[EL] new ID data

[Doug Hess]

"If you're only looking at turnout, that's better than just looking at
the outcome of a Presidential race ... but it's still only part of the
impact."

This is an important point, because presumably many people who know
"their candidate" is going to lose still vote; voting is expressive.
Thus, the closeness of a race or difference a vote makes are not the
issues here. In fact, arguing that they are the important indicators
would seem to require acknowledgement that the policy did impact
turnout because you are now examining if that impact "mattered" to the
outcome of the race. In short, we don't have elections for the benefit
of the candidates.

Ultimately, strictly from a analytic point, the NUMBER of people
affected by this policy is not that important, as long as it is know
to be a few people. Let's say your name is removed from the
registration rolls when it shouldn't have been and you cannot vote.
That only affects one person, but it is still a harm you suffered that
had no policy benefit. Since we know certain voter ID laws have no
benefit that can surpass even a small amount of cost, the policy fails
a simple threshold test.

People shouldn't be refused the vote for spurious reasons, be it 100
or 100,000.

Douglas R. Hess, PhD
Washington, DC
ph. 202-277-6400
douglasrhess at gmail.com

Starting Aug. 2013:

Assistant Professor
Department of Political Science
Grinnell College
1210 Park Street
Grinnell, IA 50112-1670