{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019736842105263157, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0030959752321981426, 'mean_word_length': 4.942528735632184, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comment on Kim, Petrocik, and Enokson: The American States' Impact on Voter Turnout

In the Spring of 1974, Herbert Jacob of Northwestern University suggested to me that the main source of state impact might not be found in average state differences but might instead occur as an internal redistribution of value among citizens. That is, while states might all treat their "average" citizen about the same, some states might favor the poor over the rich or whites over blacks while other states did not. If Professor Jacob was correct, a good deal of previous work, including my own, was missing the main state impact. While I thought this unlikely, given a limited exploration of the problem earlier, the question was worth addressing directly. Edward Tufte of Princeton University pointed out that if individual-level data could be found for a variety of states, state discrimination would be evident as an interaction effect following a consistent pattern. For example, turnout among Mississippi black people and poor people which was lower than would be expected from the average national turnout of black and poor people and from the average Mississippi turnout would be interaction showing that Mississippi differed from other states in racial and economic discrimination. I wanted to address the interaction question and also, because I believed that we had been actually overestimating rather than underestimating the impact of states, I wanted data which could test whether the measured state "impact" actually traveled along the theoretical causal paths or was spurious. For reasons outlined below, the best data to address these questions were those from the Census Bureau's 1972 national election survey. By the beginning of the summer, computer printout in hand, I had the answers and was writing them up when I found Professors Kim, Petrocik, and Enokson's article on a similar topic listed for publication. Pleasantly surprised by what they had done, I asked the authors and the Editor if I could postscript their findings with mine in a comment. They graciously consented. My remarks are in two distinct parts. First, I comment on the authors' approach, pointing out its contribution in three areas and illustrating what remains to be done in those areas. Second, I present the results of my own investigation into the interaction impact of states and into the causal paths of state influence on turnout. The link between the two parts lies in the use by Professors Kim, Petrocik, Enokson and myself of individual-level data to understand the role of states in voting.