Oh, goody, there’s a “basic design”, which is cromulent as well as being legal and Constitutional? We are much relieved to hear it!
This would be that “valid neutral justification” that has drawn such gasps of admiration, yes? That would be the one about the sooper-dooper close election decided by perhaps one invalid voter, yes? Which is, of course, kinda unlikely, in the same way that a thermonuclear bomb is kinda hot. But small as it may be, the molehill towers over the Andes, it could happen, therefore it must be prevented!
If the Dems were better people, they might accept the need for sacrifice, be willing to “take one for the team”, seize the bull by the tail and face the situation! Sadly, no. “No fair!” they say, as if that matters next to such a crystal of legalistic rationalization. Clearly, equal justice under the law is an admirable principle, to be honored. But next to “valid neutral justification”? A rhinestone, a cheap imitation, a fugazi.
What’s important is that everybody plays by the rules. Whether they are the same rules or not hardly matters.
Donald Trump has created a Voter Fraud Commission to give us all confidence in our elections. Since this was one of America’s most urgent problems, I’m sure many right-wingers who had misgivings about Trump have changed their minds after this welcome news and now proudly give him their full support.
[URL=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtCaECHt3rM]Here is a documentary on the new Voter Fraud Commission[/YRL], reviewing the expertise of the noble defenders of democracy appointed by Trump.
Considering the importance of voting in a well-functioning representative democracy, isn’t it reasonable to push the idea that voting should be made easier for poor people (or for everyone such that poor people benefit the most), in order to have a more representative government?
I doubt you’ll agree, but it’s interesting to note that a not-insignificant number of conservatives feel that we have a government that is … ummmm … not sure how to put this … too representative of the interests of the poor. Reference: Mitt Romney’s “47%” comment or just about every mention of the phrase “welfare queen” ever.
ETA: there’s a (probably mis-attributed) quote out there that gets thrown around a lot too, something along the lines of “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy–to be followed by a dictatorship…”
Do you feel this way? Looking at the quality of lives of poor people here vs other wealthy democracies, it seems like a ludicrous proposition to me.
I don’t see how this would be unique to poor people. I see no dearth of wealthy voters, or lobbyists for wealthy corporations, pushing for policies that benefit them financially.
On my more cynical days, I find myself wishing that EVERYONE would abstain from voting and leave the decision up to me. In my calmer moments, I realize that a government that is broadly representative of it’s citizens is probably the best and most stable long-term form of government. I think, as Bricker noted, most people are for or against making it easier for whichever group to vote mostly based on the perceived partisan benefits. Very few Democrats make a major issue out of making it easier for soldiers to vote because they know they’re losing on those votes. Very few Republicans do the same thing for the poor for the same reason.
Looking at exitpolls from the last election, Trump lost the ~1/3 of the electorate whose annual income is less than $50k, won the middle third, and maybe slightly edged out HRC in the top third. If the rich were voting for their self interest, they seemed awfully conflicted about which candidate would deliver for them the most.
I think welfare is generally soul-sucking and personally harmful for the people that end up stuck on it long-term and their children, but looking at the budget, aside from perhaps Medicaid, it’s not really the major factor driving our deficits and debt. So, to the extent that we’re in danger of a collapse of our democracy over a loose fiscal policy (which is itself rather dubious), it’s not really because the people discovered they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.
Perhaps you’ve done more comparison of poor people here vs other wealthy democracies than me. My impression was that being poor in America wasn’t all that bad by world or historical standards, and that our poor are generally fed, clothed, and sheltered adequately. What is it about the quality of lives of American poor people that leaves them lacking when compared to other wealthy democracies (I’m guessing we’re talking about Norway, Sweden, and Finland?)?
No. I believe that the best expression of representative democracy occurs when people have to put effort into voting. “What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.”
Certainly not by world or historical standards, but compared to other wealthy democracies, I think we’re close to the bottom in how the poor are treated:
Then why do you not support putting obstacles in place for the wealthy to vote (or if you do, have you said so in threads on the issue)? Right now, it’s incredibly easy for most rich Americans to vote. It’s a lot harder for many or most poor Americans (harder to get time off; harder to get transportation; in addition to difficulties with registration).
Of the following situations, which do you favor, and how would you rank them?
Present: Relatively easy for rich to vote, relatively difficult for poor to vote
Alternative A: Equally difficult for everyone to vote (as difficult as it currently is for poor Americans)
Alternative B: Equally easy for everyone to vote (as easy as it currently is for wealthy Americans)
Well, OK, then, should that degree of effort reflect our commitment to equality before the law? If it is more difficult for a less advantaged person to vote, does that trouble you? Enough to do something about it? If an “urban” voter has to wait on line for four hours but his suburban counterpart does not, is that OK with you? If we managed to make voting very easy and convenient, what dreadful prospect do you fear?
Well, it would run counter to the ruling in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, in which the Supreme Court said that voter affluence as an electoral standard violated the Equal Protection Clause. As a secondary effect, it’s undeniable that virtually everything is easier for the rich (the notable exception being analogized to a camel and the eye of a needle). But to codify that as a standard is violative of the Equal Protection Clause.
This could rather easily be avoided. Imagine something like the following law:
“Everyone who wants to register to vote must watch videos X, Y, and Z on the sanctity and importance of voting (which total 4 hours in length), prior to proceeding to register to vote. No one will have to wait any longer than 4 hours (and thus resources will be provided to enforce this).”, and similar requirements for actual voting on voting day (which could be made a national holiday to remove the need for a day off for most workers). That would make it equally difficult (or at least much close to equally difficult than the present situation) for everyone to vote, regardless of income. Feel free to finagle the details with the end result that everyone has to go through the same and pretty much equally-inconvenient rigmarole in order to register and vote.
Would you favor that over the present inequality in voting?
The content of the videos – how are they put together? Who approves them? The national holiday – who pays these workers? Why should businesses shoulder that burden?
I have no objection to the basic idea that voting must be preceded by some sort of time commitment but the devil is in the details that you don’t supply and is not, I believe, amenable to easy resolution.
Now, in Magic Land, where we can agree on partisan-neutral content and revenue-neutral national holidays, sure, I’d favor that.
Okay, then since I haven’t seen you spend any actual time putting forward such a proposal (or anything that would help to make difficulty in voting more equal), and tons of time arguing against proposals that make it easier for everyone to vote, I’ll suggest that your stated motivation with the quote about esteem and cheapness and dearness may not actually be that important to you, then, and the partisan benefit of your position may actually be a significant unconscious motivator for you.
In other words, I think you actually might care much, much more about making sure it’s hard for the poor to vote than making sure it’s hard for the rich to vote.
I disagree. I simply recognize the fact that wealth makes virtually everything easier. (“Money can’t buy happiness, but it can the salaries of a large research staff to study your problems.”)
And since the difficulty in voting was never a primary intended effect, I have no particular sense of obligation to “balance” it by introducing difficulties that are unrelated to actual voting qualifications, since that’s precisely the fatal aspect of the law addressed in Harper: “Thus, under the standard applied in Harper, even rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications.” (Quoting Crawford).
You’re asking why I don’t dream up ways to make it harder for the rich to vote, but the law says that even a rational restrictions on the right to vote is impermissible if it is unrelated to legitimate voter qualification.
Well, “some” Republicans do just that, their motives are bad. The other Republicans were apparently conned into voting for this stuff by those nefarious “some”.
(This, of course, excludes those Republicans who took a firm stance against such putrid partisanship. I don’t have the list of those stalwarts, I suspect it is rather short.)
I think it’s highly likely that “difficulty in voting” was a (or the) “primary intended effect” in many of these laws and requirements in dispute. If so, would you object to them on this basis, or would you support them because they coincide with your goals, even if their intentions are different?
But more fundamentally, are you absolutely certain that partisan bias and preference isn’t playing any role in your position here? I’ll fully admit that I probably wouldn’t push quite as hard to make it easier to vote if I didn’t think these restrictions were making it harder for many Americans for whom I sympathize very much to vote. I think I’m chiefly motivated by something like the following philosophy – “making it harder for older black people to vote is incredibly, terribly evil – these folks have suffered, as a group, more than almost any other American demographic, especially for things like voting, and adding onto this heap of shit they’ve been given is tantamount to materially aiding white supremacism”. If it were older Cuban-Americans, or older Catholics, that were having their right to vote made far more difficult, would you still be in favor of such laws and requirements?