ST Alpha - "It's hard to prove a negative though. Would turnout be higher without those laws? Do we know (can we know)?" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 162

In response to "It's sad how people just assumed with GA in the South and Kemp being an R that their updated laws would decrease turnout" by Strongbad

It's hard to prove a negative though. Would turnout be higher without those laws? Do we know (can we know)?

Posted by ty97 Oct 18 '22, 08:35

I guess it will take comparison against other states that don't have these laws after all the voting is done in order to get an idea.

High turnout is great, I'm happy to see it. Not sure we can draw conclusions yet (either way) though.

Responses:

In the end, regardless, it doesn't justify making it harder to vote under any circumstances. People are fighting for their rights and it's admirable, - pmb Oct 18, 08:56 4
- How did the laws make it harder to vote if turnout is up 85% from the last midterm 2018? -- nm - Strongbad Oct 18, 09:17 3
  - Just because people came out to vote doesn't mean it wasn't harder. It doesn't mean that didn't have to travel further, be subjected to more -- (edited) - pmb Oct 18, 09:28 2
    - You're right, it doesn't. - Strongbad Oct 18, 09:37 1
      - I disagree. It doesn't change the narrative at all. It just means it didn't work because people recognize what's at stake. Also, it could simply - pmb Oct 18, 09:43

Post a message top

It's hard to prove a negative though. Would turnout be higher without those laws? Do we know (can we know)?

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.