Let’s not even have this debate because it is stupid. If Tom Edsall thinks the Democrats are trying to suppress the Republican vote by making Mitt Romney unappealing to some right-leaning would-be voters, let me ask him a question. Or, rather, I’ll ask you, since you are a community of progressive-minded people. Would you support a bill that made everyone with a Social Security number who can prove their citizenship and is eighteen years of age automatically registered to vote at any polling place, or by mail? And would you support imposing minor penalties on people who refuse to exercise their franchise (even if it is only to cast “none of the above” for every line on the ballot) unless someone is willing to certify (or have it certified for them) that they are incompetent to make political decisions?
I think most progressives would sign off on a system that endeavors to establish the true will of the people by maximizing the percentage of people who vote to as close to 100% as is possible. Most of us would even support deterrents against not voting. The idea is twofold. First, the will of the people is established by determining the opinion of the greatest number of people. Second, that it is a citizen’s minimum duty to participate in elections.
Would Republicans ever agree to such a thing? Would they help us create a national holiday weekend for voting, so everyone has a chance to cast a vote? Would they allow same-day registration? Would they let felons who have served their time vote? There are isolated cases where Republicans have supported making it easier to vote, but we won’t be seeing too many more examples of that.
Republicans like to purge voter rolls of even qualified and duly-registered voters. They like to curtail early voting, absentee voting, and voting my mail. They harass and demonize outfits that register voters. They deliberately put too few voting machines in Democratic areas. They make frivolous voter fraud charges and impose onerous photo ID requirements.
Many Republicans openly express their opinion that only people who pay income taxes should have a say in our elections.
There is no equivalency between these anti-democratic activities and beliefs and running an attack ad against Mitt Romney. That a bigger electorate will help Democrats win elections is not the Democrats’ fault. We’re standing up for a principle.
Yes.
Nah, too far. If somebody doesn’t want to vote, screw it, whatever. The nation has mysteriously managed to make it this far without 100% participation, I imagine we’ll continue on just fine.
I agree with both sentiments. The last thing I want is someone forced into the polls to flip a coin.
I was an election judge during a primary in which Judy Baar Topinka (R candidate for Governor) ran an ad showing her shooting pool with the words “Judy Baar Topinka is a straight shooter.” At my station I asked each voter if they wanted a Republican or Democratic ballot. One young voter told me, “I don’t know but I want to vote for the old lady playing pool.” I replied, neutrally, “That would be Judy Baar Topinka, she’s a Republican. Do you want the Republican ballot?” Because it was my duty to make sure the voters got to exercise their right to vote. Still, I really don’t want voters like him. Let them stay home. He didn’t know the name or party but voted because of a “cool” ad. Thomas Jefferson must be turning over in his grave.
It doesn’t matter. When someone votes based on minimal and frivolous information, it’s just statistical noise. Think about elected judges. Hardly anyone knows anything about them, so the votes get distributed pretty randomly. Yet. the few people who do know about them still have a tendency to use their informed opinion to decide the election. The best judges tend to win.
And then a key part of democracy is self-correction. Voters make a mistake and they can fix it the next time around.
If you believe in democracy, as opposed to some kind of rule by informed elites, then you have to support the principle that the will of the people is the highest principle, and that means a lot of very dumb people get to weigh in.
Being uniformed is not necessarily “dumb” in the standard sense, it’s irresponsible. And I don’t see how being forced to vote by the Authorities makes for more democracy. They already have that in North Korea and its spiritual twins, I believe.
Actually, they have it in Australia too. Which, I think you’ll agree, is not a “spiritual twin” of North Korea.
Let me be clear:
“Forcing” you to vote when you have the option to vote “none of the above” or “no” or “don’t care” or “no opinion” or “present” or whatever, is not much of an imposition if you can vote by mail or absentee and are automatically registered, and if you can get a waiver.
But what’s the point?
I’d agree if we had that option, but we don’t. Here in Illinois, we don’t even have the option of writing in “Elmer Fudd”. Only registered write-ins who have filed are allowed. It got embarrassing when “Mickey Mouse” came close to winning some local election. So our options are:
A few races offer Green or Independent or other third parties, but not many. Illinois requires something like ten times as many signatures for a third party candidate as it does for a major party candidate. More races offer a single Soviet-style name as the other party didn’t even field a candidate. Not just minor races, either. In Illinois CD-4, if you don’t like Luis Gutierrez, it’s just too bad. He is unopposed and as I said, if you write in anyone it is a spoiled ballot. I don’t think the voting machine will even let you try. I don’t know. I don’t use voting machines. I always ask for the paper ballot.
BTW, some would say our options are:
Disagree on one point. Low information voters are not a statistical wash. They tend to go for name familiarity, meaning the incumbent and/or the person with the most ads. In the post-Citizens United world, that’s not neutral.
partial disagree:
>>the person with the most ads
IMO ads can be overdone. Meg Whitman probably wasn’t ever going to win in CA in ’10, but I’d bet there were some independents turned off by her incessant presence on their TV.
Money is not a wash.
Low information is pretty much a wash.
We have more low information voters, but low information voters are generally inclined to a left-leaning bias.
It’s pretty much a wash. Absent massive money.
I’ll go one further. Instead of proving citizenship, anyone with X years documented residence should be presumed to be a citizen if they so swear under penalty of perjury. It should incumbent on any challengers to prove that one is not a citizen.
I’m not sure that I can prove being a shadow of a doubt that i am a citizen. I can show a birth certificate with my name. I can show census records for that name in a chain leading to my residence. I can (with great effort and subpoena power) prove that my fingerprints match those taken by the US Navy in 1967 and identified by them as a person with my name. I suppose I could subpoena FBI records that show someone with my fingerprints was granted a Secret/Crypto security clearance which would strongly indicate that the FBI accepted my claims to birth and history. But does that really PROVE that I am who I say I am? I’d rather tirn it around, prove that I am not.
“beyond not being” Spell check doesn’t catch everything
If your name was Barack Hussein Obama, it clearly wouldn’t be enough.
Don’t need to try. Let me quote a Tea Party Southern-born guy that I work with. At lunch today, he said,”Romney is just a White Obama and Obama is just a Black Romney.” I swear I didn’t try to make Romney unappealing. Romney did that all to himself.
P.S. This guy really has a good heart and believe it or not isn’t a racist. Still, he supported Tim Cain and thinks Michelle Bachmann would make a good VP. I don’t understand his thought process at all.
At least he seems to know Romney’s record in Massachusetts. Does he really have trouble deciding between the two, or is that a “plague on both your houses” statement.
Tim Kaine, the former VA governor who is running for Senate? Must mean that he’s not fond of George Allen (possibly for his blatant racism).
Michelle Bachmann a good VP? As Romney’s attack dog? Or in the Thomas Marshall’s sense?
The latter has a smidgen of merit. Seemed to work for Sarah Palin. Well…..the process is not completely but she seems to be going….going…15 minutes of fame…UP!
No, not the Virginia Kaine, but the guy from Godfather Pizza. Good VP in that he, my friend, is a social conservative.
I think I’ve managed to convince him that gay people are born gay. It’s tough because he also is a fundamentalist and as such doesn’t believe in evolution. Still, after conceding that gayness may be inborn, he thinks they shouldn’t practice because Leviticus forbids it, One step forward, two steps back.
Why do I bother? Well, I guy that will drive twenty miles late at night in Winter to fix a friend’s furnace for free (he’s a certified tech) even if the friend is a crazy dago Liberal (or is that one word like damnyankee?) is a guy worth trying to enlighten.
Herman Cain, eh. Well that in his mind balances out Obama/Biden? And the Bachmann preference just puts a
feministwoman on the ticket sorta like Geraldine Ferraro. It’s the non-racist, non-male chauvinist ticket. Likely it’s a hedge against the full-blast in-your-face racism that the GOP is gonna unleash. The words “cognitive dissonance” come to mind in that a good Christian gentleman is politically attracted to the GOP because of upbringing, friends, and family. But he seems to realize that Romney is not a social conservative and wants a social conservative on the ticket. Interesting that Santorum is overlooked.Leviticus also forbids…oh, well just read what comes before and after that favorite passage. Has he given up shrimp yet?
I kind of like that part about giving my sister-in-law a baby, but the Pope says I shouldn’t enjoy myself. (Hmmm! You can take that two ways and the Pope would still scowl, unless I was a priest).
Cognitive dissonance for sure. He was bankrupted by policy limitations when his disabled daughter was born, but opposes Obamacare, claiming that tort reform will solve our medical crisis. He will never have a million dollars but opposes “the death tax”. Well, he believes all the right wing talking points. Why? I don’t know.
You know, TarheelDem, it is also a mystery to me, but probably not to you, how there seems to be a bond, an easiness, between Southern working class whites and African-Americans that does not exist with Northern working class whites. In fact, I think my people, twentieth century immigrant ethnic working people are AA’s worst enemy. Is it because in the South black and white have always lived side by side while in the North, they came together mostly recently, after WWII, and as economic competitors?
Since when does showing how unappealing the other candidate is become “Voter Suppression?”
Both sides do it. I know you are but what am I? I am rubber and you’re glue…
God help us.
Since bullies became whiners…
“Became”?
1 — everyone with a Social Security number who can prove their citizenship and is eighteen years of age automatically registered to vote at any polling place, or by mail. Not entirely. Not quite sold on widespread vote by mail unless there’s a way to assure the vote is not bought/coerced. The privacy of the ballot box is there for a reason.
2 — imposing minor penalties on people who refuse to exercise their franchise No. If they don’t want to be citizens in the real sense, to hell with them — they’re not qualified voters in any real sense. I would go for fed aid to states/local government being based on the number of votes in the last national election instead of the census, however.
3 — a national holiday weekend for voting Not quite. It would just send people off on weekend trips. A national election holiday Wednesday, yes.
4 — let felons who have served their time vote Absolutely. Also felons who are still serving time.
As to Edsall, I don’t know who he is but if he had any sense of shame or any professional integrity he’d resign for spreading such whorish bullshit. I wish just once I could figure out whether “journalists” who produce this kind of trash are stupid, corrupt, or just angling for a PR/lobbying job.
Let’s take that one step further – apportionment based on the average number of primary and general election voters over the previous decade. The will of the people manifest by voting – those are they who are represented.
sometimes, BooMan, I wish you would just label it what it is:
Muthafucka of the Day
I saw some bullshit about this at work on Andrew Sullivan’s blog, but I didn’t bother clicking. It’s even dumber than I thought. It’s not voter suppression to make a candidate look unappealing. Jesus.
Also, what kind of math is this?
No, moron, voter suppression always hurts Democrats. Always.
And yes, I’d support those measures, though I’m not sure I’d support mandatory voting. I’d also look into Voice’s idea of allowing residents who pay taxes and have residency to vote. Further, prisoners, felons, convicts should be allowed to vote INSIDE prison. Screw this “when you get out” bs. Let them vote there. No reason they shouldn’t be allowed, and the reasons it was taken away in the first place was racism.
“That a bigger electorate will help Democrats win elections is not the Democrats’ fault. We’re standing up for a principle.”
OK Boo, gotta call you on this one. You suggest that Republican voter suppression tactics are unprincipled because they go against the principle of making our democracy more inclusive. Perhaps, but I think many of them are simply emphasizing a different principle: that people should not be able to cast votes if they can’t prove they are citizens. Both principles are more or less valid, and which we emphasize is a question to some extent of taste, and dare I say it, politics.
Unlike you, I don’t think its a coincidence that the progressives favor a principle that also happens to align with demographics that favor democrats. So here’s the question: would you still favor the principle of inclusiveness if it hurt dem electoral chances?
This question makes no sense. It’s like asking, “Would you favor torture if it worked? How about then!?!”
The answer is still yes, we should still favor that principle. And it’s irrelevant because the fact of the matter is the more democracy you have, you generally have better outcomes for the “little people”.
Yes. Without question.
What makes you think the principle Republicans are acting on is “people should not be able to cast votes if they can’t prove they are citizens”?
(I ask because voter suppression tactics, both historically and today, are primarily aimed at citizens.)
You’re right. I did not word it well. One could also put it as “only those should vote who have a legal right to vote”.
Tom falls for the ‘false equivalency’ disease that is caused by being in D.C. and he is, unfortunately, ahistorical. He used to be a more insightful writer but that was years ago.