You're viewing part of a thread.
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.
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.
I can only give you the science.
