Do invalid votes equate to "disenfranchisement?"

Great Debates
1

This blog makes an interesting point that I think deserves discussion.

He argues that efforts to exclude ineligible voters (as Pubs have done) are the moral equivalent of efforts to ensure that all votes are counted (as Dems have done).

I’d be particularly interested in hearing someone defend what Wilkinson derides as the “pixie-dust” theory; that it’s essential that everyone feel their vote was counted for the winner to have a legitimacy.

I don’t agree with it, but I think a case can be made. Anyone?

2

I’ve never seen the problem with requiring people to show ID as proof of eligibility. I certainly don’t understand why it NECESSARILY is intimidation … though in practice in some areas I’m sure it is (to a certain extent).

Certainly both parties are trying to manipulate the system in an effort to ‘cheat’ so that their guy can win. Democrats have a long record of ‘vote early and often’ type drives. In addition the suppression of Nader in some key states I think has really gone unchallenged on this board and throughout the country…just a nod and a wink and some hand waving about how ‘the states decided after all and its their right’ BS. Republicans also don’t have a clean slate as far as this goes, and I’m sure some of these voter boards can be quite intimidating and probably ARE surprising some voters. And I think the Republicans are more guilty as far as push polls and other intimidation tactics goes.

My guess is that if people REALLY wanted to vote they still could (i.e. the ‘intimidation’ is really trickery and incontinence IMO), but that its easier for some to just stay home and then complain…after all look what people did in the 60’s to GET that vote in places like the South, to get civil rights and such. Fire hoses, attack dogs…threat of death. Make it seem pretty lame that you can’t wait in a line and then show some ID before a board who may try and intimidate you…but you still have a Democrat worker there to back you up.

Myself I think trying to vote ‘early and often’ is worse than requiring ID…but both practices (and parties) stink. More and more I’ve come to be disillusioned by our two party system, and this election has made me physically sick from both sides.

-XT

3

I think that’s kind of a false dichotomy, but an interesting one at that. False dichotomy or not, it is a point worth considering.

Personally, I consider “disenfranchisement” that which removes any mechanism for expressing political preferences through voting. I’m not sure how else to read it, but I’m willing to bet there are plenty of other interpretations. Whether or not various parties’ rights are “fair” is a seperate issue.

If my definition is sound, illegal voters have nothing to do with it. Illegal voters do have something to do with the relative “fairness” of an election, however, if they disproportionately represent one candidate or party. As would discouraging some people from voting by making it difficult to vote (such as “accidental” exclusion, or genuinely accidental exclusion, etc) if they disproportionately represent one candidate or party.

I think that’s the issue we really face.

4

If someone is using incontinence as a voter intimidation tactic, i gotta tell you… it might work on me.

Yessch!

5

lol…thats what I get for using a spell checker and just hitting ‘change’ instead of really looking. Obviously it should have been Inconvenience. :smack:

-XT

6

How so? The way I read it, he was saying that both have the same result, not that we had to accept either one or the other. Also, I don’t think he was saying that invalid votes are the definition of disenfranchisement, but once again that the results are exactly the same.

7

I’m not sure I buy that last sentence. No Democrat I know thinks any ineligible voters should be registered. But the actions of Pubs in the past year – and longer – makes it very clear they want to suppress valid Dem votes by any means available.

8

Here is an interesting article about how the Department of Justice has shifted its focus from voter access to voting integrity.

9

Data Point: One of my students told me they were approached by one of those Get-out-and-vote (we-sure-hope-for-a-Democrat) groups. He was asked “are you registered to vote in the state of Florida?” He said no, and they very eagerly proceeded to get him signed up. After everything was done, he innocently asked them if this meant he could vote in two states, since he was already registered and planning to vote absentee in New York. (Yes, he’s a freshman. Forgive him.) They gave him the bad news, and told him that “We need your vote more here” (meaning Florida), whoever “we” is.

By his account, the “in the state of Florida” qualifier was part of the standard pitch they were making to students walking by. That seems rather awkward to me, as if they were trained to say it that way. And the fact that they didn’t bother to ask a seemingly obvious question about other registrations at any point in the process is somewhat revealing, IMO.

Are they deliberately seeking invalid votes? They’d say no. But they sure as heck seem to leave that door open for 18-22 year olds to walk through.

10

Results-based analysis has its place. I just don’t know that this is the place. After all, the results of “there are a majority of democratic voters” and “there’s a split vote but disenfranchised republicans” are the same, but so what? Does that really mean the republicans are “effectively disenfranched” in the first case, or did they just lose?

11

Well, no Republican I know thinks any valid vote should fail to count. But the actions of Dems in the past year - and longer - makes it very clear they want to register people, valid or inavlid, by any means available.

12

His point seems to be that disenfranchisement and fraudulent voting have equally negative results on an election, and should be equally discouraged. I agree with that completely. However, he makes the assumption that “…the press seems to treat illegitimate votes as a kind of noise, a kind of tolerable if unfortunate democratic static, while intimidated no-shows are a travesty against all that is holy” without any support that I can see. I don’t know if this is the case or not. I haven’t noticed it off-hand, but I’m not sure if I would without paying close attention to it. If it is treated that way, I would have to wonder why.

13

I take it you’ve never met Jeb Bush.

14

Do you have a quote from Jeb on this (i.e. that he WANTS to discount valid votes), or was this sarcasm?

-XT

15

It was based on the “felons list” he used in 2000 and the one he tried to use in 2004, both of which included thousands of non-felons.

16

BG, can we please keep this thread civil and avoid the imputation of motives?

17

How can we discuss this topic meaningfully if we avoid the imputation of motives?

18

Here’s a more current example, from the St. Petersburg Times, http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/29/State/GOP__Florida_felons_a.shtml:

19

We discuss the philosophical question asked in the OP – whether or not it is better that 100 illegitimate votes be counted than to let one legitimate vote go uncounted. We recognize that both sides are mostly sincere, but that they also slant things to their benefit.

We don’t get into these unresolvable shouting matches about “your side does it more,” and we don’t get into “well, sure, they say that, but we all know that (dems/pubs) are all liars.”

20

But his motive was not to exclude qualified voters. His motive was to exclude felons.

Now, if I provide a list of 100,000 felons to be removed from the rolls of eligible voters, and 10 turn out to be not felons at all, and 10 turn out to be felons who have had their voting rights restored, I don’t think there’s a valid inference that I intended to do anything other than what I claimed: remove felons from the rolls. Agreed?

On the other hand, if I provide a list of 100,000 felons to be removed, and 90,000 are not felons, and 5,000 are felons who have had their voting rights restored, I agree that questioning my real motives is justified.

  • Rick