Andrew Reynolds’ report on the North Carolina electoral system is encountering some negative feedback from Professor Gelman of Columbia University on Slate. Reviewing previous EIP reports, he thinks their methodology is dubious. His conclusion:
What went wrong here? It all seems like an unstable combination of political ideology, academic self-promotion, credulous journalism, and plain old incompetence—like this similar thing from a few years ago with the so-called Human Development Index.
If Reynolds, et al, don’t like what the North Carolina legislature has been doing, fine. It could even be unconstitutional—I have no sense of such things. And I agree with the general point that there are degrees of electoral integrity or democracy or whatever. Vote suppression is not the same thing as a one-party state, and any number-juggling that suggests that is just silly, but, sure, put together enough restrictions and gerrymandering and ex post facto laws and so on, and that can add up.
Reynolds’ colleague Pippa Norris responds here, but commentary on the response is negative.
