In this case, I think the reason is specific to this country at this
time, rather than a general rule.
The reasoning goes, high turnout means more votes from the young,
minorities, and those who say it doesn’t matter because nothing
changes. In this country at this time, the first two categories are
known to skew to the left. And there are a *lot* of potential voters in
those categories.
At the demonstrations last summer there was usually a group carrying
“Vote!” signs. I think it has sunk in that the future of the climate
depends on who votes, and the young have a much bigger stake in that.
—Barry
PS. Apparently 43% of the early voters on the San Carlos reservation are
first-time (but not necessarily young) voters. The Navajo reservation
results are similar.
On 28 Oct 2020, at 19:19, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:
From:
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7
"6. High turnout makes razor-thin victories, like the ones Trump
notched in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in 2016, much less
likely."
Is that true? I've always heard that tight races lead to higher
turnout, which would imply that high turnout would correlate WITH thin
victories, not against them.
--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
