What if Everyone Had Voted by Mail in 2016?

President Trump has made it clear he’s no fan of mail-in voting. While the president claims he’s concerned about rigged elections and stolen votes, Republicans are also worried that mail-in ballots could favor Democrats. A new analysis by Times Opinion suggests that even in an extreme scenario, those fears are unfounded.

If the 2016 election between President Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton had been run using universal vote-by-mail, Trump would have still won the presidency, according to the analysis.

The findings are based on research on Colorado voters, which found that vote-by-mail increased voter turnout across all ages, but saw turnout increase more for younger voters. Applying Colorado’s increased turnout across all 50 states gives a rough sense of how a well-executed vote-by-mail campaign could influence election results.

Such a scenario may slightly boost Democratic fortunes in certain states that Trump won. But the analysis also showed Republicans making gains in right-leaning states — such that political tides would have remained unchanged in 2016.

A prime example of how universal vote-by-mail is unlikely to change the outcome of elections can be found in Florida, where young voters in 2016 preferred Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump by a wide margin. Even if these new young voters had cast ballots at the same rates as seen in Colorado (and voted just like their peers), the end result would be identical. Here’s why:

Only one state in our hypothetical election had a different outcome: Michigan’s tightly contested race went to Hillary Clinton instead of Trump, adding 16 electoral votes for the Democrats. In many other states, though, Trump would have captured even larger victories, as younger right-leaning Americans voted in droves for the Republican candidate.

It’s impossible to know for sure how a nationwide vote-by-mail election would unfold in 2020, an election year filled to the brim with unprecedented circumstances — both directly due to the simultaneous effects of a pandemic and economic recession, as well as the brazen attempts to politicize vote-by-mail by the president.

And the positive effect on turnout would likely be smaller than what was seen in 2014, experts said, due to the sheer difficulty of rolling out a fully vote-by-mail election.

But putting those concerns aside, this scenario shows how in 2016, the net gains for Clinton could have only exceeded Trump’s margin of victory in Michigan. In six other states, Democrats would see gains in states Trump won, but fall far short of what they would have needed to win the state.

Here’s how the margin of victory compares with how each age group would have voted under the vote-by-mail scenario for the swing states in 2016:

In every other state, the increased turnout would have just reinforced the leads by the state’s preferred candidate: Red states would get redder, and blue states would get bluer.

However, even if states execute the vote-by-mail flawlessly, this analysis can’t say whether the effect would match the outcome in Colorado, especially in states with vastly different political landscapes.

Despite that, states should look to Colorado and its considerable gains in voter participation as they head into November, said Adam Bonica, associate professor at Stanford and co-author of the research on which this analysis is premised.

“If you make voting easier and lower the costs to do so, people will respond,” said Dr. Bonica. “It’s just a matter of how big an increase that is.”

Other research has found scant evidence that vote-by-mail benefits one party over another. A study of California, Utah and Washington looked at the effect that vote-by-mail had on the performance of Democratic candidates. In those states, the advantage for Democrats was nonexistent. That’s because even though Democrats did marginally better in places where vote-by-mail was introduced, those places had been steadily becoming bluer for years, even before the new election method, said study co-author Dan Thompson, assistant professor of political science at U.C.L.A.

Vote-by-mail is hardly the only prevailing wind in a normal election. In our vote-by-mail simulation, Clinton gained a slight 0.3 percent boost in Michigan. Compare that with the estimated impact of F.B.I. Director James Comey’s late-game “emails” letter — estimated to have moved the election needle about three percentage points (though the ultimate impact is certainly subject to debate).

What’s missing from this picture is the effect Covid-19 will have on voting come November 3. Even a small shift in vulnerable older voters being dissuaded from casting their ballots in person could have enormous effects — and so could record unemployment and its effect on the enfranchisement on young voters. On top of that, traditional in-person voting will inevitably be disrupted by a shortage of polling workers brought on by the pandemic (the New York Times editorial board on Sunday laid out key recommendations for ensuring a safe, fair election with vote-by-mail’s help).

But it is becoming increasingly difficult to claim in good faith that protecting voters with all-mail voting would result in a landslide victory for Democrats.

Source: Elections - nytimes.com