In the wake of assessments about foreign interference in the 2016 presidential election, concerns have been mounting about the security of the 2018 midterm elections. Security efforts are complicated by the complex, multidimensional election life cycle, with each dimension involving a broad array of components. The main dimensions can be thought of as election administration, campaign activities, and media coverage….
Cutting off unions’ fair share fees for collective bargaining reflects the desire of Republicans to suppress the political speech of their opponents, argues John K. Wilson.
Source: Eric Joseph van Holm, American Review of Public Administration, Online First, Published July 30, 2018
From the abstract:
Civic participation is a touchstone of American government, yet it has declined steadily over the past 50 years. Alongside changes in the relationship between American citizens and their government has been a stark increase in the levels of income and wealth concentration. While there is strong evidence that income inequality drives down participation at the national level, there have been fewer studies on the effects for local governments. This article studies the relationship between participation in departmental policy making and income inequality at the local level across the United States in a sample of small and mid-sized cities. When accounting for aspects of the government’s structure, local department culture, and community demographics, income inequality has a significant, though mixed, effect on civic participation. While changes in a community’s income inequality diminish the likelihood of citizens participating in government decision making, the present level of income inequality correlates with higher rates of engagement.
To win in Texas, the Democratic Party will need to build a progressive ecosystem that can engage key constituencies—particularly young voters—throughout the year.
Most of our assessments of the electorate in 2016 are dependent on estimates. Polling before the election that suggested where people were leaning; exit polling after the fact that gives us some sense of who actually turned out. When more than 137 million people vote, understanding exactly who they were and why they voted the way they did necessarily involves some guesswork.
On Thursday, though, Pew Research Center released an unusually robust survey of the 2016 electorate. In addition to having asked people how they voted, Pew’s team verified that they did, giving us a picture not only of the electorate but also of those who didn’t vote. There are a number of interesting details that emerge from that research, including a breakdown of President Trump’s support that confirms much of his base has backed him enthusiastically since the Republican primaries.
The data also makes another point very clear: Those who didn’t vote are as responsible for the outcome of the election as those who did…..
The Soviet Union and now Russia under Vladimir Putin have waged a political power struggle against the West for nearly a century. Spreading false and distorted information – called “dezinformatsiya” after the Russian word for “disinformation” – is an age-old strategy for coordinated and sustained influence campaigns that have interrupted the possibility of level-headed political discourse. Emerging reports that Russian hackers targeted a Democratic senator’s 2018 reelection campaign suggest that what happened in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election may be set to recur…..
Today The New York Times published an interactive map that lets you explore the 2016 presidential election at the highest level of detail available: by voting precinct.
This map, although nearly two years old, continues to define American politics. The vast majority of people who voted for Donald J. Trump say they approve of his job performance today, while the vast majority of Hillary Clinton voters say they disapprove.
On the neighborhood level, many of us really do live in an electoral bubble, this map shows: More than one in five voters lived in a precinct where 80 percent of the two-party vote went to Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton. But the map also reveals surprising diversity.
Our organizers talked to 300,000 voters, across racial and party lines, since the 2016 election. Here’s what we learned about rebuilding working-class power at the polls.
From the abstract:
Voter purges are an often-flawed process of cleaning up voter rolls by deleting names from registration lists. Done badly, they can prevent eligible people from casting a ballot that counts. This report examines the growing threat, and outlines steps every state can take to protect voters in November and beyond. This builds on the Brennan Center’s 2008 report, Voter Purges.
In some battleground states, 18-to-29-year-olds now make up a far greater percentage of new registrants.
The March for Our Lives teens said they’d #VoteThemOut, and a new study suggests they could be poised to do just that. According to the political data firm TargetSmart, the percentage of newly registered voters who are under the age of 30 has grown significantly in a number of key battleground states since the February school shooting in Parkland, Florida. The surge could have big implications in this fall’s fight for control of Congress.
The study evaluated all new voter registrations in the 39 states with available data since February 14, 2018—the day of the Parkland shooting—and calculated the change in the share of new registrants who are 18 to 29 years old. Across the country, the share of youth registrants increased by a modest 2.16 percentage points. But in Indiana, Virginia, and New York—home to some of this year’s marquee House and Senate contests—the share of youth registrants increased by 9.87, 10.49, and 10.7 percentage points, respectively. In Pennsylvania—where voters will decide as many as nine competitive congressional races—the share of new registrants who are younger than 30 jumped by a whopping 16.14 percentage points. The study doesn’t evaluate how many of the new registrants may have been motivated by the #NeverAgain movement…..
Analysis: After Parkland Shooting, Youth Voter Registration Surges
Source: Tom Bonier, TargetSmart, July 19, 2018
A new TargetSmart analysis of voter registration data in the 39 states with available data show that registration rates for voters aged 18-29 have significantly increased in key battleground states over the last seven months, presaging the increased impact youth voters may have on the upcoming midterm and presidential elections. Using February 14, 2018, as a reference point – the date on which the Parkland shooting happened, which spurred a youth-led movement to register young voters across the country — TargetSmart’s analysis found that the share of youth registrants nationwide has increased by 2.16 percent, a potentially impactful surge in youth enrollment. With more than a dozen states’ primaries still left and months until voter registration deadlines, the findings are an early quantitative sign that youth turnout is on the rise in this year’s midterm elections. The state-by-state analysis shows that younger voters are poised to have an outsized impact in key battleground races. Pennsylvania – which has November elections for U.S. Senator, Governor, and many critical House races – saw youth voter registration surge by over 16 points after February 14, jumping from 45.2 percent to 61.4 percent of new registrants.