As Tensions Simmer, Poll Shows Majority of Democrats Want Bold Leftward Shift

[Jim Lane]

218. Something screwy about the page numbering

I was going by the internal numbering. Per the page numbers in the upper-right-hand corners, the last page is numbered 271. I saw that there were 130 pages in the PDF but I assumed that the discrepancy was because some PDF pages held two or three pages of the original.

Upon closer examination, I see that the online report at http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/HCAPS-October_Topline-Memo_with-banners_Registered-Voters_Current-Events.pdf goes directly from Table 89 on page 93 to Table 230 on page 236. An intern screwed up the posting? There's a big chunk in the middle that's available only to paying subscribers? I don't know. We'll have to be content with a mere 130 pages of data.

It's also unclear how to reconcile the results. Per CE13, as you point out, only 13% of the respondents consider themselves to be to the left of the Democratic leadership, but (per CE15) fully 52% of them support movements to take the party further to the left. Here's one explanation, pure speculation on my part: The poll is of registered Democrats, but many of them recognize that a move to the left will inspire registration and voting by people currently unregistered, who tend disproportionately to be those who would benefit from more progressive policies.

This has some logic to it. If all adult citizens were compelled by law to vote, as is done in some countries, it would probably help the Democratic Party. Per Wikipedia:

A study of a Swiss canton where compulsory voting was enforced found that compulsory voting significantly increased electoral support for leftist policy positions in referenda by up to 20 percentage points.[29] Another study found that the effects of universal turnout in the United States would likely be small in national elections, but that universal turnout could matter in close elections, such as the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004.[30] In the United States, Democrats would most likely fare better under universal voting (as nonvoters are generally more Democratic) but due to the dearth of close races in the United States, universal voting would change "very few election outcomes."[31] Research on compulsory voting in Australia found that it increased the vote shares and seat shares of the Australian Labor Party by 7 to 10 percentage points and led to greater pension spending at the national level.[32] While [weakly enforced] compulsory voting in Austria increased overall turnout by roughly 10 percentage points, there is "no evidence that this change in turnout affected government spending patterns (in levels or composition) or electoral outcomes."[33] A 2016 study finds that compulsory voting reduces the gender gap in electoral engagement in several ways.[34] A 2016 study of the Netherlands found that the abolition of compulsory voting increased the vote share of Dutch social democratic parties while reducing the vote share of "minor and extreme parties".[35]

Research suggests that higher rates of voter turnout lead to higher top tax rates.[36] [emphasis added]

So, obviously, at least 39% of the Democrats in this country have read that Wikipedia article.