So, Wisconsin is holding an election today despite the Covid-19 pandemic. Aside from making a mockery of its stay-at-home order, this decision has statistical implications of voter suppression.
Public-health advocates say voters may get sick and even die after voting. This is plausible based on everything we know about coronavirus so far. Democratic contender Joe Biden believed it is okay to vote today, explaining that it is physically possible to line people up six feet apart. That much is true.
But Biden is ignoring the statistical selection effects of holding an election during a pandemic. This leads to a voting outcome that does not accurately reflect the wishes of the Wisconsin voters.
The counterfactual is the voting outcome if there were no pandemic. The decision to hold the election today affects both the number of voters and the type of voters.
Voter suppression arises in multiple ways. First, the number of polling stations are reduced because they expect some workers to refuse to show up, and, of course, they expect lower turnout. Second, because of the reduction of locations, many voters have to turn up at a different location from planned; it's likely some of them may not find out, or discover at the last minute, or learn that the new location is far away.
Third, with fewer locations, the wait will be longer. This is simple algebra. Fourth, the social-distancing guideline will slow the line down even more. Given a specific polling location, and a fixed number of voters, the wait will be longer for everyone. If not enough workers show up, the rate of voting may even be below normal.
Fourth-and-a-half, there is a psychological dimension to waiting time. With distancing, the queue to vote looks much longer than usual. People don't like to see very lengthy lines. Some may quit. In Chapter 1 of Numbers Rule Your World (link), I discuss the research around waiting psychology. It's fascinating.
Fifth, some voters will stay home, as they value health over voting.
***
Here comes the evil part. Voter suppression is not really about fewer voters. It is about discrimination. It's about suppressing certain types of voters.
If all subgroups are affected equally, the original result will hold so there is no point in suppressing (unless there is a quorum but that's not the case in U.S. elections).
Suppressing certain types of voters introduces bias into the voting outcome.
We can make guesses as to what subgroups are suppressed but it'll be tough to measure.
People who live in cities are definitely suppressed. The perceived danger of Covid-19 is much higher in urban centers. The waiting times and queue sizes at urban polling stations are already longer than those in rural areas without the pandemic, and because of reduced locations and workers, will stretch further.
So how are rural and urban populations different? According to the Census (link), urban areas have younger people, higher rates of poverty, and a lot more immigrants.
Disenfranchised voters are suppressed. People who already fail to see how voting benefits them are more likely to forego voting during the pandemic. On the other hand, if politicians are working for you, e.g. if you're a key beneficiary of various bailouts, you'd be more motivated to take the risk. So, I think incumbents are favored.
Perhaps we can say, holding election today reinforces existing biases. Those who are already less likely to vote will become even less likely so that relatively speaking, the voters will skew even more than usual toward those who are already more likely to vote. In a primary, this means the party faithful. The election then adversely affects any candidate with a strategy of expanding the base.
People who have a lower tolerance of health risk are suppressed. This could be for many reasons. Some people may have prior health scares. Some may have poor access to medical care, e.g. uninsured. Some are germophobes.
People who are sick, and especially those who have Covid-19 are suppressed. I'm not sure how the courts addressed this group. I'd imagine someone who tested positive (say a younger person) but show no or mild symptoms has received strong advisory not to leave home and spread the virus around. Are they supposed to go to the polling station and stand in line?
Does this mean people who believe in science may be suppressed? If you understand transmission by silent carriers, you'd probably not want to spend long periods in a queue.
The list goes on.
***
Holding an election during the pandemic has many implications. There is a public health problem. There is a law and order issue, as the government is asking people to defy its stay-at-home order. And there ought to be real concerns over our democracy - it is clear that there will be voter suppression. It's not just the turnout; it's the selective suppression of certain types of voters.
P.S. This situation means you should ignore all exit polls in Wisconsin. Even in normal times, as I wrote about them here, exit polls reflect the world view of the pollster prior to the election when it comes to anything other than who one voted for. I'm not even sure they will have workers to hand out questionnaires at the polling stations today. If they did, each contact is in violation of social distancing. It's the epidemiologist's nightmare! If they resort to phone interviews only, bear in mind the response rate for phone calls is below 10 percent even on a good day - and how would they know who actually voted? Any media outlet that reports on exit polls from Wisconsin today is spreading fake news.
Comments