# Tension between "the voters can't be trusted" and "let's register lots of voters" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 9, 2010, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tension-between-the-voters-cant-be-trusted-and-lets-register-lots-of-voters/560081 "2010-11-09T20:11:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tension-between-the-voters-cant-be-trusted-and-lets-register-lots-of-voters/560081/121 "2010-11-12T14:47:09Z")
Because this thread has gone on long enough without the requisite quote: > [@](#): > > Mr. Burns: This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, _I_ would be the one to go to jail. That’s democracy for you. > > Smithers: You are noble and poetic in defeat, sir. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tension-between-the-voters-cant-be-trusted-and-lets-register-lots-of-voters/560081/122 "2010-11-12T14:50:42Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > I would lean toward disallowing dumb people the right to vote on issues they know nothing about. Why “dumb” people and not “unenlightenedly self-interested” people? Which shows more responsibility toward the nation and toward democracy? ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tension-between-the-voters-cant-be-trusted-and-lets-register-lots-of-voters/560081/123 "2010-11-12T15:00:07Z")
“dumb” as it pertained to “issues they know nothing about” To be clear. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tension-between-the-voters-cant-be-trusted-and-lets-register-lots-of-voters/560081/124 "2010-11-12T15:19:08Z")
Except that issues are rarely isolated, nor would efforts to isolate them from conceptual and moral frameworks typically be a good thing either. The relevant facts of transitory issues are transitory as well. Plus, getting only an “unfair and unbalanced” dose of “knowledge of an issue” is pretty clearly worse than none at all, no? I have no real issue with people voting with their hearts instead of their heads. Issues are transitory, attitudes and responsibility are fundamental. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tension-between-the-voters-cant-be-trusted-and-lets-register-lots-of-voters/560081/125 "2010-11-12T15:25:59Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > “dumb” as it pertained to “issues they know nothing about” > > To be clear. Again, refer back to this thread [Eight False Things The Public “Knows” Prior To Election Day](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=583345) or \*\*Bricker’s \*\* thread [Study says: the more you lean left, the less you know about economics](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=562347). What is the difference between someone that is intelligent, well informed, and thinks the free market is self regulating, and someone that is too stupid or disinterested to understand what the government is going to stabilize the economy? Both arrive at the same conclusion–vote Republican. Simply stated, voting doesn’t require a reason or a justification. It’s just an x on a piece of paper. Further to that, there are only two choices [R] and [D]. But they aren’t each homogeneous conditions. A very smart person might vote [R] because of one platform, while another very smart person might vote [D] for one of their platforms. The two cancel out, smart is irrelevant. It’s the same result as if two idiots voted wrong on those two issues. My opinion on the matter: if someone is smart enough to have a well reasoned belief to support smaller government they should vote for a party that believes in smaller government. If they were lied to, manipulated, or otherwise duped into voting Republican because they wanted small government, something is wrong. Feel free to come up with your liberal version of this. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tension-between-the-voters-cant-be-trusted-and-lets-register-lots-of-voters/560081/126 "2010-11-12T15:37:30Z")
> [@Kearsen](#): > > I really could care less one way or the other. If I delve deeper into my own bias, I would lean toward disallowing dumb people the right to vote on issues they know nothing about. Good thing I’m not a politician! People don’t vote on issues, they vote on candidates. How are you going to measure whether or not they’re doing so for dumb reasons? Do you stand outside the voting booth and conduct interviews? “Who are you planning on voting for?” “John McCain” “Why?” “Because I think he’ll make better choices on issues of national security.” “Pass. Go ahead and vote.” “Who are you planning on voting for?” “John McCain” “Why?” “Because Barack HUSSEIN Obama can go back to Communist Kenya where he was born is why.” “I think you’re going to have to skip this year.” ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tension-between-the-voters-cant-be-trusted-and-lets-register-lots-of-voters/560081/127 "2010-11-12T17:36:44Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > That’s a little unfair. **Bricker** will certainly slant his arguments in favor of the conservative benefit, but mostly by focusing on the illegality of fake voters, as if the legality of the issue were the all-consuming importance. I very much doubt that he has ever flatly favored disenfranchising anyone. Of course, he almost never flatly says anyting, without leaving himself a trap door escape hatch. I didn’t mean to suggest that Bricker would make disenfranchisement his goal, rather that in balancing preventing fraudulent votes vs increasing access to polls for legitimate voters, he would strongly weigh it in favor of throwing out lots of potentially legitimate voters to catch the one bad one. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tension-between-the-voters-cant-be-trusted-and-lets-register-lots-of-voters/560081/128 "2010-11-12T17:44:13Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > I didn’t mean to suggest that Bricker would make disenfranchisement his goal, rather that in balancing preventing fraudulent votes vs increasing access to polls for legitimate voters, he would strongly weigh it in favor of throwing out lots of potentially legitimate voters to catch the one bad one. Potentially yes, but my framing of the question is – to no one’s great surprise – different. I distinguish between requirements that _reasonably_ and _unreasonably_ burden voters, with much greater tolerance for the former. That is, if I were to learn that Hooterville elections required that the elections official announce the full first, middle, and last name of the voter to the room before permitting the voter to cast a ballot, and that sixty people avoid voting because they are embarrassed about their middle names, I would not be moved to change the practice, because in my view that is a reasonable burden to place on voters, and someone who eschews voting because of that requirement is acting unreasonably. So it’s not only weighing the number of voters impacted – it’s also objectively weighing the burden imposed. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tension-between-the-voters-cant-be-trusted-and-lets-register-lots-of-voters/560081/129 "2010-11-12T17:44:40Z")
**Buck** : … if he were first satisfied that the net effect would favor his party. The rest is rationalization. We’re still waiting for him to expound upon his suggestion that disenfranchisement is not only permissible but a _conservative principle_, as distinct from partisan gamesmanship. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tension-between-the-voters-cant-be-trusted-and-lets-register-lots-of-voters/560081/130 "2010-11-12T17:52:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Potentially yes, but my framing of the question is – to no one’s great surprise – different. I distinguish between requirements that _reasonably_ and _unreasonably_ burden voters, with much greater tolerance for the former. That is, if I were to learn that Hooterville elections required that the elections official announce the full first, middle, and last name of the voter to the room before permitting the voter to cast a ballot, and that sixty people avoid voting because they are embarrassed about their middle names, I would not be moved to change the practice, because in my view that is a reasonable burden to place on voters, and someone who eschews voting because of that requirement is acting unreasonably. > > So it’s not only weighing the number of voters impacted – it’s also objectively weighing the burden imposed. But why impose any burden? Why should people who don’t want to say their middle name in public be disenfranchised? Can you point to any good that would come from such a barrier to voting? In my opinion, the only barrier to voting should be fraud. Any voting procedure that might possibly be a barrier to voting should be held up to a strict legal test. It should have to show it would have a direct effect in preventing fraudulent voting and it would have to show that no reasonable alternative procedure that would produce the same effect would be a lesser barrier. The Hooterville “state your full name” procedure would fail to meet that standard. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tension-between-the-voters-cant-be-trusted-and-lets-register-lots-of-voters/560081/131 "2010-11-12T18:29:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Potentially yes, but my framing of the question is – to no one’s great surprise – different. I distinguish between requirements that _reasonably_ and _unreasonably_ burden voters, with much greater tolerance for the former. That is, if I were to learn that Hooterville elections required that the elections official announce the full first, middle, and last name of the voter to the room before permitting the voter to cast a ballot, and that sixty people avoid voting because they are embarrassed about their middle names, I would not be moved to change the practice, because in my view that is a reasonable burden to place on voters, and someone who eschews voting because of that requirement is acting unreasonably. > > So it’s not only weighing the number of voters impacted – it’s also objectively weighing the burden imposed. But shouldn’t you also concede that the person considers this a barrier, why would you instantly dismiss their concern? It’s not hard to conceive of a scenario in which a person wouldn’t want their name declared loudly at a voting station, and is fearful of retribution. That is exactly the sort of voter intimidation we are trying to avoid if not eliminate. As **Little Nemo** , is the result of the law provides no prevention of fraud, but eliminates even just one eligible voter, the law needs to be struck down. Having a literacy test seems at the surface perfectly reasonable, who would want illiterate people to vote. But if one eligible voter has difficulty with that particular test for other reasons, he/she has been unconstitutionally disenfranchised. As we’ve discussed in other threads, any law or test is going to have type 1 and type 2 errors: a literate person failing the test, and an illiterate person passing the test. Does the risk of letting the illiterate vote outweigh the risk of preventing the literate? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tension-between-the-voters-cant-be-trusted-and-lets-register-lots-of-voters/560081/132 "2010-11-12T18:41:16Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > In my opinion, the only barrier to voting should be fraud. True, but as our experience exploring the ACORN debacle has shown, there has been \*no such fucking thing \*in the real world. So, the proposal to create a barrier has to have some other motivation - and is there one that’s even articulable other than merely an expected partisan advantage? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tension-between-the-voters-cant-be-trusted-and-lets-register-lots-of-voters/560081/133 "2010-11-12T18:50:05Z")
For what it’s worth, I don’t care if lots of eligible voters aren’t registered. It’s their privilege, to exercise or ignore as they see fit. By the same token, I absolutely only want lots of voters registered because they vote Democratic, _except for presumably now-rare situations where people are discouraged from voting because of their race._ ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tension-between-the-voters-cant-be-trusted-and-lets-register-lots-of-voters/560081/134 "2010-11-12T18:58:06Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Having a literacy test seems at the surface perfectly reasonable, who would want illiterate people to vote. But even this has issues. Why should illiterate voters be disenfranchised? There’s no Constitutional bar against being illiterate. The logic that says it’s reasonable to ban illiterate voters is the same logic that said it was reasonable to ban women voters or black voters or voters who didn’t own land. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tension-between-the-voters-cant-be-trusted-and-lets-register-lots-of-voters/560081/135 "2010-11-12T18:59:44Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But why impose any burden? Why should people who don’t want to say their middle name in public be disenfranchised? Can you point to any good that would come from such a barrier to voting? > > In my opinion, the only barrier to voting should be fraud. Any voting procedure that might possibly be a barrier to voting should be held up to a strict legal test. It should have to show it would have a direct effect in preventing fraudulent voting and it would have to show that no reasonable alternative procedure that would produce the same effect would be a lesser barrier. > > The Hooterville “state your full name” procedure would fail to meet that standard. You’re entitled to your opinion. I can only say that I disagree, and that (fortunately) the actual state of the law is closer to my view than yours. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tension-between-the-voters-cant-be-trusted-and-lets-register-lots-of-voters/560081/136 "2010-11-12T19:10:17Z")
You can only say that you disagree, but not _why_? :dubious: In Great Debates of all places? That leaves the rest of us free to impute motives instead, ya know. That can’t be helpful to your “position”. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2010, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tension-between-the-voters-cant-be-trusted-and-lets-register-lots-of-voters/560081/137 "2010-11-12T22:55:21Z")
So I guess it all comes down to what an “undue burden” is. For me this is where the cure is worse than the disease, ie there are more correct votes prevented than fraudulent votes counted. This seems like the most logical place to set the level. You clearly feel this is too low. Is there a logical second plateau that you would recommend Bricker? Would you disapprove of a requirement that people should have 2 forms of ID one of which could be a drivers license but the second could be either a union card, government worker ID, student ID, or a special ID obtained at inner city food banks for a modest fee of $50 which will be waived if your income is less than $25,000 a year? Everyone could theoretically get one so there is no undue burden right? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2010, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tension-between-the-voters-cant-be-trusted-and-lets-register-lots-of-voters/560081/138 "2010-11-13T15:24:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You’re entitled to your opinion. > > I can only say that I disagree, and that (fortunately) the actual state of the law is closer to my view than yours. If it were up to me, I’d put **all** burdens on the right to vote under [Strict Scrutiny](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny). The court should look at any restrictions with the same level of skepticism that they’d look at racial classifications. Voting is fundamental to our democracy, and I have very little faith that elected politicians won’t rig the system to serve their own ambitions. There’s an inherent conflict of interest, and it should be the job of the judiciary to guard voters from cynical attempts to deprive people of the vote. > [@Wikipedia](#): > > First, it must be justified by a **compelling governmental interest.** While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections. > > Second, the law or policy must be **narrowly tailored** to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored. > > Finally, the law or policy must be the **least restrictive** means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this ‘least restrictive means’ requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2010, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tension-between-the-voters-cant-be-trusted-and-lets-register-lots-of-voters/560081/139 "2010-11-13T15:54:57Z")
I love the paternalism. I am smarter and more educated than you poor people. I know better about how the country should be run. Trust me, I will look after you. Except you wont. It is clear that the people on top will exploit the hell out of the poor. They will rob them out of their social security checks.They will take their homes. They will push all the tax breaks into the rich. They will even be able to convince themselves they are doing it for the good of the country. Voting should be easier. We should encourage as many people to vote as possible to vote to get a true representative democracy. We should make voting mandatory. ACORN’s crime, they registered poor voters. They paid seriously for it. The powerful made them pay for such a terrible transgression. Don’t piss off the rich and powerful. The country belongs to them. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2010, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tension-between-the-voters-cant-be-trusted-and-lets-register-lots-of-voters/560081/140 "2010-11-13T16:03:57Z")
**Bricker** , do you swear that your support of voting restrictions and the campaign against ACORN isn’t/wasn’t just a cynical attempt to advance the interests of the Republican Party (and your own wallet) under a sensible sounding fig leaf of a justification (“voter fraud”)? Remember what the Bible says about Bearing False Witness; you can go to Hell just as easily for lying as you can for stealing 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tension-between-the-voters-cant-be-trusted-and-lets-register-lots-of-voters/560081.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tension-between-the-voters-cant-be-trusted-and-lets-register-lots-of-voters/560081.md?page=8)