The editors of the Washington Post lash out at Republican-dominated state legislatures that are enacting laws to impose limits on voting:
Republicans assail congressional Democrats’ big democracy reform bill, H.R. 1, accusing Democrats of seeking political advantage by shifting voting rules. Yet that is precisely what they are doing in state after state. Though one can speculate about Democrats’ motivations to mandate ample early-voting opportunities, an easier voter-registration system, mail-in voting options and reasonable provisional balloting, there is a clear difference in the effects of the reforms Democrats favor vs. the ones Republicans want. Democrats are pushing for reforms that would ease voting, and Republicans desire laws that would make it harder, based on lies about fraud.
Let me preface my remarks with three assertions:
- Joe Biden is the elected president of the United States.
- I probably know more about voting than either the editors or nearly all federal, state, or local officials.
- There’s a lot of lying going on by a lot of people, depending on how you define “lie”. I define a lie as the knowing telling of an untruth with an intent to deceive.
Based on those three things, I think that in many, many close elections there’s more than enough fraud to swing the election one way or another. Take Al Franken’s election to the Senate in Minnesota in 2008. He was elected by a plurality of 312 votes of 2,887,646 cast, a minuscule plurality of .011%.
I don’t know why Democrats or Republicans are holding the positions they do but I think that you can characterize them without imputing evil or self-serving motivations them. So, for example, I think the Republican strategy is to ensure that all votes by eligible voters are counted correctly while the Democrats’ strategy is to maximize the number of votes cast and counted. Presumably, each party thinks they can prevail by using their preferred strategy.
It alarms me that Democrats appear to be intent on extending the franchise in the interests of democracy. IMO it’s a starkly anti-scientific stance. Allowing 16 year olds to vote is ridiculous and, frankly, undemocratic. They are too immature and too easily influenced. Because the prefrontal cortex of teenagers is still loping their ability to make informed decisions is impaired.
The uncomfortable truth is that the percentage of people eligible to vote and voter participation are inversely correlated. In the 19th century voter turnouts in presidential elections were in the vicinity of 80% and have fallen steadily to around 50% since. The last election showed greater participation than any of recent memory—around 60%. And in primary elections the turnout is even worse—frequently around 20%.
But if Republicans are trying to block people who are legitimately allowed to vote from voting I find that alarming, too.
Is there a word for something that is simultaneously alarming and amusing? Wry? The Germans probably have a word for it. I find the characterization of our present federal government as “democratic” simultaneously alarming and amusing. First, Congressional districts vary in size from 750,000 to 1.5 million people. That’s because the size of the House of Representatives has been capped at 435 since 1929. According to the 1930 census the U. S. population was 123.1 million. Now it’s 331 million. To my mind the notion that a single individual can represent 750,000 as well as he or she can 280,000 is laughable.
But it doesn’t stop there. Those representatives were elected by a plurality of a plurality of primary voters who many have only been a tiny fraction of the total eligible voters in their district. If the voice of the people were actually being heard nobody would be elected because that’s who most of the people voted for.
“I think the Republican strategy is to ensure that all votes by eligible voters are counted correctly ”
I see no evidence that is true. Limiting mail in voting does not guarantee that. Stopping early voting does not guarantee that. Voter ID does not really help. What is see is the the GOP is trying to make sure people who vote Republican have their votes count and want to minimize the number of Democrats who vote. This latter approach actually explains doing things like cutting down on mail in voting, ID cards, etc. Note that the GOP cares not about fraud at the voting machine which is where fraud is likely to occur.
“I think that in many, many close elections there’s more than enough fraud to swing the election one way or another. ”
Zero evidence that is true. Besides, the claim by the GOP is that in the last few elections there have been million of fraudulent votes. That it was done as an organized conspiracy.
“But if Republicans are trying to block people who are legitimately allowed to vote”
If??? The Spartan used that word correctly. Doesnt apply here. (You now there are actual emails leaked by GOP legislators where they tell each other that cutting down on Des voters was the purpose of their “reforms”.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/
Steve
I was unaware of that. That’s good evidence of intent.
My observation is Republicans would be better served to focus on optimizing for rules (or lack of them) as they are.
California Republicans (strangely) learned that lesson. and took advantage of (legal) ballot harvesting in 2020 to win seats (for the first time in 20 years) after decrying ballot harvesting and then losing seats in 2018.
I suspect Trump made a strategic mistake in decrying absentee voting and complaining it is full of fraud. Traditionally, Republicans were the party who took advantage of absentee voting. Who knows how many Republicans didn’t vote on election day because of the long lines (a traditionally Democratic issue).
As for minor voting — I believe it will require a constitutional amendment; the circumstances that led to the 26th amendment (non-uniform voting requirements between State and Federal Offices) would rear its head again.
But if it does happen; can we have votes for all minors — but parents can vote for their kids under 16. After all, one does not start having a stake in the government at age 16.
Democrats focus on susceptible voters, posing as educators and caring social volunteers. They prey on the illiterate, the old, the young, and the ignorant. In Colleges they foment an atmosphere where voting Republican will leave you ostracized. In housing projects they offer a bus ride, a free meal and some friendly advice on who really cares for them.
The Republicans comp[lain the playing field is not level because the Dems focus on short term gain whilst Repubs preach long term gains.
Those with no assets or support will naturally gravitate towards the former.
Lord knows how they will organize the high school vote, but I know who will profit, that’s why they push it.
As is usual, I stand not in the middle between the two parties but apart from them.
I don’t see any conflict between giving all voters a chance to vote in a reasonable time period and implementing reasonable and verifiable security measures at various stages. Neither side seems interested in that.
For minor voting, from what little I’ve read of the proposals, they would only apply to state and local elections, so wouldn’t be subject to federal voting age restrictions. Regardless, I think it’s a bad idea.
Why should undocumented newcomers be denied the vote? Their and their children’s future depends as much or more on the outcome of elections than the votes of entrenched White Supremacists who only want the status quo instead of progress. Blacks who want to secure their position as America’s pet minority, or the legions of elderly who only care about their SS checks.
To say their undocumented status should deny them a vote flies in the face of efforts to preclude requiring ID’s to vote.
Denying them the vote denies their humanity and that’s just not who we are. (Unless we’re in any of the interest groups mentioned above), in which case we are , prima facie, Racists.
I forgot, agree that minors voting is a very bad idea. I think even at 18 you arent really mature but if you are old enough to get drafted you should be able to vote. Not as if we take the vote away from 80 y/o people because they have cognitive decline. (This is the one reason I can see for letting 16 y/o vote. We let old people who have no idea what they are doing vote, and as we all know 2 wrongs make a right.)
Steve
Well, if you can vote, get drafted, sign contracts, get married… when you’re 18, you should be able to buy tobacco and alcohol. Ironically, an 18 year-old can buy marijuana, which is every bit as harmful as tobacco.
The best way to improve our democratic republic is to eliminate primaries. That would eliminate the ability of fringe groups to dominate nominations. Whatever you think of old machine pols like Richard Daley, they wanted to win, and they nominated people they thought had the greatest attraction to the largest part of the population and had the best chance of winning, not ideologues.
I suppose it’s a little too picky to point out that the Founding Fathers were against pure democracy, and they littered the Constitution with all sorts of anti-democratic provisions like the Supreme Court (even more anti-democratic nowadays), the Bill of Rights, the Electoral College, the Senate (especially in its original form). Pure democracy and personal liberty are mutually contradictory, as our present predicament illustrates.
Since people are no longer being drafter and it is unlikely that they will, that argument has lost a lot of its potency.
As I’ve said before I believe in republican government but not democratic government. However, if your objective is more democracy it’s a) hard to defend the primary system; b) it’s hard to defend capping the House at 435; and c) it’s hard not to support direct democracy.
“Democrats are pushing for reforms that would ease voting, and Republicans desire laws that would make it harder, based on lies about fraud.”
Nonsense. There is no reason not to validate identification as a condition precedent to voting. There is no reason not to demand that voting be strictly limited a small window of time, with exceptions for military and travelers overseas. And those ballots should have strict identification criteria. It invites fraud not to.
The studies cited are mostly conducted with an agenda, or by re-feeding ballots through a machine, which is a test of the machine, not the validity of the ballot.
You can’t get a drivers license without several forms of ID.
You can’t board an airplane.
You can’t buy liquor.
You can’t get a mortgage.
You can’t buy a firearm.
You can’t sign a lease.
You can’t rent a car.
And so on. Yet we are told that the most important civic action in which people participate should be a free for all. Many other countries don’t do it that way, for obvious reasons.
The real goal behind Rube Goldberg or willy-nilly voting constructions is opportunity for mischief.
Shocked. Shocked!!
https://thenationalpulse.com/news/revealed-emails-show-zuckerberg-funded-group-overruling-election-officials-accessing-mail-in-ballots-before-election/
“You can’t board an airplane.
You can’t buy liquor.
You can’t get a mortgage.
You can’t buy a firearm.
You can’t sign a lease.
You can’t rent a car”
Boring to go through the whole list, but we really do have underaged people trying to buy alcohol. We really do have criminals trying to buy a gun. Etc. What we dont have is proof of any fraud that would be stopped by having a voter ID card. The whole idea of having to present my “papers” like I was in some third world commie country to vote is pretty repulsive.
Steve
Thanks for supporting US voting rights for all third world communist nations’ citizens who can make the trip here on Election Day Steve.
My point exactly.
People shouldn’t be asked to show papers for anything.
If the goal is deflecting our politics away from tribal warfare, and back toward joint problem-solving,
(which I believe should be the top priority, as no policy efforts have a chance of succeeding without it)
then stopping voter fraud/voter suppression has to be an “and” issue, not an “or” issue. We have to balance both.
The simple reason is that political beliefs are fundamentally nonrational.
For example, Right partisans believe the Left stole the election in the same way that Left partisans believe the Right is racist. No amount of rational proof is going to dent either proposition.
Not only can you not prove a negative, but a deeper point exists as well: the universal human architecture by which our belief systems are formed, maintained, and emotionally defended is fundamentally nonrational in nature (even though it can be rationally described).
That’s a structural constraint, not a problem to be solved. And the same is true of the voter fraud/voter suppression policy issue. The ONLY way out is to address both at the same time.
But, of course, it is more short-term profitable to demonize the other side for electoral purposes…
I can’t decide whether a political leader who could make the case I just outlined, and do it well, would be destroyed in milliseconds, or win in a slam dunk.
Depends on whether they have natural charismatic confidence.
It seems to be very rare.
What I do believe is that the trend towards direct democracy needs to be curtailed or we’re going to destroy ourselves.
The Democratic party seems to see that as their salvation, but they’re being split in two by competing interests as we speak.
I could argue that the people of Iran and Iraq have as much interest in the outcome of American elections as I do. Why not give them a voice. Don’t answer that I know. But the point is, when everyone has a vote, unfiltered by representatives, any cockamamie idea can be rationalized.
Greta Thunberg would give babies the vote, it’s their future after all.
As long as they’re not given the vote at conception.