> So, if you can get 50% to 75% of the eligible population to not vote, then it becomes much easier to maintain power without actually having to take any responsibility for your actions.
Except, this isn't actually the strategy employed by Dems in several battleground states. Growth in voter turnout has correlated with strong outcomes for democrats pretty reliably over the last 10 years, at all levels, especially in the rust belt.
Will you point me to a dataset that demonstrates this? I've looked at state level data for a few states, and while I have seen higher turnout in Presidential elections, I see very low and declining turnout in those Primaries which I think just causes the same problem and allows the general election turnout to mask this problem.
Then, looking at off year and congressional elections, the data is much less hopeful. It's almost _always_ the case that you see less than 50% eligible, and even less than 50% _registered_ turnout.
That’s because it’s the Republicans who are by the far the worst offenders.
Lately there been steam rolling far right people inyo places like achool boards in off years.
Except, this isn't actually the strategy employed by Dems in several battleground states. Growth in voter turnout has correlated with strong outcomes for democrats pretty reliably over the last 10 years, at all levels, especially in the rust belt.
reply