In the American Political Science Review (the premier journal in political science), Adam Dynes and John Holbein carefully and rigorously measure how parties affect economic, education, crime, family, social, environmental and health outcomes. They find zero difference between Republican and Democratic state governments. Source
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you were going by the interpretation of the prestigious USA Today, a well known science organization, and definitely not a shitty news outlet with a vested interest in misconstruing studies if it will grab the attention of uncritical thinkers who will then arrogantly repeat these stupid ideas on the Internet.
That means, in the authors’ view, that “retrospective voting” can’t really work: If the point of voting is for voters to punish parties for making their lives worse or reward parties for making their lives better, and party control doesn’t affect their near-term lives at all, then that kind of punishment and reward is going to be largely arbitrary, not driven by real changes in well-being. Source: I am that dense
Ah yes Vox, you are truly a scholarly researcher. The fact that you drag these things up like a cat that thinks it’s a lion because it left a dead mice at the door is very entertaining.
You didn’t seem to understand the scientific study, so I gave you articles that explained it.
In the American Political Science Review (the premier journal in political science), Adam Dynes and John Holbein carefully and rigorously measure how parties affect economic, education, crime, family, social, environmental and health outcomes. They find zero difference between Republican and Democratic state governments.
You don’t have to like it, but that’s what the science says. I did find that they say votes do matter in off-years, in local elections, but that’s not what the post is about.
Are you seriously going to quote USA Today again, and just go around in circles? Are you OK? This paper does not conclude that voting doesn’t matter. I’m inclined to think you’re nothing other than a troll.
The literal first line of this paper is “Retrospective voting is vital for democracy.” You do not understand what the study examines or concludes.
Oh, I don’t,
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you were going by the interpretation of the prestigious USA Today, a well known science organization, and definitely not a shitty news outlet with a vested interest in misconstruing studies if it will grab the attention of uncritical thinkers who will then arrogantly repeat these stupid ideas on the Internet.
Then I refer you back to the study Noisy Retrospection: The Effect of Party Control on Policy Outcomes referenced in the prestigious USA Today.
Then I will again refer you to the very first sentence in that study. Wow, your combination of arrogance and lack of understanding is remarkable.
Ah yes Vox, you are truly a scholarly researcher. The fact that you drag these things up like a cat that thinks it’s a lion because it left a dead mice at the door is very entertaining.
You didn’t seem to understand the scientific study, so I gave you articles that explained it.
You don’t have to like it, but that’s what the science says. I did find that they say votes do matter in off-years, in local elections, but that’s not what the post is about.
Are you seriously going to quote USA Today again, and just go around in circles? Are you OK? This paper does not conclude that voting doesn’t matter. I’m inclined to think you’re nothing other than a troll.