The Cook Political Report has updated their analysis of the midterm elections. As of this writing they say there are 188 House seats that are safe, likely, or leaning Democratic, 212 seats that are safe, likely, or leaning Republican, and 35 seats that are toss-ups. If the toss-ups split evenly between the two parties that would mean 230 seats for the Republicans, 205 seats for the Democrats. If the toss-ups split 2:1 for Republicans, that would mean 245 Republican seats, 224 Democratic.
They haven’t updated their Senate analysis yet. I expect that Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball will update their House projections soon.
I continue to be skeptical of Nate Silver’s characterization of the election in percentage terms on the grounds that I think it’s a false analogy with probabilistic models of pulling pebbles from an urn. Consequently, an 18% likelihood of something has no meaning in the real world.
538 used to report results in fractions, I believe to diminish false certitude, but I found them confusing. It would be nice if 538 posted graphs showing the distribution of outcomes for individual candidates. When the odds were that the Democrats had a 57% chance of holding the Senate, I believe the narrative description was that it was a toss-up, and now that the Republicans have a 51% chance of taking the Senate, the description is dead heat and toss-up. Dead heat sounds a bit horse-racish, but people will naturally think small percentage point changes are significant.
The PA Supreme Court just handed down a ruling saying ballots not filled out properly (that the state constitution already states) must be set aside. More and more the courts appear to be rolling back some of the last minute election changes dems pushed thru in 2020 which significantly altered that election.
The GOP was caught off guard last time by Lawfare and Marc Elias overwhelming the election system by flooding the courts with changes that lowered honest oversight. This time 75 lawsuits have been preemptively filed, along with the hiring of 79,000 poll watchers. When you throw in all the grass roots active interest in creating an election integrity environment, republicans at least have a better chance of success in competing with an opposition party that is so well funded, out raising republicans by sometimes multiples of 10.
Correction – At 245 Republican seats; Democrats would have 190.
Something to think about beyond the number of seats Republicans gain is which states they come from.
Are they ones that swung towards Republicans on a relative basis in 2020 — like Florida, Nevada, California, Illinois? Or the ones that swing against Republicans in 2020 — Georgia, Minnesota, Oregon, Virginia
Something to think about beyond the number of seats Republicans gain is which states they come from.
What seems to be surfacing is how many seats in NY are seemingly very competitive. New England generally has seen the GOP map expanding, having volunteers going door-to-door, unabashedly, for votes from R’s, indies, and Dems. Where Dems once touted superiority in attracting suburban women, the last couple months of polling has indicated 28% of these same women have switched over to republican, apparently less concerned about abortion and more worried about economical and school issues. And, even though, the Dems ActBlue money machine has been furiously churning out many times more dollars for Dems, the grass roots republicans appear to have an authentic message appealing to the common folk. Of course the one overriding factor governing the aftertaste of any election is how safe and fair it’s processed. This means irregularities are kept at a minimum, and the ones that do crop up are dealt with in a bipartisan cooperative fashion.
Jan: The PA Supreme Court just handed down a ruling saying ballots not filled out properly (that the state constitution already states) must be set aside.
However, federal law 52 U.S.C. §10101(a)(2) states, “No person acting under color of law shall” . . . “deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election”
Zachriel,
IANAL, but my understanding is that the law you cite pertains to registration and not ballots themselves. Note that is specifically talks about the qualifications to vote.
And since ballots are secret in this country, it is not possible to “fix” errors on ballots because you can’t go back to the person to determine their intent. And in every state I’ve voted in (four), there are rules to determine when ballots should be set aside due to various problems with the ballot.
Set aside as in provisional ballots — that maybe curable after the election (esp for something like a missing date) if there is an alternative proof the ballot was mailed in time — the rules covering provisional ballots were set in Help America Vote act of 2002.
In general; I don’t get the desire to vote by mail. To me, the possible convenience benefits are outweighed by the costs. Voting in person a voter gets
a) immediate redress if there are issues with support staff onsite
b) fully secret voting in an environment guaranteed to be free of coercion by the government
c) secure chain of custody from the moment the ballot is cast until it is counted
The mail system has existed for 200+ years in the Anglo-Saxon world; practically the whole time the modern world has conducted democratic elections. Yet until the last 5 years no one ever thought it wise to conduct elections mostly via by vote by mail.
Curious,
a) Agree this is a downside. But here in Colorado, you have a month to vote and fix any issues. And polling places are open on election day and the three days prior so voters also fix issues or get a new ballot.
b) My home is freer from government coercion than any in-person polling place.
c) That can be addressed, but it is one reason why I use a drop-box instead of mailing. I like to drop my ballot off on the day of or the day before the official election date. But here in Colorado, you get text and email notifications at every step of the process. You know something has happened with your ballot if you don’t receive the notifications. I know exactly when my ballot is mailed to me, when the county election office receives it, and when it is counted. If there is a problem, I find out right away and can go fix it.
a) I’m skeptical of the benefits of encouraging mail-in ballots; I am quite positive on early in-person voting. Knowing how people work; a month to vote works for the personality who is also very punctual about meetings — experience says there’s the converse and a proportion will always wait until the very last minute; it is those people where voting in person works far better then voting by mail.
b) The secret ballot wasn’t invented solely to free coercion from the government in power; it was to prevent coercion from peer pressure or party machines.
c) The risks can be minimized with vote-by-mail. In-person voting can be designed where the risk is eliminated.
In the end; I accept mail-in ballots that follow the rules as valid as any other ballot. But I don’t think it is something that improves the voting system. Suitable for an emergency in the pandemic like a hundred other things (virtual religious ceremonies, remote learning, etc), but in that of context.
Personally, I think convenience is valuable. I don’t think there are significant tradeoffs when it comes to security as long as the system has the details right. I wait until the end to actually cast my vote because a lot can change in a month. Personally, I’d probably reduce early voting to two weeks, but that’s not a hill I would die on.
I do not understand your coercion argument. I can vote in the safety and security of my own home and drop my ballot in a drop box at 3 am when no one is around or drop it in a mailbox to be delivered. I do not see how in-person voting could be less coercive than that. The government, peers, or party machines are unable, IMO, to coerce me in my home.
Not only that but your friendly precinct captain will pick your ballot up and deposit it in the dropbox, saving you the effort of doing that yourself.
Andy: The government, peers, or party machines are unable, IMO, to coerce me in my home.
An abusive partner, or just a bullying one, can more effectively exert coercion in the home than in the voting booth. But even the voting booth won’t prevent political bullying, as most people are not good liars, especially when in abusive relationship which can wear people down.
“An abusive partner, or just a bullying one, can more effectively exert coercion in the home than in the voting booth. ”
Sure, that’s possible. We could probably come up with other exceedingly rare and speculative scenarios where in-home coercion for voting might occur. But then you could do that for anything. Overall, I think voting in the privacy of your own home is less coercive than other options. And a big advantage – for me at least – is that I can take my time and research as I vote. I’m not under any time pressure.
But the fortunate thing is, no one forces you to vote at home. You can vote at the polls as normal if there are legitimate concerns.
It’s incredibly common and definitely not speculative. As I’ve mentioned before I was an election judge (poll worker) for 25 years. In every election we had to shoo spouses out of each other’s voting booths at least 20 times.
It’s a foregone conclusion that home voting will result in one spouse influencing another’s vote.