If Texas adopted Oregon’s new automatic voter registration law, it would probably turn blue immediately. It would definitely turn purple. Of course, conservatives don’t want to compete for votes on that playing field. They want to shrink the electorate to their liking.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
25 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Even if they’re registered, would a lot of Latinos especially in south Texas actually vote? I have a lot of family down there and from what they say I find that assumption questionable.
Certainly it’d be better, but turning it blue immediately might be a bit of hyperbole.
Oregon’s 100% mail-in ballot voting process was adopted in CO — and the Democratic governor barely won re-election and a competent DEM senator was tossed out in favor of a rightwing loon.
Personally, don’t much like any of these efforts except for instant registration at the polls. Would prefer a media blackout for up to three days of polling. No early voting. No absentee ballots except for real legitimate reasons and they would have to be postmarked on one the days the polls are open.
Don’t we want people to be informed about the political parties, the candidates, and the issues and everybody having access to the same information in time? To see their neighbors at the polls? To physically participate in the voting process at the same time as everyone else? If not — might as well run it like an “American Idol” contest or be totally honest and let the elites tell us who will rule next.
Of course not. If you want to make voting a social event, fine, but if you’re going to make it more inconvenient to vote to enrich people in other vague ways, then you’ve gone way off of the rails. This kind of social engineering is not only elitist but it’s also ahistorical — were voters more involved and engaged during the post-Reconstruction to pre-Progressive Era years when the kind of voting you described was the norm? Given the incredible corruption and incompetence during that timeframe, probably not.
The purpose of a voting system is to maximally reflect the will of the citizens and thus maximize consent and voter engagement. If you want voters to be engaged with the issues then you should be yelling at academia or the media, not trying to force some kind of last-minute voter awareness when it’s time to actually cast the vote. Especially if it’s going to depress turnout.
The will of citizens as of when?
Many things affect voter turnout and inconvenient is likely the least of those things. When the electorate is engaged and feels they have someone to vote for, turnout increases for that candidate’s party, but overall turnout may drop as the opposition party voters are dispirited and stay home. The 1932 turnout was only 52.6%. The lowest turnout ever was in 1996 at 49%. Gore won the popular vote with 50.3% turnout. GWB won in 2004 with turnout of 55.7%. We haven’t seen 60+% turnout since the 1960s. Democrats took two out of the three elections — but the 1960 and 1968 races were very close.
What’s wrong with last minute voter awareness? It’s not as if this isn’t what is done in every election by GOTV folks and candidates’ whirlwind final weeks campaigning. I’d just like a cleaner break — campaigns stop and voters then consider their choices without all the noise and honor their right as a privilege by showing up and casting their vote.
What is elite about that? (Note — instant registration (and not being given some crappy provisional ballot) is a must.) Three days — Friday/Saturday/Sunday — polling would probably be best. Hours adjusted as needed by location to accommodate the schedules of all voters. That could mean a 6:00 am Friday opening and no closure until 12:00 am Sunday in one place. And open for a few hours on Saturday in anther place. Would prefer registrars work on those logistics instead of having to figure out if signatures on absentee ballots match those on file.
In person voter fraud is virtually non-existent. I don’t believe for a second that a high percentage of mail-in/absentee ballots are completed by other than the registered voter who then signs her/his name.
Depends on where. My grandparents in Chicago routinely signed a blank absentee ballot that the precinct captain brought around. They weren’t the only ones. But you are right, it is much easier to produce fake ballots after the polls have closed.
That came out wrong. Should have been:
Still clunky. Should have said, I suspect a high percentage of mail-in/absentee ballots aren’t completed by the voter. Friends/family/campaign operatives fill them out and likely with little to no participation by the voter. The voter merely signs on the line indicated. Essentially giving the other person two votes because the official voter doesn’t care.
Early/absentee voting is the only alternative to physical intimidation, deliberate undersupply, etc., which are today the primary methods of manipulating election outcomes.
We could also do general election automatic voting with an opt-out provision. Straight party ticket by political affiliation. That would save most of us a lot of bother. Probably reduce the registration numbers for independents because contrary to their public image, most reliably vote straight party tickets.
That gets rid of the secret ballot because if you vote in person the only possible reason would be to not vote your registration.
I don’t get the fascination with having 100% participation. Everyone who wants to participate should but I am leery of the votes of those who have to be coerced to vote.
You could opt out and choose to vote a straight party ticket.
Of course, I said this in jest. The technical problems could all be worked out (I’m such a tech optimist) There are a couple of other thorny issues.
Death. Can my automatic, straight party ticket, voting continue forever. (I sort of like that.) If not, it’s going to be a pain to purge the dead people. (Although I understand that dead people have always voted in Chicago.)
California. Except for President, the general election candidates are the top two primary vote-getters. (I’d amend this to top two unless a candidate receives two-thirds of the primary votes and an automatic general election win.) Last year, Inc. Rep Mike Honda faced tech DINO Ro Khanna. It was a tough general election race for Mike. They both raised about the same amount of money, but Khanna was able to dump in a million more then he raised.
Automatic registration would be an excellent component of the a new Voting Rights Act. The South would immediately secede from the Union.
this should be in every state
DMV registration = state issued photo ID. I thought that lack of photo IDs or driver’s licenses was one of the things liberals were objecting to that was a requirement in all those GOP voter suppression laws?
I’m also not keen on automatic computer data sharing among separate governmental agencies. I’m not convinced that registration is even necessary — except for voter suppression.
There should be a free ID for those who can’t afford it.
Another hoop for poor people to jump through to prove that they’re poor.
And what about all the city folk that don’t drive? They now have to traipse down to the DMV to get their automatic registration.?
/ I’m not convinced that registration is even necessary — except for voter suppression. /
It’s not necessary…and in fact, I argue for its ultimate abolition. And it’s good for the idea to be “out there” where some brave pols will come out and support it. But for the time being, I’m not opposed to automatic voter registration like that of other countries.
Other countries have a form of a national identity card. That makes automatic voter registration very easy. Everybody is already in.
I just don’t like having it downloaded from DMV records.
Some things we just take for granted and never question. Voter registration is one of those things. Probably made sense back when printing ballots was expensive and registration made it easier for the clerk to know how many ballots to order. That’s been obsolete in CA for at least forty-five years. I’m sure others can come up with more reasons, but doubt I’d find any of them persuasive. If it were up to me I’d junk the registration system.
Nah, it wasn’t needed previously either. Voter registration is relatively new, especially in the western states. It’s definitely obsolete now, if it was ever needed in the first place (it was not, imo).
Anyway, what I most object to is the requirement of state issued ID. If we insist on making people register to vote, having it be automatic like selective service seems fair. I don’t think it should be a requirement to go through the DMV in our registration system, but that’s not what is up for grabs here.
I don’t see the objection with respect to DMV anyway; I get the objection to making it a requirement, or even having barriers to the poor. But not to the general concept when it’s so embedded. It’s where a lot of people register to vote as it is.
I think of voter registration like I do about our health care system. I know what we need, I know what i would institute, I know what would be better. But for the time being, this seems like an easy “get”.
By relatively new, I mean “the second half of the U.S. History”. Like say about 1870 and onward was it adopted by states.
PS, I wonder what happened around 1870…
Ahem
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
As OR is the first state to initiate DMV automatic voter registration nothing seems up for grabs at this point. We’ve had motor voter registration since 1993 which is an opt in instead of opt out version of OR new law. Doesn’t seem to made much of a difference in voter participation rates.
Wouldn’t expect participation rates to increase with no registration requirements. But restricting absentee ballots to those with legitimate reasons why they can’t go to the polls, could upset the conservative calculations because they do depend on those reliably conservative absentee ballots. (But no election fraud there — doesn’t even seem odd to anyone.)
The point is that Oregon is calling the GOP’s bluff. “OK, you want to require a photo ID in order to vote? Well look, everybody who has gotten a driver’s license in Oregon is by definition eligible to vote. Let’s automatically register ALL of them without further inconvenience.”
Predictably, this has left certain Republicans sputtering in outrage.
OTOH, crap like this makes me question why any of us bothers to vote at all:
Petraeus Advising White House on ISIS
Unless Petraeus has some previously undisclosed (to the administration) and still covert ops gun running operation to Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, there are bloggers that can provide more and better information on Iraq and ISIS than Petraeus can.
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
Wonder which generals keep running to the GOP loudmouths.
And when is Connie’s baby getting baptized?