President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 30, 2013 09:08 AM UTC

Columnist Andrews can't cite evidence that election-day voter registration favors Dems

  • 43 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

(Tell us how you really feel – Promoted by Colorado Pols)

In The Denver Post over the weekend, former State Senate President John Andrews wrote that if Colorado has election-day voter registration, as proposed in the election-modernization bill winding its way through the State Legislature, Democrats would "presto" have "tilted the electoral playing field permanently their way. Republican chances for regaining power and repealing any of this stuff will fade."

Presto? As in presto-change-o?

The "presto" part I get, because the new law would give people the opportunity to register to vote, presto, upon presenting themselves (and proper documents) at a polling center through Election Day. It would also give every voter the chance to, presto, vote with a mail-in ballot as well as the option of, presto, voting in person at vote centers.

But the "change-o" part baffles.

I looked, and I couldn't find any evidence that election-day voter registration would make the electoral playing field would go blue–or black with fraud.

So I was excited to hear about the evidence Andrews had to support his column.

"I have not done research on it," he told me.

I was crushed.

But that doesn't stop Andrews from saying: "Same-day registration is going to make the process of voting more emotion-driven and less reliably honest, and that favors Democrats." 

"Democrats are a lot better at finding people who sign up on that basis [with same-day registration], and some may be legal voters and some might not be," Andrews said, adding that he doesn't mean to "demonize anyone" because "people have different opinions."

So, I asked Andrews, your view is based on your experience here in Colorado?

Yes, he said, along with his trust in Secretary of State Scott Gessler and former State Sen. Mark Hillman, who share Andrews' "alarm."

If you talk to Andrews repeatedly, as I have over the years, you know that he usually takes a conversation about a slice of public policy, like election-day registration, and broadens it to discussion about human motivations or political philosophy. It's fun, but sometimes it scares you.

In this case, Andrews said he doesn't think Colorado should go to "great lengths to turn everybody out to vote."

"People who demonstrate what economists call 'rational ignorance,' I don't want those people voting," he said.

"I'm a believer that voting should be more deliberative."

Democrats, he said, are more inclined to be "emotional" about a political campaign or "snowed by an ad campaign," while Republicans, he says are more "fact-based."

So he believes election-day registration favors Democrats, and my point that there's no evidence to support his position didn't seem to bother Andrews at all.

Follow Jason Salzman on Twitter @bigmediablog

Tweet
Share

Comments

43 thoughts on “Columnist Andrews can’t cite evidence that election-day voter registration favors Dems”

  1. Well, Jason, they all got their marching orders. The Boulder Daily Camera had a piece by Bob Greenlee that hit all the same notes. 

    No mention that the county clerks support the measure. 

  2. Oh brother. Considering which party is the one pretty much exclusively responsible for repeating hysterical unsubstantiated internet rumors and conspiracy theories as fact these days, I think Andrews has the emotion v fact based characteristics of the two major parites reversed. 

    What the heck are his own unresearched but blithely set forth as fact views on election day voting  based on? Even he admits he's saying this without any facts to back it up. It sure sounds more like touchy gut feely amateur psycho-babble  than rational fact based analysis.

  4. I don't buy it.  While Andrews may not have quoted chapter and verse, he is correct.  See the folllowing studies all concluding that election day registration helps Democrats:

    * Hansford, T. G., & Gomez, B. T., "Estimating the electoral effects of voter turnout",, 104 American Political Science Review, 268-88  at 269 (2010) (the measure would "enlarge the vote share of Democratic candidates").

    * Hanmer, M. J., Discount voting: Voter registration reforms and their effects (2009).

    * Berinsky, A. J., "The perverse consequences of electoral reform in the United States", 33 American Politics Research 471-91 (2005).

    * Knack, S., & White, J., "Did states‘ Motor Voter programs help the Democrats?", 26 American Politics Research 344-365 (1998).

    * Franklin, D. P., & Grier, E. E., "Effects of Motor Voter legislation: Voter turnout, registration, and partisan advantage in the 1992 presidential election.", 25 American Politics Quarterly 104-17 (1997).

    An outlier study that reaches an opposite conclusion, Neiheisel, J. & Burden, B., "The Impact of Election Day Registration on Voter Turnout and Election Outcomes", 40 American Politics Research 636-664 (2012), does so based on a flawed analysis of the 1976 election in Wisconsin in which statewide election day voter registration was introduced, by comparing the impact of the reform in local government jursidictions that already had election day voter registration locally, with those that adopted it only for the 1976 election when it was mandated.  The effect of statewide election day voter registration on those late adopting jurisdictions did slightly favor Republicans – but that is only because most of the Democratic leaning jurisdictions in the state had already adopted election day voter registration, so the "natural experiment" in 1976 in Wisconsin measured the impact of the change only in jurisdictions that were already Republican leaning.

    Even Neiheisel agrees with the majority on one point, that Election Day Registration increases voter turnout:

    "In study after study using a variety of different methodologies, scholars have come to the same basic conclusion: EDR lowers the cost of voting for many Americans and increases overall turnout.

    The precise magnitude of the effect, however, has been a subject of some dispute (Brians & Grofman, 1999). Most studies have found that EDR increases turnout anywhere from three to six percentage points on average (Rosenstone & Wolfinger, 1980; Fenster, 1994; Knack 1995, 2001; Rhine, 1995; Alvarez, Ansolabehere, & Wilson, 2002; Fitzgerald, 2005; Hanmer, 2009; Burden et al., 2010). Highton‘s (2009, p. 509) review of the literature concludes that the effect of EDR on turnout is ―about five percentage points, although some studies have uncovered effects as large as 14 points (Rhine, 1996)."

    There is likewise no serious dispute that the demographics of people who are eligible to vote, but don't, is far more similar to those of Democratic party voters than of Republican voters.  One can always theorize that election day registering voters are highly atypical of those eligible to vote who don't.  But, the overwhelming weight of the evidence and analysis suggests that this isn't the case, which is why Democratic election law reformers almost uniformly favor election day voter registration and Republicans almost universally oppose it.  The partisan effect may be modest, probably not more than one to two percentage points, but in the conditions present in Colorado, this change in the law almost certainly favors Democrats.

      1. In the cited blog post, one professor interviewed (who isn't a leading researcher in the area) said basically that there wasn't an academic consensus (there never is), and the other (who works at a think tank) said that it sometimes benefits Democrats and sometimes benefits Republicans based upon local conditions.

        A key point in Colorado is that in Colorado Democrats are much more likely to vote in person on election day than Republicans and have turnout that is much more variable on election day.  This is just the kind of turnout pattern that suggests that election day voter registration would help Democrats more than Republicans.  In the same vein, see, Gomez, G., Hansford T., & Krause, G., "The Republicans Should Pray for Rain: Weather, Turnout, and Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections.", 69 Journal of Politics 649-663 (August 2007).  In a state where the Democrats are the marginal voters and tend to procrastinate, the partisan impact of election day voter registration is clear, even if that might not be the situation in every state.

        Also, keep in mind that inactive voter purges from mail-in-ballots disproportionately remove Democrats from a timely prompt to vote in Colorado, and that post-Motor Voter law, unregistered voters are disproportionately people without Driver's Licenses, which is a profoundly Democratic demographic, in a way that wasn't at the time of earlier examinations of the impact of election day registration.  The sweet spot of enhanced voter registration from election day voter registration is the group of voters with high school diplomas but no college, who have below median incomes, again, a Democratic leaning demographic in Colorado.

        1. Either way, Andrews didn't bother to site anything factual. Whether he happens to be right or wrong he certainly isn't an example of a rightie demonstrating devotion to fact based dispassionate reasoning.  What he is demonstrating is the now familiar rightie tendency to be sloppy, fearful and  emotional rather than precise and well reasoned … They have a secret plan to take away all of our guns! The UN is going to impose one world government!  Terrorists set our forests on fire!  Obama can only be understood as an anti-colonial, Britain hating, Kenyan Mao Mao devotee,    etc. ad nauseum all the way back to Willie Horton.

          Instead of evidence that Democrats, as opposed to Repubicans, are more moved by emotion than by facts,  the only evidence Andrews does provide, himself and his own statements, tends to support the opposite conclusion.

        2. How do you figure all those blue collar construction, ranching, farming and oil & gas workers are going to automatically vote Democratic?  What a fact free statement dripping with bullshit.

    2. Thanks! Excellent information.

      To John Andrews' point: what he is saying is that voting should be a deliberative act carried out by people who understand and care about the political system. Same day registration will lead to emotionally charged marginal citizens being rousted up to the polls to vote for any number of stupid irresponsible reasons. People should vote because they care enough to be responsible, and that means playing by the rules.

      Maybe Democrats should ask themselves why they depends on people who don't care about the process enough to register by the deadline.

      1. GLENN BECK SAID I NEED TO VOTE TO STOP WOODROW WILSON AND SAUL ALINSKY FROM LEADING THE U.N. AGENDA 21 KENYAN PEACEKEEPERS'S INVASION OF EGNAR! 

      2. You and EF continue to ignore the glaring  flaw in your assumption that this is a disareement between Republicans and Dems whom you seem to think support this because they want to make it easier for fraud that benefits them to be committed.  Neither of you has offered any explanation for why the majority of the County Clerks who actually run elections, including Republican County Clerks, think the legislation is fine and don't agree with Gessler's or Andrew's concerns.

        So, one more time, why do you suppose Republican County Clerks are in agreement with Dems on this issue?

        1. I honestly don't know what Tim Gill promised them, but it's very disappointing.

          Unlike Democrats, Republicans don't run in a herd mentality, and we have disagreements among ourselves. This is one of those times.

          2. I honestly don't know what Tim Gill promised them

            You are literally out of your fucking mind…you have no answer but this idiotic contrivance?

            1. In spite of the fact that Reagan couldn't possibly get serious consideration in any R primary today what with his compromising, tax raising, amnesty endorsing  policies.

              Gee I wonder what ArapGoof thinks was promised to all those County Clerks?  Should we check their bank accounts?  Their garages for Jaguars? Any of them buying lavish new houses with cash? Flashy bling? Maybe ArapG could just ask them why their opinion is so different from the Gessler line and end the speculation.

              I expect this brand of buffonery from ArapGoof but you'd think EF would at least try to come up with a response to this simple question: Why is it fine with R County Clerks?  I guess with such a simple single question he can't think of a way to substitute something else that I never said and argue with that instead.

              1. County clerks are lazy, and this bill allows them to be lazy. I don't know exactly why SOME Republican clerks are selling out election integrity, but that's as good a theory as any.

                1. Here's another: They are not 'selling out election integrity.'  Last I heard the county clerks weren't jet setting off to private functions on the taxpayer's dime.  but good for you tossing a bunch of GOP elected officials under the bus.  Great party building there…

                2. I'm not surprised Guppy is struggling to find a reason (until Peak Politics gives him one) why Republican County Clerks would go against the Gessler line.

                  News Flash:  Some people do their jobs, and want to do their jobs correctly and honestly, regardless of ideology or expected loyalty to the most dishonest fringes of their own party.

                3. How about the theory, backed by all kinds of documented  evidence, (as opposed to any of Gessler's demonstrably groundless and discredited contentions) that there isn't any significant problem with election integrity attributable to fraudulent voting in the first place and that there is no evidence to support increased voter fraud in places that already have same day voting?   Would that just make too much sense? 

      3. emotionally charged marginal citizens being rousted up to the polls to vote for any number of stupid irresponsible reasons.

        You mean like gun-nut voters, pro-lifers, birthers, Christian jihadists, homophobes…like those?

         

        People should vote because they care enough to be responsible, and that means playing by the rules.

        Are you seriously claiming that Republicans play by the rules? Seriously?  Republicans are only willing to play by the rules THEY write: see…Wisconsin..Ohio…Florida…North Carolina…Mississippi…etc.

         

         

      4. Come on Gropnuts.  If you really believe that Republicans are the chosen ones and your policies and politicians are Heaven sent then you would welcome more voters because it would show that your party really is the majority party because all these people really side with Republicans and given a chance would vote for them.

        The disturbing possibilitiy is that the majority of people think your party sucks and giving them a chance to vote would confirm that you can't win general elections with only the gun nuts and the fundies.  Your party is supposed to be the masters (eg Karl Rove) at winning elections with persuasive arguments and nasty ads.  Allowing more people to vote means that you can't field fringe extremist candidates like Tim Leonard and Ken Buck who are radioactive and self-destructive in a general because the new people haven't been brain washed to believe the evil government is coming to take guns or that creating a nanny state of government control of women is a good idea.  You've lost the culture wars dude (did I mention that civil uniions will be granted starting at midnight) and your futile attempts to suppress the vote isn't going anywhere.  I would think your party would do some soul searching and attempt to come up with some better policies besides "All government is evil so let's kill government" but I've constantly underestimated you collective self-delusion and "we're the victim" mentality.  Keeping running the extremist candidates and you are going to continue to get creamed in the generals and then look at what happens when Democrats control all three legislative bodies.  Progress.

        1. But that's only the majority of people who aren't right thinking.  The majority of people who should count are Republican voters no matter how small a minority they may become.  There is the real America and then there all those "urban" voters,  Latinos, women and students who really shouldn't be messing things up for the real Americans by voting in the first place. Since we can't legally stop them any more like we could in the good old days, it's really our patriotic duty to at least make it as difficult as possible for the undeserving peasant majority to vote, don't you think?

          At least that must be what the righties who have waged a relentless campaign for shrinking the vote really do think.

    3. I don't know that election day registration necessarily favors Democrats. Generally, when Democrats have big statewide losses it's because they aren't able to motivate enough turnout from people already registered. I don't see EDR adding any new Dem voters in an apathetic year.

      If Democrats are advantaged by simplifying and expanding the ability for people to vote it's because the current process has been systematically shutting out otherwise motivated parts of the electorate. When levelling the playing field favors one side, it just shows that the game has been rigged so long that current partisan-leaning flaws are seen as normal. Unsurprising after a very long (interrupted only by Bernie Buescher) series of Republican Secretaries of State and a concerted effort by the GOP when they control the legislature to limit voting access.

      1. Excellent observation, Tom:

        "When levelling the playing field favors one side, it just shows that the game has been rigged so long that current partisan-leaning flaws are seen as normal."

        Thanks.

  5. I don't understand why John Andrews failed to offer his credentials on the subject.  All he had to was start the article reminiscing "About the time in 2003 when I pulled a fast one on ol' Kenny Gordon with my Midnight Gerrymander to lock up a permanent Republican majority, but for those damn communists on the Supreme Court!"

    Guess he was just being modest.

  6. John Andrews & ArapGOP are both very direct that only those willing to put in the time and effort to register, and registration that occurs beforehand and takes specific effort, should be allowed to vote. They also both state that only those making a careful dispassionate decision should be given a ballot.

    So here's a fundamental question. In a perfect world, should voting be restricted to those making the appropiate effort (time to register and time to study the issues)? Or is Democracy best served by encouraging all to vote, including those who won't put in much time/effort to either register or make an informed decision?

    1. Registration hurdles aren't a particularly good proxy for determining if people are making informed decisions. They're just a way of making the default portrait of a voter a person who has a reasonably settled living situation, doesn't have any significant mobility issues and has enough free time on Tuesdays or enough postage to cast a ballot regularly.

      My retired neighbor who registered five years ago when he moved in doesn't have to put any more effort into the process since he makes a point to vote in every election to oppose those "nazi socialists". Informed, he ain't. 

       

       

    2. We don't have the right to decide whether voters are sufficiently informed.  They mainly aren't. Of course we'd be better served if people paid attention but they don't and our right to vote isn't based on how informed we are. I've never seen much evidence that those who register and vote early are any better informed than those who procrastinate.

  7. "Same-day registration is going to make the process of voting more emotion-driven..." Same day registration is not a required ingredient for "emotion-driven" voting. I was an election judge in 2000. I lost count of the number of voters I showed to a booth who were in there for 30 seconds or less. As I said afterward, "They came to get themselves a football stadium and couldn't have cared less about the rest it." Gee, does anyone remember what else was on that ballot? Oh yeah, only the most hotly contested presidential vote of the latter half of the 20th century. And I wonder how many of those people were anti-tax, "small goverment" types?

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

80 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!