There’s no reason to reduce the number of voters, but there are reasons to not go way out of our way to encourage the apathetic to vote. I think that liberals often confuse democracy with the purpose of democracy. The purpose of democracy is to preserve our liberties. That’s hard to do when parties become reliant on the uninformed to elect them. Let’s be 100% real here: GOTV efforts are NOT designed to get informed people to the polls. The informed already go to the polls and did long before Democrats thought up all these GOTV measures.
I cannot think a single reason why we should not encourage everyone, regardless of motivation level, to get out to vote.
No. That is the purpose of the rule of law. The purpose of democracy is to make the state do whatever the people want it to do – whether good or bad or wise or foolish or just or unjust or socialist or libertarian. These two purposes are not always in accord and sometimes come into conflict.
Non-partisan reason to reduce or eliminate early voting–not spending money we don’t have.
I live in a deep blue state that has more than $6 billion, with a “b” in unpaid bills. Our credit ranking has tanked, and a state can’t just print money.
Early voting requires spending on rent, utilities, employee costs, overtime, security, etc.
Hypothetically, if a state didn’t have early voting in 2004, had it in 2010, and doesn’t have it in 2016, whose “civil rights” are being violated?
Love how you tacked that on there. Did you expect to get away with it? You didn’t.
One more time: the Republican Party is a serious minority, the Democrats have a larger share of the electorate, a plurality, as far as party-registered voters. If a policy goes toward favoring the Rs, that strongly suggests it is discouraging or suppressing participation.
The Rs seem to have a pretty good money advantage, which seems to be the main reason they are not occupying the same kind of territory as the Libertarian Party, the Greens or the SWP. If that is how democracy is supposed to operate, it looks philosophically dysfunctional to me.
See post #117. In Judis’ view, the main reason is that the Dems are losing the middle-class vote (defined as persons with college degrees but no post-graduate ed).
That’s a plausible reason for cutting early voting. Any plausible reason for the other ways (new ID requirements, among other things) many Republicans are trying to reduce voting?
I think it’s very dangerous to consider this line of reasoning. Making it more difficult to vote in the hopes that only those who really care about the issues runs the risk of systematically disenfranchising those who understand just fine, they just don’t agree with you. Voter limitations have primarily effected black people in this country, who also tend to be poorer, less-educated, and (probably by many metrics) less-informed voters. But I bet they understand the Southern Strategy just fine, whether or not they can name it.
I used to wear and enjoy a T-shirt that said “Don’t Vote. Make my opinion count more.” I thought it was clever (I still do), but now I think it’s a terrible and toxic way to think about democracy.
I strongly support a universal required vote. There will be a “I choose not to vote” option, but everyone fills out the form and everyone gets counted, because the alternative system is so easily corruptible. Felons, too. If there are enough people convicted of felonies that they form a sizable voting block (and there are), then it’s time to get their input on reforming the criminal justice system.
That’s a reason, but it’s not a good one. Democracy has costs, and staffing a room for a couple of extra days a year is well worth it to ensure that we don’t corrupt it.
Voting by mail is a pretty effective way to make it less expensive, call for less effort on the part of the voter and have the polls open for weeks on end without interruption. I think I posted my ballot something like ten days in advance of Election Day last year, at the ballot box thing about three miles away. I was able to vote in my chair at home, the whole process cost me less than half an hour.
Of course, there have been accusations of fraud, I think in Coloweirdo, and the complaint that the dominant person in your home could have too much influence over you. These complaints come from the right, dire warnings that vote-by-mail can be corrupted much too easily – because, you know, those Diebold machines are 100% reliable and we can certainly trust their operators; they are bonded, right?
I’m sure. There is far more risk in trying to make sure only the “right” people vote than in letting the “wrong” people.
Look up Melowese Richardson.
But she got a pass, for some reason. I can’t imagine what that reason was.
You don’t “try” to do anything. The special effort is being made to get the ignorant to the polls. Voting is easy. Making it even easier is not going to bring in substantially more people. The various GOTV measures Democrats have supported since the early 90s have managed to raise voter participation have done arguably nothing. Any gains are lost in statistical noise or are fleeting and disappear by the next election.
We had better voter particpation in the 1960s, when we weren’t going out of our way to get people out:
Why shouldn’t we be making a special effort to get everyone, including the ignorant, to the polls?
So, then, what appears to be a series of rationalizations is, in fact, the true motivation of Republican legislators? The prospect of a legislature drafting laws that would directly and negatively impact the voting count of their opposition…that never so much as crossed their minds? Innocent lambs, they were, frolicking and gamboling amongst the daffodils?
Or is it more like, yeah, sure, this is classic Rovian rat-fuck, but there are perfectly acceptable side benefits to this wretched exercise?
Perhaps friend adaher can clear up that point for us.
Why do you want ignorant people to vote? Oh right, because they tend to vote Democrat.
There’s an argument to be made for that. It’s just not an open and shut case, nor a matter of moral urgency. It’s political self-interest on the part of one of the parties disguised as a moral crusade.
We should be making a special effort to have an informed populace. Then the voting takes care of itself. Apathy in the American system is a symptom. But again, Democrats are self-interested. There’s a reason this isn’t a priority, but just getting people out to vote is:
http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/race/house#exit-polls
Following this year’s political campaigns:
Extremely Closely- GOP 60, Democrats, 38
Very closely- GOP 54-44
Somewhat closely- GOP 50-48
Not too closely- Democrats 54-43
Why do you want to decide who is too ignorant to vote?
Again, who is deciding? The ignorant for the most part just aren’t coming out, despite all the efforts of Democrats to bring them out.
No one is “choosing” voters by simply having a system that makes it very easy to vote and then noticing that 40-65% of voters choose not to. Why can’t their choice just be respected? They DO actually come out when they feel they have something to vote for. Instead of trying to entice them by making voting even more convenient, why not give them a candidate that they will come out for? In 2008, we saw near-1960s level participation.
The ease of voting is simply not the problem. It’s bad leadership.