That is some high-quality trolling.
I was going to say that the political scientist whose work they are citing seems interesting. Then I read this:
Anzia shows that off-cycle elections lead to higher salaries and better health and retirement benefits for teachers and public employees. Anzia studies these effects in many different ways. The simplest way is by looking at eight states that allow local governments to set their own election dates. She compares school districts that hold school board elections on-cycle and off-cycle within the same state. Controlling for factors that might make districts different from one another -- like their population size, income, racial composition, partisan leanings and how urban or rural they are -- Anzia found that the maximum base teacher salary is over 4 percent higher in districts with off-cycle elections.
First of all, this certainly does not show that off-cycle elections "lead to" anything of the sort. They correlate.
Second, I am deeply suspicious of the claim that you can control for all of relevant factors here. PA has 501 school districts in 67 counties and I am really skeptical of the idea that it's possible to control for ALL of the other factors that might be causing higher salaries.
Finally, even assuming this claim is true, what is the supposed mechanism? School boards vote on their own budgets, and because they are being elected in off-years...they are able to vote themselves higher salaries and the ordinary voter doesn't bother to come and vote them out of office? What?
I saw that earlier today. Obviously the piece takes its information from the Anzia book: one would have to dig into whether its research is sound.
Assuming it is: there are a number of reasons Republicans might prefer so-called consolidation bills, consolidating local elections with national ones. Chief among them is that Republicans are fond of piling on controversial ballot initiatives (like for gay marriage) in presidential election years: they know such things motivate conservatives to come out to vote, and they'll presumably vote a full Republican ticket/agenda at the same time. It's not entirely shocking that Democrats might fight against such tactics by resisting consolidation. But that makes the same argument as the 538 piece and the Anzia book: that Democrats are, in such a case, suppressing the vote.
I don't know what to think, then.
2 before seeing 1.
True enough, the principal questions I've seen raised about this thus far have to do with Anzia's methods.
I'm just so sick of voting in completely uncontested local elections. Primary and general.
That's what the #blacklivesmatter guy is there for. But yes, it is dispiriting. At least we have competitive judicial elections.
I keep wanting to yell at all of the civic engagement people (::coughKnightFoundationcough::) that sometimes low voter turnout is because we're disgusted with the corruption. E.g. when the US Congressman who is party boss in the city has such contempt for voters he doesn't even bother to file legally required reports for his ward.
And I say that as someone who has voted in just about every single solitary election possible for going on two decades.
Municipally, we cancelled off-off-year elections (like this year), to give the election staff a break and keep costs down. Also, I believe, part of the goal was to increase turnout for state and municipal contests. Of course, across the river, they have their corrupt, party machine-driven off year elections willy nilly, thumbing their collective nose at efficiency and concern for the professional development of city employees.
I believe most Democrats are fine with declaring election day(s) a federal or state holiday.
Hells yes. Only downside is that I might have to wait in line.
I thought the general Democratic position on voter turnout was less an inspiring call to the deep values of democracy and more yelling "Oh like hell that's what you think" in response to the various disingenuous Republican arguments.
Also 538's move from a small website that did reliable polling aggregation to a large website with a lot of commentary and analysis hasn't really impressed me. They've also been running "The next six months will prove critical to the Republican primary" style articles talking about how Trump is, swear to god really just about to disappear from the race since something like June as well.
yelling "Oh like hell that's what you think" in response to the various disingenuous Republican arguments.
I confess I do that sometimes. It's true.
If you had a self-driving voting machine, that would enter ballots for people based on their previous voting record and frequency of participation, how much would it actually change the outcomes of elections? The North Korean Politburo has a higher turnover rate than the US Congress, after all.
(Admittedly, the pastries in the Congressional cafeteria are probably more diverse.)
Even if the allegations are true, which I'm not ready to accept, calling this "voter suppression" is the worst sort of false equivalence. Republican voter suppression is working to make it difficult for eligible voters to vote. Democratic "voter suppression" is.... scheduling a local election a a time when it won't be drowned out by national races.
Also, this article has been shared approving by I think maybe every single conservative I'm friends with on Facebook.
California is now moving strongly in the direction of consolidation.
Yeah, in just a few thousand years, plate tectonics will have consolidated LA and San Francisco pretty decisively.
True enough, the principal questions I've seen raised about this thus far have to do with Anzia's methods.
Well, that's stupid, because the suggested equivalence of a nationwide, systematic policy of all-but-explicit selective disenfranchisement affecting national and local elections and the scheduling of local elections with no particular sign of their being coordinated or targeted is plenty idiotic regardless of Anzia's methods.
Or what 14 said, I suppose, but even the vehemence of 18 is insufficient.
Is this 538 in a race to the bottom with Vox?
Also, much love for the post title.
Is this 538 in a race to the bottom with Vox?
I've been liking vox better lately. Perhaps that's just a sign that I'm no longer expecting that much from them, but I feel like there's a reasonable fraction of useful articles there.
Yeah, if they are in a race to the bottom I think 538 is winning.
The take, it burns.
That's some mighty fine cherrypicking. When your first pass through the data only gives you a measly 60/40 effect, then it's time for a culling. You can't get into 538 with a 60/40 effect (though I'm shocked they didn't just put this in Slate and ignore the data altogether).
My candidate for city council lost tonight. Republicans went for the ignorant asshole, and turned out just a little better. It's too bad, because I liked my guy, but I've been kind of thinking along Roman Hruska lines: if 8.5% of the residents of my city are ignorant assholes, don't they deserve representation too?
This guy will be singularly ineffective. All the other contested races were won by young, dynamic progressive candidates.
I will say that, prior to knowing anything about this article, but having heard some of the election results, I thought, "Why the hell do we have to have any off-year elections?"
Which is to say that IMO the partisan Dem position would be to only vote in Presidential years (not that that's possible). So, if there's a broad Democratic preference for off-year elections, I'd say it's a preference against interest. Adding a whole other level of stupid to the linked article.
25: I met a guy who did that, just on on the principle of it. We were in a bar. He knew who I was from my comments on a couple of local blogs that are now largely silent.
"Why the hell do we have to have any off-year elections?"
That's also my thought. Every two years is often enough.
I hadn't thought of it as "partisan" so much as general incumbent protection.
Voter turnout here is generally low. I mean, one party controls most of the state and dissent is discouraged. So all it takes to win an off-year election is getting your base out even a little, so certain ballot initiatives I'm sure are timed for when the conservatives who hate public libraries (e.g.) aren't likely to bother. After the bond to fund the public library passed in 2013, a number of people in the government whined that it wasn't faiiiiirr that people had actually voted for it because the taxpayers didn't realllllly want a new library -- look at the turnout! Implication: it's only liberals and Hispanics who must have voted! So then a colleague wrote an op-ed in which he pointed out that the whiners had received less of the vote than had the new building, so....
Anyone who thinks this is voter suppression is dumb or dishonest. But it's totally plausible to me that there's a reason the initiative wasn't on the ballot in 2012.
Every single person registered to vote got a ballot in the mail and 3 weeks to mail it in, or drop it off. And the ability to register and vote up until 8 pm on election day. Democratic voter suppression in action!
"We suppressed you by not putting a Republican message issue on the ballot!"
Here we go - cities with turnout at least 25% below statewide-general-election turnout (four-election average for the latter) must consolidate with the statewide general election cycle.
34
But, but, Republicans voted against consolidation? 538 told me that's impossible.
Or maybe it's a minority party tactic, not a Democratic tactic?
Oh, and that covers all special districts including school districts.