Hold the Suppresses

Over the weekend, the Washington Post had an article about how "More than 500,000 mail ballots were rejected in the primaries. That could make the difference in battleground states this fall."

A friend sent it to me yesterday, adding that he was "F*cking scared."  (By the way, "f*cking scared" tends to be the default position of many Democrats.  And I understand the feeling, since a great deal is truly,deeply at stake.  But as I always say, if you are "f*cking scared," imagine how Republicans feel.  Further, I think it's good when Democrats are wary and concerned -- not just for what's at stake, but also because it means you won't be even remotely complaisant, but will work aggressively to help get out the vote.  Being "f*cking scared," though, is another matter because pretty much no one wins anything running scared.)

Anyway, I wrote him back that I saw an MSNBC story about this report on Sunday.  Their conclusion was that it is an issue to be aware of and to be wary of, but states had problems during the primaries because they were new to this.  However, since then most have readjusted their laws to eliminate most of those problems, and they also have more experience.  And like the article, MSNBC was specifically looking at battleground states.

We continued this discussion later in the evening, and he remained "f*cking scared.  And so I mentioned to him a thread that Nate Silver, the polling maven of FiveThirtyEight.com, posted on Twitter.  I suspect this Washington Post article may have prompted it.  His discussion was about mail-in voting and addressed people's concerns of ballot rejections, alongside the convenience of it.  The whole thing was extremely interesting, but three tweets stood out.  I've put them together below for easier reading.  He wrote --

The point about convenience is important, and why it's best to avoid conclusions such as "mail ballots are rejected at (slightly) higher rates than in-person ballots, and more Democrats (at least in 2020) vote by mail, therefore polls will overrate Democrats."There are also a lot of things that can go wrong when you intend to vote in person. Long lines. Car trouble. Going to the wrong polling place. Getting stuck late at work. Getting sick. Bad weather. Not knowing what time polls close (surprisingly early in some states).So let's say (these numbers are hypothetical but should pass the smell test) that 2% of postal ballots are rejected vs. 1% of in-person ballots. That means in-person voting is safer, right? Well, not if there's a 2% chance that something comes up that prevents you from voting.

I find his point fascinating -- and keep in mind, this is from someone who studies such things and has a high reputation.  So often, when one has concerns, including totally legitimate concerns, it's too often easy to lose sight of the reality that few things are one-sided.  That though there may indeed very real issues to be concerned about with mail-in votes being suppressed or not counted for any number of reasons, this doesn't even remotely mean that there aren't problems that can come up that keeps in-person ballots being counted -- not, perhaps, because of the intentional acts of suppression, but because of the very common realities of life.  A vote not made has the same impact as a vote made, but not counted.

Will they cancel each other out?  Will there be more problems with mail-in voting suppression?  Will there be more problems with people not casting votes in-person?  I have no idea.  I just know that "votes being counted" is a issue to be wary of that hits both sides, not just mail-in

My friend was not completely placated in the slightest.  As he said, "I will be f*cking scared until the election is over."  But he acknowledged that he was at least less f*cking scared than before...

​One small step for man, one giant step for mankind.