In the 2016 elections, my research team found that the Internet Research Agency, a Kremlin-linked, information campaign operation, ran paid Facebook ads to suppress the turnout of nonwhite voters, especially African Americans. Now voter suppression has truly gone digital. More recently, voter suppression takes the form of misinformation campaigns and deceptive practices such as lying about the time, place, and manner of voting.ĭeceptive practices have traditionally been comprised of fliers and phone calls. Piven and colleagues demonstrate that voter suppression tactics took the form of blatant violence and intimidation in the Reconstruction era but have since transformed into regulatory devices such as voter ID laws and racial gerrymandering. Voter suppression has been taking place in various forms over the years. Clearly, the problem has not yet been solved. Just a few days prior to Election Day, Reuters reported that Twitter also purged more than 10,000 automated accounts that discouraged voting. In October, Facebook broadened its election integrity policies to combat voter suppression and committed to taking down such content. Voter suppression messages appeared online despite the platforms’ efforts to stop them. We found three categories of messages: deception about how or when to vote, calls to boycott the election, and attempts to threaten or intimidate potential voters. Online voter suppression in 2018 showed similarities to Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election. My research team at the University of Wisconsin-Madison found hundreds of messages on Facebook and Twitter aimed at voter suppression - designed to discourage or prevent people from voting. Some online activity tried to keep people from voting altogether. Not all of this spending was intended to persuade voters to favor one side or the other, however. This month’s elections were fought online to an unprecedented degree, with an estimated $900 million in digital ad spending - more than two and a half times the 2014 midterms. Advance Constitutional Change Show / hide.National Task Force on Democracy Reform & the Rule of Law.Government Targeting of Minority Communities Show / hide.
Campaign Finance in the Courts Show / hide.Gerrymandering & Fair Representation Show / hide.Ensure Every American Can Vote Show / hide.History suggests the odds of a favorable outcome for markets are pretty good here, we won’t have too long to wait to find out. Maybe the midterms elections will result in legislative gridlock, and perhaps that will prove a boost to markets, or perhaps some other effect is occurring. Still, the historical track record of the markets around midterms gives some welcome reason for a bit optimism. Of course, there’s a lot to worry about in this current bear market. It’s unclear what will happen until after election results are announced, so elections remove risk. So it may also be that elections are highly uncertain regardless of their outcome, regardless of whether gridlock results.
#Midterm elections 2018 date update#
After drilling into the data an update to the research from last month by the same University of Canterbury research team, finds that the trend is broad-based, with no advantage to specific sectors or investing styles. Therefore, the rise in markets potentially reflects compensation for the risk associated with midterm elections. That means that yes, the markets do rise after the midterms, but the midterms are a risky event and could cause the markets to fall, even though that hasn’t happened too often in recent history. Some argue this is just compensation for the greater risks associated with electoral uncertainty. Given that the positive market data goes back to 1957, it may be that it’s possible to overstate the positive reaction of markets to economic gridlock and something else is going on with the impact of midterms on markets. Previously, parties sharing power in earlier decades would be more likely to pass legislation. It’s worth noting that some argue political gridlock is a most recent trend in U.S. That leads to predictability and fewer surprises, something that markets typically favor. It can mean that fewer laws are passed, and those laws that are passed are often less controversial. Gridlock is often viewed as good for markets.
Of course, anything could happen and those estimates will change as the election nears, but gridlock is a likely outcome as it has been in many prior U.S. House of Representatives, but about the same chance that the Democrats hold on to the U.S. However, after the upcoming elections, polls currently give a seven in 10 chance that Republicans will likely take control of the U.S. Note that this argument applies regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats hold power, so it doesn’t favor either party. That may be a risk for markets, as legislation could occur that is bad for firms’ profits, or at least makes the future more risky.
0 kommentar(er)
