Mr. Silver's response still fails to note why all the data he and the Politico article analyzed tell us nothing (and, in the process, reveal the failure in usefulness of official voting data): one cannot draw any accurate conclusions from comparisons of early voting data at this point in the 2010 election to TOTAL early voting data in past elections, as Mr. Silver tries to do. There's a reason Dr. McDonald does not do that -- even though the data set Mr. Silver uses comes from Dr. McDonald. The ONLY accurate comparison is between early voting data at this point in the 2010 election to early voting data at the same point in past year election cycles.

 

Many elections officials have that data, but they either don't disclose that they have it or, more often, they only distribute it in a format that only the professional voting registration list vendors can draw any useful data out of it (and those vendors are only doing so for paying [political party] customers). For example, in California counties will provide a list of voter ID numbers and the day a ballot is received. The parties are obviously tracking this information by the day, but they only reveal it to the public when it suits their purpose and there's no funding for more public organizations to do what's needed to process the raw data and get any useful information.

 

- Doug

 

Douglas Johnson

Fellow

Rose Institute of State and Local Government

Claremont McKenna College

o 909-621-8159

m 310-200-2058

douglas.johnson@cmc.edu

www.RoseReport.org

 

 

 

 

Here is a link to my response.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-p-mcdonald/does-early-voting-show-re_b_773236.html

 

I lay out three main errors in Nate Silver's analysis and Molly Ball's Politico story:

1. Nate and Molly assume that overall voter turnout rates are typically similar for registered Democrats and registered Republicans. This is not the case. Registered Republicans tend to vote at higher rates. It is invalid to compare early voters to all registered voters in the current election.
2. Nate and Molly assume that early voters are the same as Election Day voters, when there is plenty of evidence that they are not - except for the all-mail ballot states. Nate's biggest pro-Republican state, Pennsylvania, exposes this poor assumption. There is a simple explanation for the apparent doom that Nate spells for Joe Sestak. Pennsylvania has a relatively small number of returned ballots because the state requires an excuse to vote an absentee ballot. There is a mountain of survey evidence that excuse-required absentee voters tend to be Republican (think: retirement homes and traveling businessmen). A valid comparison is early voters in the current election to early voters in a previous election, not registration in the current election -- or exit polls in 2008, which Nate also analyzes.
3. More generally, the first early voting numbers a state reports tend to heavily composed of absentee mail ballots, like those in Pennsylvania. As Election Day draws closer, the numbers have tended to shift in a Democratic direction. A more valid comparison is early voters now to early voters at a similar point in time in a previous election.

============

Dr. Michael P. McDonald

Associate Professor, George Mason University

Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution

 

                             Mailing address:

(o) 703-993-4191             George Mason University

(f) 703-993-1399             Dept. of Public and International Affairs

mmcdon@gmu.edu               4400 University Drive - 3F4

http://elections.gmu.edu     Fairfax, VA 22030-4444

 

From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Paul Gronke
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 11:43 PM
To: Scarberry, Mark; Law Election
Subject: Re: [EL] Nate Silver on early voting stats

 

ARRGH!  This comparison is INVALID folks!  Here are my comments on the Silver posting:

 

Nate YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS COMPARISON!  

This is so frustrating--if Molly had even read a bit of the research in this area, she, and you, would have learned that Republicans have LONG cast the "earliest" of the early votes.  

GOP voters have long leaned toward absentee ballots, and many of the states listed above (CA, AZ, CO, IA) are almost complete no excuse absentee ballots, which you (and Molly) are lumping in with early in person ballots.

We have no documentary evidence that compares the early voter turnout measured more than a week before the election with the eventual early voting turnout, the final turnout, or the registration numbers.  Michael McDonald's quote in the Politico story is dead on: "The large gap could be a red herring ... we are in uncharted territory."

There is no "value" in looking at these early numbers if they are misinterpreted as indicating more than anyone can possibly interpret.  The only meaningful piece of information in the Politico story is the comment about the GOP in Florida leading in the EARLY IN PERSON ballots.  That is a real piece of news.  The rest of this is really just unjustified speculation.

---
Paul Gronke          Ph: 503-517-7393
                                                Fax: 734-661-0801

Professor, Reed College
Director, Early Voting Information Center
3203 SE Woodstock Blvd
Portland, OR 97202

EVIC: http://earlyvoting.net

On Oct 24, 2010, at 7:40 PM, Scarberry, Mark wrote:

Nate Silver on early voting stats:
 
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/early-voter-enthusiasm-gap-appears-consistent-with-polls/?hp
 
Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law