Nate Cohn

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

But of the three branches, the House is the one where there's the murkiest relationship between changing incentives and changing the character of the party. Most Republicans will still be in safe districts, and there's no single national campaign for House like the presidency. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

Then there's the House. Here's where proposed reforms really can fix the GOP bias in the chamber. All you need is to mandate partisan fairness criteria. And today the GOP has a 2.4 pt structural edge, that's poised to grow in 2022. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

One could assert, without really any serious evidence, that Clinton would have won with Democratic voting rules under HR1. Can't rule it out, I suppose, but I don't think it's a credible case (and one could just as easily argue Trump would do better) — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

None of this has a real effect on the presidential race. Only adding Puerto Rico has any certain effect, it's only large enough to cancel out the net-6 ev swing that resulted from reapportionment. In '16, it expands Clinton's lead in the popular vote without changing the outcome — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

It's useful to go by chamber. Adding up to four Senate seats would certainly help Democrats, but it wouldn't be enough to flip control in any election this decade. It would move the Senate bias from R+5 to R+4. Hardly a huge incentive to remake the GOP. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

That's not to say that they wouldn't make things tougher on the GOP, but in terms of the magnitude of the effect consider this: the GOP would probably still win all three branches of government in 2016, a fairly close election, if all of those changes were enacted — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

One theme in my replies yesterday is an assumption that plausible reforms under consideration--ending gerrymandering, DC/PR, HR1, etc.--would so fundamentally change the electoral incentives that the GOP would have no choice but to moderate I don't think that's clear at all — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@StephenBeban as i said, idk whether voters would be better off the other way or not, but the counterfactual is not nearly so clear. the nyc counterfactual is an actual runoff if no candidate breaks 40%, fwiw. it's also probably a narrower field with a clearer choice — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

The Manhattan Institute poll last week, that showed a 52-48 race between Yang and Adams in the runoff? Well, 23% of voters didn't rank either Yang or Adams (on top of the 14% undecided), per @michael_hendrix That rate of ballot exhaustion would be high, but not unprecedented — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

One interesting thing to watch in the New York mayoral race will be ballot exhaustion, where voters don't rank either of the two final candidates and their ballots cease to play a role in the election It could even be decisive https://t.co/ylJc34Etzf — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@ValisJason @jon_m_rob i know you put it in quotes, but what do we mean by overturns here. i think it's pretty relevant for the court aspect of it — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@ValisJason @jon_m_rob the state legislature uber alles theory is predicated on the same clause that basically gives congress the authority to override the state legislature whenever it wants — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@JMilesColeman @davesredist florida without the panhandle would be too (it would also be a clinton-->trump state) — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@JMilesColeman @davesredist florida without the panhandle would be too — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@jon_m_rob yeah i think it's definitely true no solutions exist. but it's also my sense that no one's really thought about it, especally given that congress has so much power in this area — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@epimetheusthaII @davidshor @jon_m_rob @zackbeauchamp @RonBrownstein it's true, even assuming provinces were states — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@davidshor @jon_m_rob @zackbeauchamp @RonBrownstein it is, but is it? like, you can admit canada to the union and trump still wins the '16 election — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@jon_m_rob telling in what regard? that no solutions exist, or that there's a colossal activist/intellectual dem-establishment failure on voting? — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@gelliottmorris @RonBrownstein honestly i'm just baffled at this point, so take care — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@gelliottmorris @RonBrownstein and, in case it wasn't clear, this whole conversation is about HR1! if we're forgetting it in favor of pious expressions of democratic first principles, then i think this conversation has probably run its course — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@gelliottmorris @RonBrownstein what? i can't help but think this is nothing but a bizarre attempt to redirect the conversation... especially since I met your nonsequitor demand in the original thread. so what is this about? https://t.co/Qh3EKoOyi2 — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@gelliottmorris @RonBrownstein no one in the world thought your original post was 'could independent redistricting decide control of the house... in favor of anti-democrats." it meant republicans, and that's ok! that's what it is! — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@gelliottmorris @RonBrownstein it is a partisan battle. the anti-democrats are the republicans. you want to keep *the republicans* out of power. there is no gerrymandering in favor of 'anti-democrats' that independent redistricting addresses. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@gelliottmorris @RonBrownstein And I'm saying that I don't think trying to fix democracy by keeping Republicans out of power--IE perpetual Democratic control--is a particularly credible solution, since the GOP is going to come back to power — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@gelliottmorris @RonBrownstein although i do think that strand of thinking exists among Democrats, i'm talking about *you.* as I understand your original point, you're saying "but HR1/HR4 might keep Rs out of the House, sparing us the risk of election subversion." — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@gelliottmorris @RonBrownstein smh. yes, it's very different. if i thought they were the same, then i would think increase democratic accountability *would* lead to perpetual democratic control. my contention is the opposite... because they're different. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@gelliottmorris @RonBrownstein lol yeah ok, that's not at all what i said. i'd even say you were frankly dishonest, but i'll spare you all i'm saying that keeping the gop out of power--ie perpetual D control--isn't a solution, since the gop will be back. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@gelliottmorris @RonBrownstein lol yeah ok, that's not at all what i said. i'd even say you were frankly dishonest, but i'll spare you all i'm saying that keeping the gop out of power--ie perpetual democratic control--isn't a solution, since the gop will be back. — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

@gelliottmorris @RonBrownstein not sure I'm following this comment either, but all I'm implying is that 'perpetual D control' isn't a solution to whatever threat might be posed by GOP control, since the Rs will most certainly be back, sooner or later — PolitiTweet.org

Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn

RT @ProfNickStephan: It’s a critical point that any election reform bill should be amended to stop election subversion. Are there proposal… — PolitiTweet.org