happening. My guess is that people aren’t going to stay home because of the polls, they were already going to stay home regardless, but this makes them feel justified in that decision.
I think a lot of lukewarm Clinton voters in 2016 stayed home because they didn’t think Trump had a chance.
A guess.
Depending on the state, some or all of the following may be available:
- names of people who have voted (and possibly their party preference)
- total number of people who have voted by precinct/city/county
- demographic data of the people in the precinct/county/city
- voting results from past elections in the area.
So you can throw that into a computer and make a supportable estimate about the contents of the ballots - but you don’t know the actual contents of the ballots. (It could be that the precinct flipped - or that a bunch of registered __________ voted the other way)
Pretty much.
Whether or not someone voted is a matter of public record. Everyone can find that out. How they voted is private. The only person who knows how John A actually voted is John A. But if John A lives in a city that votes 80% Republican, or has in the past given money to the Republican party or to Republican candidates (both things that are also matters of public record and anyone can find out), or if John A lives in a state where people do put party preference down when they register to vote - then you can make a guess “John A voted for Republican candidates.”
That’s what’s being reported - the guess.
It can change behavior - people can think that it’s already decided and not vote because their candidate doesn’t need it or not vote because they think it’s impossible to overcome the deficit. (I live on the west coast - there were times where actual presidential election results from the east coast were announced 4 hours before polls closed here - it had an effect on turnout).
Be careful, here: There are two different things being talked about. There might be more people who consider themselves Republican voting for Biden than people who consider themselves Democrat voting for Trump. But the numbers aren’t based on what people consider themselves. They’re based, in effect, on what primary election people chose to vote in most recently, and that’s not the same thing. The most recent primary was, de facto, uncontested on the Republican side, but heavily contested on the Democratic side, and that may well have inspired large number of people who are ideologically Republican to have registered as Democrats, so they could have a say in the primary that actually mattered.
I just heard Amy Klobuchar say on the “Rachel Maddow Show” that we’re up to 75 million early votes.
IMO, you shouldn’t use the acronym even if it did show your location. Don’t make readers have to work to understand your writing. This is something of a problem on the SDMB.
Do you have a link to that?
IMO?
Yes, this sort of thing has been a problem; also when the eastern and middle states get called when their polls close, people in western states may just go home.
This leads to another real problem that nobody here has mentioned yet: It screws up the more local down-ballot elections. The nation-wide or state-wide races may be called, but if that leads to people going home without voting, then they also don’t vote for the local mayor, or city council, or local ballot measures, etc.
In 1980 I was living in Washington state. I deliberately waited until the networks called the presidential election before going out to vote. This was somewhere around 6 p.m. PST, IIRC. Not sure why I did that; just being perverse, I guess.
Tom Bonier is with TargetSmart, a data analysis outfit, as far as I can determine. Let me know if I didn’t link to that tweet correctly.
IMO =! SoW
Thanks.
it’s over 75 million early votes now. plus the weekend before election day will likely be very busy too. we may actually hit 100 million early votes.
I’m wondering if we’ll see legislation in red states soon curtailing lengthy early voting periods. Texas in particular. Everything that Greg Abbott did in an attempt to limit voting this year was undermined by current rules allowing for weeks of early voting. However, if Dems capture the state house there, which appears now to be a real possibility, they’re liable to make it even easier to vote. Bad news for a GOP on the downswing in the nation’s second most populous state.
Why not make November 11, already a national holiday, into national voting day?
I think you might see depressed turnout if you asked people to do anything civic minded on their “day off.” Opening the polls for a period before election day seems to work okay, and 100% mail in voting works perfectly.
Abbott actually extended the early voting period by an additional week this year. Bet he’s regretting that. And if the Dems capture the House they won’t be able to do much on expanding voting opportunities since Rs have the Senate locked up and Abbott’s still out Governor for at least another two years.
I am sure that he is regretting it now that Texas is at 95% of the 2016 vote count with 6 days to go. He will be very unpopular with the rebublicans come reelection time if the state goes for Biden.
correct me if I’m wrong, but making mail in voting the default option seems to have higher turnout than in person voting.
So we should focus on mail in voting combined with automatic voter registration as the default options.
You could still have an election holiday but ideally people won’t be voting then.