vox--2020-10-07--How to fix America’s voter registration system so more people can vote

The Arizona Coalition for Change , a Black-led nonprofit organization , revamped their voter registration efforts for the Covid-19 pandemic .
They went digital , texting and phone banking instead .
In recent weeks , they ’ ve hosted socially distanced pop-up voter events .
They hosted a Black Panther drive-in movie that doubled as a voter registration drive .
They partnered with other organizations to host a food drive , and as people picked up food in their cars , organizers would talk to drivers about registering to vote .
Sena Mohammed , the coalition ’ s civic engagement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registered 30 people from that event alone .
These events were all part of the final push ahead of Arizona ’ s registration deadline , originally slated for Monday , October 5 .
Arizona Coalition for Change , along with other groups , sued for an extension , and a judge agreed Monday to push the date until October 23 .
Registration efforts like these are the first part of the United States ’ two-step voting process .
Almost all Americans must register to vote before they can cast a ballot in any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as early as about 30 days out from Election Day , a cutoff that has already begun in many places .
About 20 states , plus Washington , DC , have same-day voter registration , according to the National Conference of State Legislatures .
This allows voters to register during the early voting period or on Election Day , then cast a ballot .
( North Carolina is an exception , only allowing same-day registration during early voting . )
But otherwise , if unregistered voters miss these registration deadlines , they effectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2020 election , weeks before November 3 .
But why does America even have a voter registration ?
The history is complicated .
As Enrijeta Shino , an elections expert at the University of North Florida , put it to me , there are “ two sides of the coin.
” On the good side , registration tells election officials who the eligible voters are , where they live , which voters should get which ballots .
It ’ s supposed to help guard against fraud , preventing voters from voting twice , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for someone else .
But the system isn ’ t perfect ; voters are sometimes purged for questionable reasons , and people move and die and the rolls go out of date .
And those in power have wielded voter registration to exclude people from the democratic process and create obstacles to voting , particularly for Black Americans and immigrant and minority communities .
That tension persists , though election experts say reforms can make voting registration much more accessible and equitable and fair .
Same-day registration and automatic registration could bring more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plus more resources , could also improve the administration of voter registration databases , which would make running elections more efficient and give voters more confidence in the integrity of the electoral system .
Reforms that make it easier to register , like many questions around voting , often encounter political resistance because of concerns around which party it might benefit or disadvantage .
Meanwhile , registration efforts like the ones Arizona Coalition for Change has undertaken intensify ahead of big elections like 2020 to try to recruit new voters , and engage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Covid-19 pandemic has transformed how activists and community organizations have conducted voter outreach : Canvassing and door-knocking and tabling has become socially distanced , or moved online , or through text , or from the driver ’ s-side window of a car .
But just as the pandemic has forced America to grapple with how it votes , it is revealing how the very first step in that process could become more resilient , and inclusive , too .
The origins of the United States voter registration system The United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 19th century — in some places , even before the Civil War — and was prompted by growing urbanization in America .
Alex Keyssar , a professor of history and social policy at Harvard University and author of The Right to Vote : The Contested History of Democracy in the United States , told me that once a lot of people started living in cities , it was just a lot harder for political party leaders and poll workers to know who , exactly , was who .
“ Contrast that to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who go to vote show up and everybody knows who they are , ” Keyssar said .
“ Once that ceases to be true to a significant degree , there is a felt need to prevent fraud by having a registration system.
” Another argument for voter registration was that it would bring out the best , most-informed citizens and help break up political party machines , both Democrat and Republican , that held power in sway in local governments .
Jacob Neiheisel , an associate professor of political science at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are spotty because the news was so partisan at the time , but before registration became the norm , both parties lobbed accusations of repeat voters .
Complaints often involved outlandish-sounding allegations , like someone voting , then removing their hat , shaving their mustache , and getting back in line to vote again .
They ’ d do it because they ’ d get a reward from the party machine , maybe a cushy patronage job , or a Thanksgiving turkey .
At least , those were the accusations repeated out loud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nativism and racism .
“ People in these urban areas , particularly new arrivals , they don ’ t know anything about the political system , ” Neiheisel said of the arguments in favor of registration .
“ But they can get in line and vote and be rewarded for doing so , thereby propping up these political machines that are corrupt.
” And a list of potential voters is also a really good way to control which people get to vote and which people don ’ t .
“ Our commitment to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reason why we insist that you enroll — so we can figure out who ’ s eligible and who ’ s not , ” Francisco Pedraza , a political scientist at the University of California Riverside , told me .
“ There ’ s a long list .
We can ’ t let slaves vote .
So that ’ s including every black person .
You can ’ t let Native Americans vote , you can ’ t let women vote , ” Pedraza added .
“ So we have [ these ] @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote and the voter registration process serves that purpose.
” Forcing people to sign up to vote meant those in power could create impediments — proof of citizenship , literacy tests — to marginalize and disenfranchise groups that were , on paper , eligible to vote .
In northern cities , working-class people from immigrant communities were often the targets ; in the South , it was Black Americans under Jim Crow .
And the political machines that registration was supposed to slow down learned to adapt , using voter registration to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The current voter registration system in the US inherits from this .
As with all things related to voting , different states have different rules .
States have adopted and formalized voter registration systems at different times , and some just allowed people to register on Election Day when they came in to vote .
But , with some exceptions , US elections are a two-step process : first register , then vote .
( North Dakota , the one state currently without a registration system , requires all eligible voters to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s been deemed important to make it such that people would have to take a proactive step of registering to vote , and then , conditional on that and actually showing up to vote , ” Michael Alvarez , a professor at the California Institute of Technology who studies elections and voter behavior , told me .
“ So we haven ’ t historically made registration automatic nor have we made the act of voting compulsory.
” Federal reforms throughout the 20th century tried to improve states ’ voter registration systems by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to get materials about registration , and by creating guidelines for election officials on how to maintain voter rolls .
A good example is the National Voter Registration Act , passed in 1993 .
This law , also known as the “ motor voter law , ” is the reason you get asked about voter registration when you renew your driver ’ s license or state ID .
The law allows voters to opt in to registration at the Department of Motor Vehicles ( DMV ) and other places where voters potentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required states to accept mail-in registration applications , among other measures .
The Help America Vote Act , passed in 2002 after the chaos of the 2000 election , required all states to maintain statewide registration databases to help establish uniform standards .
Some states have built on these registration reforms ( more on that below ) , while other state governments have been more resistant to change .
The result is that America ’ s voter registration system still leaves a lot of voters out , effectively excluding them from the democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pew Charitable Trust , based on US census data , calculated that more than 20 percent of eligible citizens were unregistered .
This has an effect on turnout , which in the United States is far lower than some of its peer democracies .
As Jeanette Senecal , senior director of mission impact at the League of Women Voters , pointed out , “ registration rates are not equal across all demographics , and the reason for that is that it ’ s not easily accessible to all people.
” White Americans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are historically more likely to be registered , and more likely to vote , than other racial and ethnic groups .
Voter registration systems can go out of date as people relocate or get married and change their names or die .
These errors can be costly for states , and they can diminish faith in the safety and legitimacy of the democratic system .
Taken together , for both voters and election officials , voter registration in America could stand some upgrades .
The US needs some way to track voters .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for voters to register .
Election administrators need to know how many eligible voters are out there and to make sure voters are who they say they are .
They need to estimate how many ballots to print and whom to send them to , and to make sure there are enough polling places and poll workers .
So the United States does need a system to track and verify eligible voters .
But right now , the US voter registration system is largely one that requires Americans to opt in , meaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be registered .
The antidote would be some form of automatic voter registration , where everyone who turns 18 or becomes a naturalized citizen is automatically enrolled .
Everyone who fits these criteria would be issued an ID , and the government would be responsible for keeping that updated .
This is similar to a model that lots of European democracies follow .
But this is the absolute ideal , experts told me — the “ pie in the sky ” idea , as Neiheisel put it — and it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to achieve in the United States .
There is political ( and cultural ) resistance to the idea of a national database , along with some practical issues .
As Caltech ’ s Alvarez told me , states primarily run elections , which would mean any such database would probably operate state by state , so a move to federalize any sort of database would likely face resistance .
And there also isn ’ t an obvious database that would , say , keep track of every eligible 17-and-a-half-year-old .
That doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ capable of establishing such as system , or of rethinking how it manages elections .
But , as UC Riverside ’ s Pedraza told me , “ the fundamental reason why we don ’ t have that goes back to our commitment to excluding some people.
” Pedraza said the critical thing would be to change the opt-in system to one where you opt out .
Right now , people have to proactively join the electoral system ; under an opt-out system , that would be the default , unless someone wanted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the system .
Some states are moving in this direction with automatic voter registration .
Under this system , eligible voters are automatically registered ( or have their registration information updated ) when they interact with the DMV in their state , unless they specifically decline to do so .
In 2015 , Oregon became the first state to adopt automatic voter registration .
All voters are enrolled and receive a notification in the mail that they ’ re registered ; they can then send back that card if they want to opt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specific political party .
According to the New York Times , the state registered 225,000 people that way , and 100,000 of those voted in the 2016 election — a turnout rate of 43 percent .
Other states have since adopted similar programs ; currently , 17 states and Washington , DC , have adopted some form of automatic voter registration , according to the National Conference of State Legislatures .
Advocates say this kind of system also makes for cleaner voter rolls since information like changes of address is streamlined into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ catch everyone , of course , because not every citizen interacts with the DMV ( though some states also do automatic registration when eligible voters interact with other government agencies , such as health or social service agencies ) .
Critics , on the other hand , say it invites fraud and creates more problems by bringing more bureaucratic government agencies into the system .
California ’ s automatic voter registration faced a lot of errors when it rolled out in 2018 , including thousands of duplicate records and a handful of non-citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rushed out the program and the DMV ’ s technology was out of date .
Those problems got fixed , but it took time .
New voting systems take time to implement and adjust to , as experts told me , so states shouldn ’ t rush out new registration tools without adequate testing and safeguards in place .
There are questions about how systems will work .
For example , can voters opt out after the fact , as in Oregon , and can they do so while they ’ re at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t want to be registered or if they have concerns about their addresses being public on voter registrations , what if they accidentally get on the rolls ?
But advocates still see automatic voter registration as an effective tool to capture as many voters as possible .
“ Given the way our infrastructure works , ” Alvarez said of automatic voter registration , “ it seems to be the best sort of practical solution to try to get people to easily be able to register to vote.
” Beyond automatic voter registration , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is expanding same-day voter registration .
Again , 21 states plus DC already have this , so it ’ s not exactly reinventing the system .
With same-day registration , eligible voters show up to polling places on Election Day ( or during an early-voting period if one exists ) , register to vote then and there , and then vote right after .
This is not really applicable for people who want to vote by mail , and a same-day system does require more resources , as states need even more clerks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process .
But it gives citizens up until the very last moment to participate in the process .
“ If states want to facilitate voting , make it more accessible and expand the electorate , I think that would be the ideal way to do it , ” Shino , of the University of North Florida , said .
Eligible citizens , she added , “ should not be stopped from participating in the election because they miss that 30-day deadline of registration.
” An opt-out system like automatic voter registration along with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be interested in voting would capture a lot of people the current system misses .
“ We know that those things do produce increases in the number of people who are registered and who show up , ” Keyssar told me .
There are some other tweaks that could help , too .
Expanding online voter registration also makes it easier for people to sign up .
About 40 states have already embraced some form of this , where voters can submit their registration electronically , and then the state reviews the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what ’ s already on file , usually at the DMV .
Preregistration for voters who are 16 or 17 currently exists in many states , too , but advocates also see the potential to expand this type of program .
When it comes to registration and voting , experts told me , research backs up common sense : The easier it is and less costly it is , the more people will do it .
This is particularly important for registration because if people can ’ t move past the first step @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the second : casting their vote .
“ If you are not able to navigate the process , to clear that obstacle , you can not move on be a voter or participate in the electoral process or have your say in policymaking , ” Shino said .
States need ways to better maintain voter rolls , too America should certainly consider reforms that put less burden on voters .
But a lot of those reforms would also put more responsibilities on states to invest in and maintain accurate voter rolls .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But problems exist .
By federal law , election officials must maintain their voter rolls , cleaning out people who ’ ve moved or died .
But voting-rights groups often accuse election officials — as happened in Georgia — of unfairly “ purging ” hundreds of voters from the rolls , thereby disenfranchising them .
Alvarez , whose team at Caltech works with some election officials in California on voter registration pilot programs , told me in that state you ’ ve got every county “ simultaneously adding , subtracting , and changing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and closer to the election.
” He added that you also have lots of state agencies , most notably the DMV , accessing these records .
That means a lot of different entry points to voter databases , with the data changing constantly .
Error can creep in .
“ Duplicate records can be added , people ’ s records can be deleted incorrectly , and information in the records themselves can be changed , ” Alvarez said .
Administrative errors in voting really do threaten voters ’ perceptions of the integrity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a ballot is immediately seized upon as evidence of fraud ; active voters mistakenly removed from rolls is seen as targeted disenfranchisement .
These errors also waste resources and make for less efficient elections .
“ There ’ s just very little evidence of any significant fraud when it comes to voter registration , ” Alvarez told me .
“ But there is a lot of evidence of administrative errors and problems with the data itself.
” While there are things voters can do — such as checking to make sure they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ASAP ! )
or using a provisional ballot — states can invest in technology and other data-matching processes to improve their own systems .
A good example is the Electronic Registration Information Center ( ERIC ) , a nonprofit founded in 2012 that helps states improve the quality of voter rolls and works to expand registration .
It works like this : States send voter registration data to ERIC , with privacy and security protections in place , and ERIC uses data-matching technology to identify duplicate and inaccurate voter records , including who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thirty states plus Washington , DC , are currently members of ERIC , which means ERIC can detect who has moved within these states and between these states , improving the quality of information available to election officials .
Once the states get the data back , it ’ s up to election officials to reach out to voters and correct records .
“ We give them the data as a tool , basically a starting point , and then they use their processes under state and federal law — and what ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — to contact these voters and to initiate an update to the record , ” Shane Hamlin , ERIC ’ s executive director , told me .
He said ERIC had , before this year , identified nearly 15 million records in need of updates since 2012 .
Membership in ERIC also requires states to do outreach to potential voters , proactively sending them a mailer or update to say that they are likely eligible to register to vote .
Hamlin said voter outreach has reached 34 million potential voters since 2012 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 50 million after this election cycle .
Joining ERIC — or making any major changes to how states administer elections — requires changes to state law , which can sometimes be the hold-up to making quick changes to voter registration systems .
But the higher quality the voter databases , the better it is for both election officials and voters themselves .
The state of voter registration in 2020 , in the midst of a pandemic “ Have mask , have hand sanitizer , will travel , ” is Caprecia Miller ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ captain in Virginia with When We All Vote , a nonprofit that works to increase voter participation , and she has transformed herself into a one-woman voter registration machine .
Miller said she felt broken and angry after the police killing of George Floyd , and she sought a way to act , which is how she discovered When We All Vote .
She goes to Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington , DC , and helps people register there .
One Saturday , a man from Providence , Rhode Island , stopped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help registering some seniors back in his state .
She said she would try to find someone else to help , but when she couldn ’ t , she drove up there and did it herself .
Mask , hand sanitizer , will travel .
But mostly Miller works in northern Virginia and Washington , DC .
She brings voter registration forms to homeless shelters .
She interrupts neighborhood basketball games , telling players through the wire fence to register after they finish their last shot .
She ’ s starting to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I have found myself registering so many new voters , first-time voters ever in their life , across all age demographics , which is really refreshing , ” she told me .
“ I am finding a way , when I do run across individuals that , you know , they don ’ t believe their vote will count — that it won ’ t matter .
I ’ m making sure that I ’ m being an active listener .
I ’ m meeting individuals where they are , allowing them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s final date to register is October 13 , a deadline that Miller is working toward , like so many other organizations and community groups that are trying to register eligible voters .
This is how it works every year , because this kind of outreach and engagement to newly eligible voters is still the best way to help people enter the first step of America ’ s voting system .
“ It ’ s the individual invitation into our democracy that gets underrepresented individuals into the electoral process , ” Senecal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
“ The fact that we have invited them in , the fact that we have said that ‘ you are important , and we want you to be a part of this process ’ when they so often are left out of so many other governmental institutions.
” “ The simple act of asking them to be a part of it is a critical part in making sure that voter registration is equitable and that we are able to close the registration grant gaps across the different demographics , ” Senecal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harder to extend during the pandemic , which has made in-person voter drives much harder to organize safely .
Other ways voters are registered — such as at the DMV — have also been affected , as government agencies shut down and people stayed home .
The Center for Election Innovation and Research compared voter registration data from 2016 to 2020 and found that six states — Colorado , Delaware , Florida , Georgia , Texas , and Virginia , as well as the District of Columbia — had recorded lower voter registration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in May 2016 .
And while that number began to rebound this summer , the cumulative number of new registrants through July remained down — a total of 329,756 fewer voters combined in all of those places .
The Arizona Coalition for Change adapted to online organizing in the wake of the pandemic , using texting and phone-banking instead .
Those they reached out to would send back photos posing with their voter registration forms , confirming from a distance so the group could follow up with voters to make sure they vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these new voters are on the rolls .
And while there were some benefits — young voters are especially comfortable with texting and social media — Mohammed told me , as of last week , she estimates they ’ ve registered about 6,000 new voters , well shy of their 25,000 goal .
In the past , they ’ ve had great success going to high schools and doing in-person registration for seniors .
With schools shut down , Zoom registration drives and drive-thru events make up some , but not all , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Miller and other organizations are trying to do what they can , with hand sanitizer and masks and appropriate social distance .
Across the country , in small communities and big cities , at libraries , swim clubs , and parks , outside of mosques and churches , a voter here and a voter there is registering , maybe for the first time .
But registration is not a guarantee that someone will vote , and now that these registration deadlines are approaching , groups are gearing up to make sure people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the process and actually cast a ballot .
Arizona Coalition for Change is making sure people are voting early and know how to vote by mail .
Caprecia Miller , once the registration deadline passes , will take her hand sanitizer and her mask and remind people that early voting is happening in Virginia now through October 31 .
“ I want to make sure that I know that I ’ ve done everything that I could do to make sure individuals exercise the right to vote , ” she said .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ‘ Oh , we could have done a little bit more.
’ ” Correction , October 7 : This article previously misstated ERIC ’ s findings on voting records .
The organization identified about 15 million records in need of updates from 2012 to 2019 , not 15 million duplicate records .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

The Arizona Coalition for Change, a Black-led nonprofit organization, revamped their voter registration efforts for the Covid-19 pandemic. They went digital, texting and phone banking instead.
In recent weeks, they’ve hosted socially distanced pop-up voter events. They hosted a Black Panther drive-in movie that doubled as a voter registration drive. They partnered with other organizations to host a food drive, and as people picked up food in their cars, organizers would talk to drivers about registering to vote. Sena Mohammed, the coalition’s civic engagement director, told me they’d registered 30 people from that event alone.
These events were all part of the final push ahead of Arizona’s registration deadline, originally slated for Monday, October 5. Arizona Coalition for Change, along with other groups, sued for an extension, and a judge agreed Monday to push the date until October 23.
Registration efforts like these are the first part of the United States’ two-step voting process. Almost all Americans must register to vote before they can cast a ballot in any election. Some states have registration deadlines as early as about 30 days out from Election Day, a cutoff that has already begun in many places.
About 20 states, plus Washington, DC, have same-day voter registration, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. This allows voters to register during the early voting period or on Election Day, then cast a ballot. (North Carolina is an exception, only allowing same-day registration during early voting.) But otherwise, if unregistered voters miss these registration deadlines, they effectively relinquish their ability to participate in the 2020 election, weeks before November 3.
But why does America even have a voter registration? The history is complicated. As Enrijeta Shino, an elections expert at the University of North Florida, put it to me, there are “two sides of the coin.”
On the good side, registration tells election officials who the eligible voters are, where they live, which voters should get which ballots. It’s supposed to help guard against fraud, preventing voters from voting twice, or in two different places, or for someone else.
But the system isn’t perfect; voters are sometimes purged for questionable reasons, and people move and die and the rolls go out of date.
And those in power have wielded voter registration to exclude people from the democratic process and create obstacles to voting, particularly for Black Americans and immigrant and minority communities.
That tension persists, though election experts say reforms can make voting registration much more accessible and equitable and fair. Same-day registration and automatic registration could bring more people into the system. Reforms, plus more resources, could also improve the administration of voter registration databases, which would make running elections more efficient and give voters more confidence in the integrity of the electoral system.
Reforms that make it easier to register, like many questions around voting, often encounter political resistance because of concerns around which party it might benefit or disadvantage. Meanwhile, registration efforts like the ones Arizona Coalition for Change has undertaken intensify ahead of big elections like 2020 to try to recruit new voters, and engage them so they follow through and vote.
The Covid-19 pandemic has transformed how activists and community organizations have conducted voter outreach: Canvassing and door-knocking and tabling has become socially distanced, or moved online, or through text, or from the driver’s-side window of a car.
But just as the pandemic has forced America to grapple with how it votes, it is revealing how the very first step in that process could become more resilient, and inclusive, too.
Vox is part of Vox Media. Find more coverage of the 2020 election across its other 13 networks: how to vote, in-depth analysis, and how policies will affect you, your state and the country over the next four years and beyond.
The origins of the United States voter registration system
The United States’ voter registration system date to the 19th century — in some places, even before the Civil War — and was prompted by growing urbanization in America.
Alex Keyssar, a professor of history and social policy at Harvard University and author of The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States, told me that once a lot of people started living in cities, it was just a lot harder for political party leaders and poll workers to know who, exactly, was who.
“Contrast that to the idea of the small town and the people who go to vote show up and everybody knows who they are,” Keyssar said. “Once that ceases to be true to a significant degree, there is a felt need to prevent fraud by having a registration system.”
Another argument for voter registration was that it would bring out the best, most-informed citizens and help break up political party machines, both Democrat and Republican, that held power in sway in local governments.
Jacob Neiheisel, an associate professor of political science at the University of Buffalo, said the records are spotty because the news was so partisan at the time, but before registration became the norm, both parties lobbed accusations of repeat voters.
Complaints often involved outlandish-sounding allegations, like someone voting, then removing their hat, shaving their mustache, and getting back in line to vote again. They’d do it because they’d get a reward from the party machine, maybe a cushy patronage job, or a Thanksgiving turkey.
At least, those were the accusations repeated out loud. Beneath that ran the undercurrents of nativism and racism.
“People in these urban areas, particularly new arrivals, they don’t know anything about the political system,” Neiheisel said of the arguments in favor of registration. “But they can get in line and vote and be rewarded for doing so, thereby propping up these political machines that are corrupt.”
And a list of potential voters is also a really good way to control which people get to vote and which people don’t.
“Our commitment to excluding people from the vote is the reason why we insist that you enroll — so we can figure out who’s eligible and who’s not,” Francisco Pedraza, a political scientist at the University of California Riverside, told me.
“There’s a long list. We can’t let slaves vote. So that’s including every black person. You can’t let Native Americans vote, you can’t let women vote,” Pedraza added. “So we have [these] historical roots, and not allowing people to vote and the voter registration process serves that purpose.”
Forcing people to sign up to vote meant those in power could create impediments — proof of citizenship, literacy tests — to marginalize and disenfranchise groups that were, on paper, eligible to vote.
In northern cities, working-class people from immigrant communities were often the targets; in the South, it was Black Americans under Jim Crow. And the political machines that registration was supposed to slow down learned to adapt, using voter registration to help block new entrants to the system.
The current voter registration system in the US inherits from this. As with all things related to voting, different states have different rules. States have adopted and formalized voter registration systems at different times, and some just allowed people to register on Election Day when they came in to vote.
But, with some exceptions, US elections are a two-step process: first register, then vote. (North Dakota, the one state currently without a registration system, requires all eligible voters to show an ID.)
“It’s been deemed important to make it such that people would have to take a proactive step of registering to vote, and then, conditional on that and actually showing up to vote,” Michael Alvarez, a professor at the California Institute of Technology who studies elections and voter behavior, told me. “So we haven’t historically made registration automatic nor have we made the act of voting compulsory.”
Federal reforms throughout the 20th century tried to improve states’ voter registration systems by making it easier for people to register and to get materials about registration, and by creating guidelines for election officials on how to maintain voter rolls.
A good example is the National Voter Registration Act, passed in 1993. This law, also known as the “motor voter law,” is the reason you get asked about voter registration when you renew your driver’s license or state ID. The law allows voters to opt in to registration at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and other places where voters potentially interact with the government. It also required states to accept mail-in registration applications, among other measures.
The Help America Vote Act, passed in 2002 after the chaos of the 2000 election, required all states to maintain statewide registration databases to help establish uniform standards.
Some states have built on these registration reforms (more on that below), while other state governments have been more resistant to change.
The result is that America’s voter registration system still leaves a lot of voters out, effectively excluding them from the democratic process. A 2017 estimate from the Pew Charitable Trust, based on US census data, calculated that more than 20 percent of eligible citizens were unregistered. This has an effect on turnout, which in the United States is far lower than some of its peer democracies.
As Jeanette Senecal, senior director of mission impact at the League of Women Voters, pointed out, “registration rates are not equal across all demographics, and the reason for that is that it’s not easily accessible to all people.” White Americans, according to the Pew Research Center, are historically more likely to be registered, and more likely to vote, than other racial and ethnic groups.
Voter registration systems can go out of date as people relocate or get married and change their names or die. These errors can be costly for states, and they can diminish faith in the safety and legitimacy of the democratic system.
Taken together, for both voters and election officials, voter registration in America could stand some upgrades.
The US needs some way to track voters. But it can still be way easier for voters to register.
Election administrators need to know how many eligible voters are out there and to make sure voters are who they say they are. They need to estimate how many ballots to print and whom to send them to, and to make sure there are enough polling places and poll workers.
So the United States does need a system to track and verify eligible voters. But right now, the US voter registration system is largely one that requires Americans to opt in, meaning voters have to sign up or consent to be registered.
The antidote would be some form of automatic voter registration, where everyone who turns 18 or becomes a naturalized citizen is automatically enrolled. Everyone who fits these criteria would be issued an ID, and the government would be responsible for keeping that updated. This is similar to a model that lots of European democracies follow.
But this is the absolute ideal, experts told me — the “pie in the sky” idea, as Neiheisel put it — and it’s one that’s a lot harder to achieve in the United States. There is political (and cultural) resistance to the idea of a national database, along with some practical issues.
As Caltech’s Alvarez told me, states primarily run elections, which would mean any such database would probably operate state by state, so a move to federalize any sort of database would likely face resistance. And there also isn’t an obvious database that would, say, keep track of every eligible 17-and-a-half-year-old.
That doesn’t mean the US isn’t capable of establishing such as system, or of rethinking how it manages elections. But, as UC Riverside’s Pedraza told me, “the fundamental reason why we don’t have that goes back to our commitment to excluding some people.”
Pedraza said the critical thing would be to change the opt-in system to one where you opt out. Right now, people have to proactively join the electoral system; under an opt-out system, that would be the default, unless someone wanted to take steps to take themselves out of the system.
Some states are moving in this direction with automatic voter registration. Under this system, eligible voters are automatically registered (or have their registration information updated) when they interact with the DMV in their state, unless they specifically decline to do so.
In 2015, Oregon became the first state to adopt automatic voter registration. All voters are enrolled and receive a notification in the mail that they’re registered; they can then send back that card if they want to opt out or choose to register with a specific political party.
According to the New York Times, the state registered 225,000 people that way, and 100,000 of those voted in the 2016 election — a turnout rate of 43 percent. Other states have since adopted similar programs; currently, 17 states and Washington, DC, have adopted some form of automatic voter registration, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Advocates say this kind of system also makes for cleaner voter rolls since information like changes of address is streamlined into the system. This system won’t catch everyone, of course, because not every citizen interacts with the DMV (though some states also do automatic registration when eligible voters interact with other government agencies, such as health or social service agencies).
Critics, on the other hand, say it invites fraud and creates more problems by bringing more bureaucratic government agencies into the system. California’s automatic voter registration faced a lot of errors when it rolled out in 2018, including thousands of duplicate records and a handful of non-citizens being registered, in part because they rushed out the program and the DMV’s technology was out of date.
Those problems got fixed, but it took time. New voting systems take time to implement and adjust to, as experts told me, so states shouldn’t rush out new registration tools without adequate testing and safeguards in place.
There are questions about how systems will work. For example, can voters opt out after the fact, as in Oregon, and can they do so while they’re at the DMV? If people don’t want to be registered or if they have concerns about their addresses being public on voter registrations, what if they accidentally get on the rolls?
But advocates still see automatic voter registration as an effective tool to capture as many voters as possible. “Given the way our infrastructure works,” Alvarez said of automatic voter registration, “it seems to be the best sort of practical solution to try to get people to easily be able to register to vote.”
Beyond automatic voter registration, another easy reform experts and advocates suggest is expanding same-day voter registration. Again, 21 states plus DC already have this, so it’s not exactly reinventing the system.
With same-day registration, eligible voters show up to polling places on Election Day (or during an early-voting period if one exists), register to vote then and there, and then vote right after. This is not really applicable for people who want to vote by mail, and a same-day system does require more resources, as states need even more clerks or poll workers to help with the process. But it gives citizens up until the very last moment to participate in the process.
“If states want to facilitate voting, make it more accessible and expand the electorate, I think that would be the ideal way to do it,” Shino, of the University of North Florida, said. Eligible citizens, she added, “should not be stopped from participating in the election because they miss that 30-day deadline of registration.”
An opt-out system like automatic voter registration along with same-day registration to catch everyone else who might be interested in voting would capture a lot of people the current system misses. “We know that those things do produce increases in the number of people who are registered and who show up,” Keyssar told me.
There are some other tweaks that could help, too. Expanding online voter registration also makes it easier for people to sign up. About 40 states have already embraced some form of this, where voters can submit their registration electronically, and then the state reviews the information and often confirms a signature with what’s already on file, usually at the DMV. Preregistration for voters who are 16 or 17 currently exists in many states, too, but advocates also see the potential to expand this type of program.
When it comes to registration and voting, experts told me, research backs up common sense: The easier it is and less costly it is, the more people will do it.
This is particularly important for registration because if people can’t move past the first step, they can’t get to the second: casting their vote. “If you are not able to navigate the process, to clear that obstacle, you cannot move on be a voter or participate in the electoral process or have your say in policymaking,” Shino said.
States need ways to better maintain voter rolls, too
America should certainly consider reforms that put less burden on voters. But a lot of those reforms would also put more responsibilities on states to invest in and maintain accurate voter rolls.
This is their job now, too. But problems exist. By federal law, election officials must maintain their voter rolls, cleaning out people who’ve moved or died. But voting-rights groups often accuse election officials — as happened in Georgia — of unfairly “purging” hundreds of voters from the rolls, thereby disenfranchising them.
Alvarez, whose team at Caltech works with some election officials in California on voter registration pilot programs, told me in that state you’ve got every county “simultaneously adding, subtracting, and changing records, especially as we get closer and closer to the election.”
He added that you also have lots of state agencies, most notably the DMV, accessing these records. That means a lot of different entry points to voter databases, with the data changing constantly. Error can creep in. “Duplicate records can be added, people’s records can be deleted incorrectly, and information in the records themselves can be changed,” Alvarez said.
Administrative errors in voting really do threaten voters’ perceptions of the integrity of the process. A dead person receiving a ballot is immediately seized upon as evidence of fraud; active voters mistakenly removed from rolls is seen as targeted disenfranchisement. These errors also waste resources and make for less efficient elections.
“There’s just very little evidence of any significant fraud when it comes to voter registration,” Alvarez told me. “But there is a lot of evidence of administrative errors and problems with the data itself.”
While there are things voters can do — such as checking to make sure they’re registered (definitely check your registration ASAP!) or using a provisional ballot — states can invest in technology and other data-matching processes to improve their own systems.
A good example is the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), a nonprofit founded in 2012 that helps states improve the quality of voter rolls and works to expand registration.
It works like this: States send voter registration data to ERIC, with privacy and security protections in place, and ERIC uses data-matching technology to identify duplicate and inaccurate voter records, including who has moved and who has died.
Thirty states plus Washington, DC, are currently members of ERIC, which means ERIC can detect who has moved within these states and between these states, improving the quality of information available to election officials.
Once the states get the data back, it’s up to election officials to reach out to voters and correct records.
“We give them the data as a tool, basically a starting point, and then they use their processes under state and federal law — and what’s possible within their voter registration system — to contact these voters and to initiate an update to the record,” Shane Hamlin, ERIC’s executive director, told me. He said ERIC had, before this year, identified nearly 15 million records in need of updates since 2012.
Membership in ERIC also requires states to do outreach to potential voters, proactively sending them a mailer or update to say that they are likely eligible to register to vote. Hamlin said voter outreach has reached 34 million potential voters since 2012, though it will likely be closer to 50 million after this election cycle.
Joining ERIC — or making any major changes to how states administer elections — requires changes to state law, which can sometimes be the hold-up to making quick changes to voter registration systems. But the higher quality the voter databases, the better it is for both election officials and voters themselves.
The state of voter registration in 2020, in the midst of a pandemic
“Have mask, have hand sanitizer, will travel,” is Caprecia Miller’s motto. Miller is a voting squad captain in Virginia with When We All Vote, a nonprofit that works to increase voter participation, and she has transformed herself into a one-woman voter registration machine.
Miller said she felt broken and angry after the police killing of George Floyd, and she sought a way to act, which is how she discovered When We All Vote.
She goes to Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington, DC, and helps people register there. One Saturday, a man from Providence, Rhode Island, stopped her in the plaza and asked for help registering some seniors back in his state. She said she would try to find someone else to help, but when she couldn’t, she drove up there and did it herself. Mask, hand sanitizer, will travel.
But mostly Miller works in northern Virginia and Washington, DC. She brings voter registration forms to homeless shelters. She interrupts neighborhood basketball games, telling players through the wire fence to register after they finish their last shot. She’s starting to be known as the “vote lady.”
“I have found myself registering so many new voters, first-time voters ever in their life, across all age demographics, which is really refreshing,” she told me. “I am finding a way, when I do run across individuals that, you know, they don’t believe their vote will count — that it won’t matter. I’m making sure that I’m being an active listener. I’m meeting individuals where they are, allowing them to share their experiences.”
Virginia’s final date to register is October 13, a deadline that Miller is working toward, like so many other organizations and community groups that are trying to register eligible voters. This is how it works every year, because this kind of outreach and engagement to newly eligible voters is still the best way to help people enter the first step of America’s voting system.
“It’s the individual invitation into our democracy that gets underrepresented individuals into the electoral process,” Senecal, at the League of Women Voters, said. “The fact that we have invited them in, the fact that we have said that ‘you are important, and we want you to be a part of this process’ when they so often are left out of so many other governmental institutions.”
“The simple act of asking them to be a part of it is a critical part in making sure that voter registration is equitable and that we are able to close the registration grant gaps across the different demographics,” Senecal added.
But that invitation has been harder to extend during the pandemic, which has made in-person voter drives much harder to organize safely. Other ways voters are registered — such as at the DMV — have also been affected, as government agencies shut down and people stayed home.
The Center for Election Innovation and Research compared voter registration data from 2016 to 2020 and found that six states — Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Texas, and Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia — had recorded lower voter registration rates in May 2020 than they had in May 2016. And while that number began to rebound this summer, the cumulative number of new registrants through July remained down — a total of 329,756 fewer voters combined in all of those places.
The Arizona Coalition for Change adapted to online organizing in the wake of the pandemic, using texting and phone-banking instead. Those they reached out to would send back photos posing with their voter registration forms, confirming from a distance so the group could follow up with voters to make sure they vote and verify with the county recorder that these new voters are on the rolls.
And while there were some benefits — young voters are especially comfortable with texting and social media — Mohammed told me, as of last week, she estimates they’ve registered about 6,000 new voters, well shy of their 25,000 goal. In the past, they’ve had great success going to high schools and doing in-person registration for seniors. With schools shut down, Zoom registration drives and drive-thru events make up some, but not all, of the shortfall.
Still, activists like Miller and other organizations are trying to do what they can, with hand sanitizer and masks and appropriate social distance. Across the country, in small communities and big cities, at libraries, swim clubs, and parks, outside of mosques and churches, a voter here and a voter there is registering, maybe for the first time.
But registration is not a guarantee that someone will vote, and now that these registration deadlines are approaching, groups are gearing up to make sure people follow through with the second step of the process and actually cast a ballot.
Arizona Coalition for Change is making sure people are voting early and know how to vote by mail. Caprecia Miller, once the registration deadline passes, will take her hand sanitizer and her mask and remind people that early voting is happening in Virginia now through October 31.
“I want to make sure that I know that I’ve done everything that I could do to make sure individuals exercise the right to vote,” she said. “I don’t want to say, ‘Oh, we could have done a little bit more.’”
Correction, October 7: This article previously misstated ERIC’s findings on voting records. The organization identified about 15 million records in need of updates from 2012 to 2019, not 15 million duplicate records.


vox--2020-10-08--The Republican position on preexisting conditions is unbelievably unpopular

Prior to the passage of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , health insurance companies could ( and routinely did ) decline to offer coverage to patients with preexisting health conditions .
This behavior is common sense from the standpoint of insurance underwriting — nobody is going to sell you a homeowners ’ insurance policy if your house is already on fire — and the idea that it should be allowed is a straightforward aspect of free market thinking .
Congressional Democrats and President Barack Obama banned the practice .
But Donald Trump and congressional Republicans tried to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeal efforts , and this has become one of Democrats ’ most potent political attacks against Republicans .
Not only did Republicans try to scrap these regulations back in 2017 and 2018 , they are still trying to scrap them in the form of a lawsuit pending at the Supreme Court — even though Trump himself keeps lying and claiming he supports these protections .
Some people believe him .
And according to Sarah Kliff and Margot Sanger-Katz of the New York Times , some of them believe him because they recognize that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bowman is , of course , mistaken .
But the heuristic he ’ s using isn ’ t crazy .
I don ’ t really know anything about Al Gross , the independent running to unseat Sen. Dan Sullivan in Alaska , but if someone told me that Gross wants to ban fossil fuel extraction I wouldn ’ t believe him .
Why ?
Because even though there are plenty of Americans who do want to ban fossil fuel extraction , anyone running on that platform in Alaska would obviously lose , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's doing it .
But in Trump ’ s case , the inference is wrong .
It ’ s true that his position on preexisting conditions is politically toxic .
But it ’ s still his position .
And there ’ s a long tradition of Republicans taking advantage of voter incredulity in this way .
The Kliff/Sanger-Katz story reminded me of Robert Draper ’ s reporting from the 2012 cycle on the challenges that the then-new Priorities USA Super PAC faced in trying to develop effective ads to use against Sen. Mitt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was to take note of the fact that Romney was advocating a bunch of unpopular ideas , and run ads highlighting that .
It didn ’ t work , because the actual Romney policy mix — huge long-term cuts in Medicare in order to create budget headroom for large tax cuts for the rich — sounded so absurd ( emphasis added ) : Since Romney ’ s defeat , Republicans have invested a lot of time and energy into being mad about the ways Democrats attacked his character .
I cover economic policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so for 17 years now .
So I know that a lot of smart , competent people who are kind and friendly in their interpersonal behavior sincerely believe that depriving working and middle-class families of economic resources to reduce taxation on the rich is the right thing to do .
I am not sympathetic to that agenda , but a healthy number of decent people do think that way , and they are extremely influential in Republican Party politics .
But most voters find these ideas so outlandishly bad that they ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can convince them first that the person in question is a heartless monster .
Priorities USA ultimately did , somewhat wrongly , convince people to think of Romney this way , and in doing so succeeded in driving home the larger ( and completely accurate ) point that these were his policy ideas .
Still , it ’ s continually a struggle .
Consider what happened when congressional Republicans tried to respond to 9/11 with a capital gains tax cut ( emphasis added ) : The struggle really began less than 48 hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thomas , chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee , tried to ram through a sharp cut in the capital gains tax .
Even opponents of the capital gains tax generally acknowledge that cutting it does little to stimulate the economy in the short run ; furthermore , 80 percent of the benefits would go to the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers .
So Mr. Thomas signaled , literally before the dust had settled , that he was determined to use terrorism as an excuse to pursue a radical right-wing agenda .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bill that even The Wall Street Journal admitted ‘ ’ mainly padded corporate bottom lines.
’ ’ It was so extreme that when political consultants tried to get reactions from voter focus groups , the voters refused to believe that they were describing the bill accurately .
Mr. Bush , according to Ari Fleischer , was ‘ ’ very pleased ’ ’ with the bill .
The point is simply that the roots of this dynamic are deep , and Trump is only somewhat incidental to them .
On a policy level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a profoundly unpopular world view that says that progressive taxation to support broad social programs is immoral ( see former Bush administration economist Greg Mankiw ’ s thoughts on moral philosophy ) and inimical to economic growth .
But these ideas are very unpopular , so Republican Party politicians tend to obscure them with deceptive rhetoric and try to keep the focus of national politics on other topics .
Consequently , people who align with Republicans on broad values themes — whether opposition to abortion rights , love of guns , patriotism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a diversifying country — find it simply not credible that their champions are actually running on a politically toxic agenda that would clearly lose elections .
This adds up to a powerful case for Trump ’ s opponents to try to “ normalize ” his presidency — to try to focus more media attention on the banal policy stakes in the election and less on the president ’ s bizarre personal behavior and scandals .
Conservative writer Charles Fain Lehman coined the term “ diminishing marginal offensiveness ” to describe the phenomenon in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further erode the standing of a president who has been unpopular from the beginning .
By contrast , Trump ’ s opposition to raising the minimum wage is even less popular than his overall rating .
A solid 64 percent of the public says it favors higher taxes on the rich .
And there ’ s overwhelming public support for stricter air pollution rules .
But the fact that the minimum wage , higher taxes for the wealthy , the stringency of clean air rules , and a dozen other “ normal ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rarely a focus of media coverage .
To the extent that voters hear about these issues , it tends to come from Democrats ’ ads where , as we have seen , it is somewhat challenging to get voters to believe that anyone could seriously be running on GOP economics .
That ’ s why Sean McElwee of Data for Progress told me that an effective use of time as someone nervous about the future of the country is to “ harass you and other journalists personally to get you to cover health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the news.
” In the real world , journalists cover all kinds of stories .
But which topics get flood-the-zone style treatment largely depends on audience response .
My colleague Dylan Scott has written that if Trump gets his way on health care , 20 million Americans could lose insurance , and Joe Biden ’ s plan would extend coverage to 25 million people .
If those kind of stories routinely went viral , campaign coverage would be more issues-focused , and more people would know that this really is what Trump and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Prior to the passage of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, health insurance companies could (and routinely did) decline to offer coverage to patients with preexisting health conditions. This behavior is common sense from the standpoint of insurance underwriting — nobody is going to sell you a homeowners’ insurance policy if your house is already on fire — and the idea that it should be allowed is a straightforward aspect of free market thinking.
Congressional Democrats and President Barack Obama banned the practice. But Donald Trump and congressional Republicans tried to bring it back with their various ACA repeal efforts, and this has become one of Democrats’ most potent political attacks against Republicans. Not only did Republicans try to scrap these regulations back in 2017 and 2018, they are still trying to scrap them in the form of a lawsuit pending at the Supreme Court — even though Trump himself keeps lying and claiming he supports these protections.
Some people believe him. And according to Sarah Kliff and Margot Sanger-Katz of the New York Times, some of them believe him because they recognize that his real position is politically toxic:
“There is not a single guy or woman who would run for president that would make it so that pre-existing conditions wouldn’t be covered,” said Phil Bowman, a 59-year-old retiree in Linville, N.C. “Nobody would vote for him.” Mr. Bowman cast his ballot for President Trump in 2016, and supports him in this election as well.
Bowman is, of course, mistaken. But the heuristic he’s using isn’t crazy. I don’t really know anything about Al Gross, the independent running to unseat Sen. Dan Sullivan in Alaska, but if someone told me that Gross wants to ban fossil fuel extraction I wouldn’t believe him. Why? Because even though there are plenty of Americans who do want to ban fossil fuel extraction, anyone running on that platform in Alaska would obviously lose, so there’s just no way he's doing it.
But in Trump’s case, the inference is wrong. It’s true that his position on preexisting conditions is politically toxic. But it’s still his position. And there’s a long tradition of Republicans taking advantage of voter incredulity in this way.
The politics of incredulity
The Kliff/Sanger-Katz story reminded me of Robert Draper’s reporting from the 2012 cycle on the challenges that the then-new Priorities USA Super PAC faced in trying to develop effective ads to use against Sen. Mitt Romney.
One of their first ideas was to take note of the fact that Romney was advocating a bunch of unpopular ideas, and run ads highlighting that. It didn’t work, because the actual Romney policy mix — huge long-term cuts in Medicare in order to create budget headroom for large tax cuts for the rich — sounded so absurd (emphasis added):
Burton and his colleagues spent the early months of 2012 trying out the pitch that Romney was the most far-right presidential candidate since Barry Goldwater. It fell flat. The public did not view Romney as an extremist. For example, when Priorities informed a focus group that Romney supported the Ryan budget plan — and thus championed “ending Medicare as we know it” — while also advocating tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the respondents simply refused to believe any politician would do such a thing. What became clear was that voters had almost no sense of Obama’s opponent.
Since Romney’s defeat, Republicans have invested a lot of time and energy into being mad about the ways Democrats attacked his character.
I cover economic policy for a living, and have done so for 17 years now. So I know that a lot of smart, competent people who are kind and friendly in their interpersonal behavior sincerely believe that depriving working and middle-class families of economic resources to reduce taxation on the rich is the right thing to do. I am not sympathetic to that agenda, but a healthy number of decent people do think that way, and they are extremely influential in Republican Party politics.
But most voters find these ideas so outlandishly bad that they’ll only believe someone espouses them if you can convince them first that the person in question is a heartless monster. Priorities USA ultimately did, somewhat wrongly, convince people to think of Romney this way, and in doing so succeeded in driving home the larger (and completely accurate) point that these were his policy ideas.
Still, it’s continually a struggle. Consider what happened when congressional Republicans tried to respond to 9/11 with a capital gains tax cut (emphasis added):
The struggle really began less than 48 hours after the terrorist attack, when Bill Thomas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, tried to ram through a sharp cut in the capital gains tax. Even opponents of the capital gains tax generally acknowledge that cutting it does little to stimulate the economy in the short run; furthermore, 80 percent of the benefits would go to the wealthiest 2 percent of taxpayers. So Mr. Thomas signaled, literally before the dust had settled, that he was determined to use terrorism as an excuse to pursue a radical right-wing agenda. A month later the House narrowly passed a bill that even The Wall Street Journal admitted ‘’mainly padded corporate bottom lines.’’ It was so extreme that when political consultants tried to get reactions from voter focus groups, the voters refused to believe that they were describing the bill accurately. Mr. Bush, according to Ari Fleischer, was ‘’very pleased’’ with the bill.
The point is simply that the roots of this dynamic are deep, and Trump is only somewhat incidental to them.
On a policy level, the Republican Party is deeply committed to a profoundly unpopular world view that says that progressive taxation to support broad social programs is immoral (see former Bush administration economist Greg Mankiw’s thoughts on moral philosophy) and inimical to economic growth. But these ideas are very unpopular, so Republican Party politicians tend to obscure them with deceptive rhetoric and try to keep the focus of national politics on other topics.
Consequently, people who align with Republicans on broad values themes — whether opposition to abortion rights, love of guns, patriotism, or panic at the thought of a diversifying country — find it simply not credible that their champions are actually running on a politically toxic agenda that would clearly lose elections.
The case for normalization
This adds up to a powerful case for Trump’s opponents to try to “normalize” his presidency — to try to focus more media attention on the banal policy stakes in the election and less on the president’s bizarre personal behavior and scandals. Conservative writer Charles Fain Lehman coined the term “diminishing marginal offensiveness” to describe the phenomenon in which new outrageous conduct does nothing to further erode the standing of a president who has been unpopular from the beginning.
By contrast, Trump’s opposition to raising the minimum wage is even less popular than his overall rating. A solid 64 percent of the public says it favors higher taxes on the rich. And there’s overwhelming public support for stricter air pollution rules.
But the fact that the minimum wage, higher taxes for the wealthy, the stringency of clean air rules, and a dozen other “normal” policy issues are on the ballot is rarely a focus of media coverage. To the extent that voters hear about these issues, it tends to come from Democrats’ ads where, as we have seen, it is somewhat challenging to get voters to believe that anyone could seriously be running on GOP economics.
That’s why Sean McElwee of Data for Progress told me that an effective use of time as someone nervous about the future of the country is to “harass you and other journalists personally to get you to cover health care instead of whatever else is in the news.” In the real world, journalists cover all kinds of stories. But which topics get flood-the-zone style treatment largely depends on audience response.
My colleague Dylan Scott has written that if Trump gets his way on health care, 20 million Americans could lose insurance, and Joe Biden’s plan would extend coverage to 25 million people. If those kind of stories routinely went viral, campaign coverage would be more issues-focused, and more people would know that this really is what Trump and other Republicans believe.


vox--2020-10-08--A negative Covid-19 test isn’t an all-clear

Vice President Mike Pence has not tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 , the virus that causes Covid-19 .
But he ’ s been in close contact , in recent days , with people with confirmed Covid-19 infections .
And he debated Sen. Kamala Harris last night .
Was this a good idea ?
In a word : No .
Per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ’ s own guidelines , Pence should have been quarantining , not debating , even if he ’ s testing negative .
( That said , CDC director Robert Redfield had cleared Pence to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s actions over the last 11 days have muddied the message from public health experts , let ’ s be clear : A negative test is not an all-clear for doing risky activities during the pandemic .
Scientists don ’ t yet understand exactly when a person who is infected with the coronavirus will start testing positive for the virus .
There are situations when a person could test negative , actually be infected , and also be contagious .
It ’ s also possible — since this virus multiplies itself exponentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — that someone could test negative in the morning ( and not be contagious ) , but by the afternoon test positive ( and be very contagious ) .
Confusing ?
Yes , it is .
But the bottom line is that Covid-19 diagnostic tests ( both the slower , more common , viral genetic test — called RT-PCR— and the more rapid viral protein test , called an antigen test ) are most useful , and most accurate , when used on people experiencing symptoms .
“ One of the huge gaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the probability of testing positive before you get symptoms ?
” Benny Borremans , a disease ecologist at UCLA , says .
Right now , scientists just don ’ t know for sure .
Why testing is less accurate before symptoms begin There are several reasons scientists are unsure about when in an infection people will start testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 .
To understand why , and to make this less confusing , it ’ s helpful to think through all the things that have to happen for a Covid-19 test to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus needs to take its time to establish itself in a person ’ s body .
This is called the incubation period , and it can take upward of two weeks .
On average , this happens in about five or six days .
During the incubation period , a person might not test positive for the virus because there ’ s not enough virus in their body to detect in a test .
“ The virus particles , day by day , will multiply , ” Muge Cevik , a virologist and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , says .
“ The virus needs to reach a threshold for the PCR [ i.e .
viral genetic ] tests to pick it up.
” PCR is the more common Covid-19 diagnostic test because it requires a lower threshold of the virus to test positive ; rapid antigen tests would require a higher level of virus to register a positive test .
Testing positive should coincide with being contagious .
But not always .
Generally , a person can start being infectious for the virus around two days before they start to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known as the presymptomatic phase .
And , generally — but not always — scientists would expect that if a person is contagious , they ’ d test positive .
After all , if they ’ re spewing enough virus out to get another person sick , they ’ re probably spewing enough virus out for a diagnostic test to pick up on .
But there are a few wrinkles here : When exactly a person makes the jump from testing negative and being non-infectious to testing positive and being infectious is hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as it should , the test should be positive if you are infectious at the very moment of the test , as there must be virus present then , ” Justin Lessler , an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University , says .
“ However , you could easily test negative then become infectious a day , or even hours , after the test.
” Unless you ’ re testing every hour , it ’ s impossible to get a fine-grained view on when the infectious period truly begins .
( Also possible , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive before they start to be contagious . )
Even if a person is contagious , they may not test positive .
It could come down to where the sample for testing was taken from .
In general , “ we consider the gold standard to be the nasopharyngeal swab , ” Bobbi Pritt , the director of clinical microbiology at the Mayo Clinic , says .
“ That ’ s the deep nasal swab that goes all the way back into the back of your nose .
Whereas other specimens — like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outer edge of your nose , like right inside your nostril — that ’ s not going to contain as much virus.
” Early on in the infection , a person who is incubating the virus is expected to test negative .
Over the summer , Johns Hopkins researchers — including Lessler — published a paper estimating the likelihood of a false negative test in the first few days after being exposed to the virus .
On the first day , they found the chance of a false negative is near 100 percent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus so early .
Through the first four days , that rate drops to 67 percent on day four , on average , but with a very large range of error .
On the day people first reported symptoms , there ’ s still a significant false negative rate , at 38 percent .
What does this all add up to ?
“ What we ’ re saying is don ’ t test anyone in less than four days after exposure , ” Cevik says .
It ’ s not going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s status .
Or if a person is tested in that time , they ought to be retested a few days later .
“ In general , five to eight days after exposure is the best time to test , ” Cevik says .
“ Or day three after symptom onset.
” That ’ s when the genetic RT-PCR tests are most likely to reveal a true positive .
Because nothing about Covid-19 can be simple , here ’ s another thing to consider : The antigen tests that produce quick results have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ d expect a person would test positive .
They are also slightly less accurate .
But if used correctly , they can be very useful : They ’ ll test positive in the window when a person is most likely to be contagious .
With repeated use , scientists hope these quick tests could help stop outbreaks from growing out of control .
Also to note : The FDA has only approved these quicker antigen tests to be used on symptomatic people .
The White House , on the other hand , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ test to screen asymptomatic people .
And we just don ’ t know how good these tests — or any tests , for that matter — are at screening asymptomatic , or presymptomatic , people .
For that matter , says Pritt , “ People are ... going out and using them for asymptomatic people .
The FDA would be the first ones to tell you that they don ’ t know how the test is going to perform in that population.
” A negative test without symptoms might not mean much .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s the bottom line : “ We don ’ t know when one will test positive pre-symptom onset for PCR or antigen tests , ” epidemiologist A. Marm Fitzpatrick writes in an email .
If you have symptoms , you ’ re likely to test positive the day you start feeling ill , but not guaranteed .
And finally , a few days after starting to feel sick , you ’ re almost guaranteed to test positive .
We could learn more in the months ahead about testing asymptomatic and presymptomatic people with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposed to the virus , and testing them repeatedly over a few weeks to determine the likelihood of testing positive before symptoms begin .
“ We have a lot of data from symptom onset onwards , but we don ’ t have data in terms of pre-symptoms , ” Cevik says .
This is why testing is no replacement for other Covid-19 mitigation measures , like quarantining people exposed to the virus , mask-wearing , and social distancing .
“ Testing negative is not like a passport for people to go out and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Cevik says .
If you might have been exposed to the coronavirus , like Vice President Pence was , you should quarantine for two weeks , regardless of what your test says .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Vice President Mike Pence has not tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19. But he’s been in close contact, in recent days, with people with confirmed Covid-19 infections. And he debated Sen. Kamala Harris last night. Was this a good idea?
In a word: No. Per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s own guidelines, Pence should have been quarantining, not debating, even if he’s testing negative. (That said, CDC director Robert Redfield had cleared Pence to debate.)
Since the Trump administration’s actions over the last 11 days have muddied the message from public health experts, let’s be clear: A negative test is not an all-clear for doing risky activities during the pandemic.
Scientists don’t yet understand exactly when a person who is infected with the coronavirus will start testing positive for the virus. There are situations when a person could test negative, actually be infected, and also be contagious. It’s also possible — since this virus multiplies itself exponentially in the body very, very quickly — that someone could test negative in the morning (and not be contagious), but by the afternoon test positive (and be very contagious).
Confusing? Yes, it is. But the bottom line is that Covid-19 diagnostic tests (both the slower, more common, viral genetic test — called RT-PCR— and the more rapid viral protein test, called an antigen test) are most useful, and most accurate, when used on people experiencing symptoms.
“One of the huge gaps now in the data is: What is the probability of testing positive before you get symptoms?” Benny Borremans, a disease ecologist at UCLA, says. Right now, scientists just don’t know for sure.
Why testing is less accurate before symptoms begin
There are several reasons scientists are unsure about when in an infection people will start testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. To understand why, and to make this less confusing, it’s helpful to think through all the things that have to happen for a Covid-19 test to come back positive.
First, the virus needs to take its time to establish itself in a person’s body. This is called the incubation period, and it can take upward of two weeks. On average, this happens in about five or six days. During the incubation period, a person might not test positive for the virus because there’s not enough virus in their body to detect in a test.
“The virus particles, day by day, will multiply,” Muge Cevik, a virologist and physician at the University of St. Andrews, says. “The virus needs to reach a threshold for the PCR [i.e. viral genetic] tests to pick it up.” PCR is the more common Covid-19 diagnostic test because it requires a lower threshold of the virus to test positive; rapid antigen tests would require a higher level of virus to register a positive test.
Testing positive should coincide with being contagious. But not always.
Generally, a person can start being infectious for the virus around two days before they start to show symptoms, in what’s known as the presymptomatic phase.
And, generally — but not always — scientists would expect that if a person is contagious, they’d test positive. After all, if they’re spewing enough virus out to get another person sick, they’re probably spewing enough virus out for a diagnostic test to pick up on.
But there are a few wrinkles here: When exactly a person makes the jump from testing negative and being non-infectious to testing positive and being infectious is hard to predict.
When we look at the viral load dynamics & contact tracing studies, those who are infected are very infectious for a short window, likely 1-2 days before and 5 days following symptom onset. No transmission documented so far after the first week of symptom onset. (7/n) pic.twitter.com/DmTVh4ur4O — Muge Cevik (@mugecevik) September 21, 2020
“If everything works as it should, the test should be positive if you are infectious at the very moment of the test, as there must be virus present then,” Justin Lessler, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University, says. “However, you could easily test negative then become infectious a day, or even hours, after the test.” Unless you’re testing every hour, it’s impossible to get a fine-grained view on when the infectious period truly begins. (Also possible, but probably rarer: A person tests positive before they start to be contagious.)
Even if a person is contagious, they may not test positive. It could come down to where the sample for testing was taken from.
In general, “we consider the gold standard to be the nasopharyngeal swab,” Bobbi Pritt, the director of clinical microbiology at the Mayo Clinic, says. “That’s the deep nasal swab that goes all the way back into the back of your nose. Whereas other specimens — like a throat swab or just the very outer edge of your nose, like right inside your nostril — that’s not going to contain as much virus.”
Early on in the infection, a person who is incubating the virus is expected to test negative. Over the summer, Johns Hopkins researchers — including Lessler — published a paper estimating the likelihood of a false negative test in the first few days after being exposed to the virus. On the first day, they found the chance of a false negative is near 100 percent. No test is going to find the virus so early. Through the first four days, that rate drops to 67 percent on day four, on average, but with a very large range of error. On the day people first reported symptoms, there’s still a significant false negative rate, at 38 percent.
What does this all add up to? “What we’re saying is don’t test anyone in less than four days after exposure,” Cevik says. It’s not going to tell you much about the person’s status. Or if a person is tested in that time, they ought to be retested a few days later.
“In general, five to eight days after exposure is the best time to test,” Cevik says. “Or day three after symptom onset.” That’s when the genetic RT-PCR tests are most likely to reveal a true positive.
Because nothing about Covid-19 can be simple, here’s another thing to consider: The antigen tests that produce quick results have a shorter window in which you’d expect a person would test positive.
They are also slightly less accurate. But if used correctly, they can be very useful: They’ll test positive in the window when a person is most likely to be contagious. With repeated use, scientists hope these quick tests could help stop outbreaks from growing out of control.
The White House, on the other hand, has been using another rapid test, Abbott’s ID Now, to screen asymptomatic people. We just don’t know how good these tests — or any tests, for that matter — are at screening asymptomatic, or presymptomatic, people. “The FDA would be the first ones to tell you that they don’t know how the test is going to perform in that population,” Pritt says.
A negative test without symptoms might not mean much. Keep your mask on.
Here’s the bottom line: “We don’t know when one will test positive pre-symptom onset for PCR or antigen tests,” epidemiologist A. Marm Kilpatrick writes in an email. If you have symptoms, you’re likely to test positive the day you start feeling ill, but not guaranteed. The first few days after starting to feel sick, you have a very high probability of testing positive.
We could learn more in the months ahead about testing asymptomatic and presymptomatic people with studies following people after they have been exposed to the virus, and testing them repeatedly over a few weeks to determine the likelihood of testing positive before symptoms begin. “We have a lot of data from symptom onset onwards, but we don’t have data in terms of pre-symptoms,” Cevik says.
This is why testing is no replacement for other Covid-19 mitigation measures, like quarantining people exposed to the virus, mask-wearing, and social distancing.
“Testing negative is not like a passport for people to go out and do whatever they want to do,” Cevik says. If you might have been exposed to the coronavirus, like Vice President Pence was, you should quarantine for two weeks, regardless of what your test says.
CORRECTION: This post originally misstated A. Marm Kilpatrick’s name. It also mischaracterized Abbott’s ID Now’s test as an antigen test. The test looks for viral RNA.