Who decides what is easy enough? Why not make their choice easier; it’s all about freedom, right?
Because they have the same stake in things you and I do. When Jefferson wrote “all men are created equal,” he did not mean all are of equal intelligence, or moral character, or anything else; he was making an assertion in ethics, not science, he meant only that all are equally ends-in-themselves. Or, as Thomas Paine put it, “The mass of men are not born with saddles on their backs, nor the few booted and spurred to ride them.” Politically, all of us ends-in-ourselves are equal in the sense that whatever government does or does not do, we all have to live with the results; that gives us all an equal stake in the decision-making process. Democracy is not a theory of good government, it is a theory of legitimate government – but, in practice, in terms of good-government outcomes, democracy’s track record is “the worst form of government, except for every other that has been tried.”
Because it’s already incredibly easy. We should be working on making other things government does easier. That’s why it’s hard to believe Democrats are doing this out of love of democracy. They love to pile on regulations and hurdles onto other areas where citizens interact with the government, but demand a voting process that is streamlined and easier than ordering a pizza. Why can’t that effort be applied to everything the government does? Because it doesn’t win votes, that’s why.
Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t really care what Democrats try to do to make voting easier, just so long as it doesn’t increase the risk of illegal votes being cast, whether intentional or unintentional. Early voting is fine. Same day registration and mail in voting are fraud magnets, and motor voter causes a lot of unintentional illegal voting, since people get registered when they get their license. If we let illegals have licenses, that will add to the problem, since motor voter causes licensing to lead to registering.
I agree that everyone has a stake. And everyone should inform themselves, and go vote. If people don’t vote, that is not a crisis that has to be remedied. Unless of course it only affects one party, in which case it is the end of the world.
So busing people directly from Church, to the polls, is a good idea? Or does it depend on for whom they vote?
According to my previous exit poll cite, only 12% of voters in 2014 hadn’t been following things. I’m not sure that one could argue that this number should be higher.
Is that how many people weren’t following things, or how many people would admit to a perfect stranger that they weren’t following things?
See, that’s what screwed up the exit polls before, people who voted for Bush but didn’t want to admit it, so they claimed to have voted for Kerry.
That’s not true unless you mean “benefit the Dems” to mean “actually get to vote at all.”
During the 2004 election in states such as Ohio, Colorado, Michigan and Florida, people waited in line to vote as much as 10 hours. After the election people were justifiably outraged and steps were taken by many states to ensure that didn’t happen again. The most common ways to fix the problems involved longer hours n election day, extended voting days, more voting booths - pretty common sense things.
I realize that all of this probably seems probably foreign to you. The thought of seeing a problem (you do concede that forcing people who want to exercise their constitutional right to vote to have to devote 10 hours of standing in line is a problem in a democracy, yes?) and then coming up with a solution for the problem is decidedly not in the Republican playbook these days.
They prefer to solve non-problems (Voter ID) or do nothing about actual problems (our broken healthcare system) than actually address something that is broken and is government’s job to fix (see immigration). And heaven forbid you inconvenience some gun owner even a little because that part of the constitution is way more important than the part where we are ostensibly able to choose our leaders and stuff.
So let me ask you: After several states had people wait in hellishly long lines to vote, was that a problem that needed addressing? If so, what ways would have been best to do so?
Actually the most ignorant voters are those who vote against their self-interest. Now, who would that be? Oh yeah: Lower class white people who vote Republican:
They are all quite ignorant if you ask me. Why would the poorest people vote for Mitt 'I’m not concerned about the very poor" Romney if not out of ignorance? Why would they vote for Republican senators and representatives who vote against their interests time and time again (see Food Stamps cuts)?
These people are quoted as saying they rely on food stamps but vote for candidates who don’t hide their desires to cut the program and the benefits to their constituents. That’s pretty ignorant, wouldn’t you agree?
That said, I wouldn’t dream of telling them they didn’t deserve to vote. Nor would I want them to wait in line for ten hours to do so.
What is ignorant is thinking you know what a person’s self interest is.
Yeah you’re right. Showing that people who are quoted as saying that they rely on food stamps, with socio-economic situations that prove this, who overwhelmingly voted for candidates who want to do away or cut that program shows that I am ignorant. Oh wait, it doesn’t and you are wrong yet again.
It’s only in their interest if you assume they will always be reliant on food stamps.
I am assuming they are reliant on eating now and for the immediate future… You think they aren’t?
And quit being so lazy. You didn’t even have to click the article I linked to to see the quote which I will quote a second time now:
So you’re calling me ignorant for thinking that a person who says “Of all the things they could cut in America, it shouldn’t be the food stamp program” is voting against her interests when she votes for candidates who specifically want to cut that? :rolleyes:
When I was growing up, my family was very poor.
We nonetheless did not support Democratic politicians, and we believed that these people did not have our long-term best interests at heart. They were willing to give us money, it seemed to us, but that would merely make us dependent on continuing largess. We did not think that was a good idea.
Was my dad “voting against his own interests” in that situation?
Vote-by-mail is a fraud magnet? What a load of bullshit. How is that more likely to facilitate fraud than paperless touch-screen tabulation? If there is fraud, it is most likely happening at the county clerks’ offices. Who do you think you can trust?
Any specific suggestions? Tax breaks for political infomercials?
There’s “informed” and then there’s informed. Having well-informed opinions on a political issue is not the same as watching lots of political ads.
For a large number of voters, their decision on which candidates to support isn’t in doubt; “following the campaign” for them may be, to some extent, indulging their recreational outrage, wallowing in their hatred for the other side.
Given the quality of information in political campaigns, especially on the most popular cable news network, I wonder if “following campaigns” might be a contraindication about a voter’s level of real information.
Because an individual’s vote is unlikely to matter, many vote their “conscience.”
Warren Buffett may secretly be happy that his taxes happen to be low, but still, altruistically, supports rational tax policies.
It is a good idea and does not depend on for whom they vote.
Yes, he was; but, that was his right.