This fascinating article in the New York Times gives a surprisingly anodyne perspective on voter suppression efforts by Republican (and some Democrat) State Legislatures.
The key takeaway is that, for all the fuss, most of the Republican efforts to reduce voter turnout among perceived Democratic constituencies have little overall effect on the outcome.
Why? Partly because many of the legislative changes don’t work. Voters continue to turn out, even if voting times and locations are reduced, and voter id is required. Partly because some of the policies also impact Republican voters. Partly because the numbers involved are actually quite small.
In baseball, many fans have the impression that the 50-home run hitting first baseman is irreplaceable, because they don’t take into account the fact that his replacement will also hit a lot of home runs. You don’t lose 50– you lose maybe 10, maybe 15. And the intentional walk– yes, you reduced the chances of a good-hitter driving in a run, but you also increase the chance that that hitter who is now a baserunner will also score. It’s a wash and now most astute baseball commentators and managers recognize it.
So take the actual number of voters who don’t turn out and subtract the number of them who vote for the other party and then calculate that as a percentage of the total number of voters– and you have a marginal effect.
I admit, I was a bit surprised. What do critics of this analysis say? They don’t say it’s wrong. They say that the principle of voting rights is more important than the actual effect, and I agree with that.