Read on Twitter
1/ I hear this a lot, usually as part of an argument that persuasion is more important than turnout.
In that context, though, it assumes what it claims to prove.
Here's why: https://twitter.com/PurpleRain713/status/1356734240730337287
In that context, though, it assumes what it claims to prove.
Here's why: https://twitter.com/PurpleRain713/status/1356734240730337287
2/ First, let's start with what actually happened in 2018.
All percentages use the voting age population as the denominator.
The ticket splitters is anyone who voted R or Lib in the gov race and excludes people who voted in the senate race but not downballot.
All percentages use the voting age population as the denominator.
The ticket splitters is anyone who voted R or Lib in the gov race and excludes people who voted in the senate race but not downballot.
3/ As you can see, the overwhelming winner of the election is nonvoters - 57.93% of the total electorate!
By contrast, ticket splitters are only 2.37% of the total electorate.
By contrast, ticket splitters are only 2.37% of the total electorate.
4/ The arguments that ticket splitters in this race prove that persuasion is key to win in Texas tend to limit analysis to voters and take turnout as a given.
Two problems with that.
Two problems with that.
5/ First, Beto won those ticket splitters and still lost. So clearly those votes weren't enough to put him over the top.
Second, turnout is HIGHLY variable. 597,571 more people voted in 16 than 18. 2,943,401 more people voted in 20 than 18.
Second, turnout is HIGHLY variable. 597,571 more people voted in 16 than 18. 2,943,401 more people voted in 20 than 18.
6/ So the turnout universe dwarfs the ticket splitter universe.
That's even more true because there is significant voter churn between elections. The number of people who vote in one election but not the next is far larger than the change in the total number of voters.
That's even more true because there is significant voter churn between elections. The number of people who vote in one election but not the next is far larger than the change in the total number of voters.
7/ And then there's the empirical claim that ticket splitters are "highly partisan" and informed voters who rationally evaluate the candidates.
That's likely not true.
That's likely not true.
8/ First, "moderates" – the people who are presumably most likely to swing from one party to the other – aren't moderate. They're ideologically inconsistent extremists. So it's very unlikely that they're making rational calculations about issue positions. https://www.vox.com/2014/7/8/5878293/lets-stop-using-the-word-moderate
10/ Those people are also mostly politically disengaged. So even with these possibly persuadable voters you still have to think about getting them to the polls, reinforcing how important turnout is.
11/ The degree to which some voting behavior is just random is illustrated by how much ballot name position matters. It's kind of mind blowing! https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/08/being-the-first-name-on-the-ballot-has-a-huge-effect/
12/ Some of the ticket splitting in 18 may just be that people showed up for the high salience senate race and voted for the first name on the ballot (Abbott) in the gubernatorial.
13/ These are just examples to illustrate the point that the common mental image of highly informed ideological moderates carefully deliberating between candidates is largely a myth. Political identity and group dynamics are far more important – and very hard to change.
14/ The takeaways there are a) it's not all that clear what campaigns can do to actually move those people; probably something but we still have only a rudimentary understanding and b) at the very least moderating issue positions is probably irrelevant to persuasion.
15/ In sum: A ton of what passes for election analysis is just cherry picking data and interpreting it through the lens of a bunch of unproven assumptions about voting behavior.
16/ Those ticket splitters? We don't know who they are or why they voted the way that they did. But we do know that it probably wasn't because they thought carefully about each candidate's issue positions. And there probably aren't enough of them to decide who wins 2022.
17/ Note: We can only estimate ticket splitters and there are probably a few different ways of doing it. I think mine is the highest possible estimate but interested in other ways y'all have done this.
Also, I misnumbered everything from #8 on bc I missed tweet #9! Doh!
Also, I misnumbered everything from #8 on bc I missed tweet #9! Doh!
