Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Weekend Contributor
Is there anything more fundamental to a democracy or democratic republic then the ability of its citizens to vote for their representatives at every level of government? The privilege or as many state, the right to vote is essential for citizens to control who is running the local and state and national governments and controlling what direction they want their community and country to go in.
As I write this article, there are groups and indeed, national political parties attempting to restrict the right to vote and restrict the early voting opportunities and attempting to restrict the ability of registered citizens to vote at all. In the past few national elections, we all witnessed the horror stories of people waiting for hours in line to vote on election day. Instead of increasing early voting days and installing additional voting machines in crowded precincts, just the opposite seems to be happening.
“In the past few weeks, a flurry of conservatives have attacked early voting, from Eugene Kontorovich and John McGinnis in Politico to George Will in the Washington Post to J. Christian Adams in the Washington Times. The timing is no coincidence: The Presidential Commission on Election Administration, which President Obama created to look at issues with long lines and other election problems, recently issued its much-anticipated report. The report is full of many sound suggestions for improving our elections, and one of the key recommendations is to expand early voting, either in person, through absentee ballots, or both. There’s good reason to follow the commission’s recommendation: Early voting takes pressure off administering the vote on Election Day. It helps avert long lines and aids election administrators in working out kinks. Voters like early voting because it lets them pick a convenient time to vote, when there are not work or child-care conflicts.” Slate
If you are truly interested in allowing all eligible voters to cast their vote, how can you be against recommendations that would increase the number of citizens that actually vote? It isn’t just columnists and pundits who are suggesting that voting hours should be cut, it is being done by state legislatures and governors. Just one example is the recent reduction of polling stations in a heavy minority area in Florida by the Manatee County Supervisors. Led by the Supervisor of Elections, Michael Bennett, and despite heavy public comments at the Board’s meeting against the measure, the Board of Supervisors claimed it was a money-saving move and not related to whom they would be impacting with this allegedly immoral action.
“On a party-line vote, a Florida county’s Republican majority Board of County Commissioners voted Tuesday to eliminate almost one-third of Manatee County’s voting sites. The board accepted a proposal by Supervisor of Elections Mike Bennett (R) by a 6-1 vote to trim the number of precincts, despite unanimous public testimony against the move — and complaints by the lone Democratic Commissioner that it would eliminate half of the polling places in his heavily minority District 2.
Bennett, in his first term as elections supervisor, proposed reducing the number of Manatee County precincts from 99 to 69. Citing decreased Election Day turnout, as more voters switch to in-person early voting and vote-by-mail options, he told the commissioners that the move would save money and allow the county to offer more early voting sites in the future.
In the public comment section of the meeting, all ten speeches strongly opposed the move. Representatives of the local NAACP and Southern Christian Leadership Council warned that the cuts would decrease voter turnout because voters would have to travel further to a polling place, especially among the elderly and people without cars, and noted that the cuts disproportionately affected minority-heavy precincts. Bennett dismissed these concerns, noting that because District 2 had received “preferential treatment in the past,” even with the changes, his district will have the smallest number of voters per precinct. “It was overbalanced before, it’s overbalanced now.” Bennett also repeatedly noted that he had discussed the move with civil rights groups and both the Republican and “Democrat” Parties.” Think Progress
Our friends on the Right seem to have differing reasons for cutting the ability to vote early and in many case, making it more difficult to vote on Election day. As noted above, some conservatives claim that early voters are untrustworthy and not informed enough on the issues.
“All of these conservative commentators agree that everyone should vote on Election Day to promote “deliberation” or to prevent “stubborn” voters from making “uninformed” or emotional decisions “prematurely.” In short, they argue that we cannot trust the people to decide for themselves when they have enough information to vote.
The claim is empirically false. As Doug Chapin explains: ‘ “This argument, which was popular a decade ago, is undercut by research by Paul Gronke and others showing that early voters are not only more partisan but less undecided, meaning that they have no interest in ‘taking in the full back and forth of the campaign.’ It also flies in the face of voters, well, voting with their feet by choosing to cast ballots outside of the traditional polling place.” ‘ Slate
So, if the proffered reason to cut early voting is not based on facts, could the real reason be…Politics? Could the real reason why minority precincts in Florida are having their voting locations cut at a disparately larger degree then white districts also be based on Politics? Some conservative pundits think that we should be making it harder to vote and indeed, as we have seen above, some legislatures and county boards are taking that view to heart. Do you agree?
Indeed, recently one Billionaire venture capitalist suggested that people who do not pay taxes should not be able to vote and that the wealthy should get more votes than the poor and middle class. As suggested in the linked article, the wealthy already get a larger “vote” than the rest of us because they can purchase the attention of legislators through the use of secret PACs and cash bundling. I guess I should be happy that we are allowed to vote at all. I wonder when the first “Corporations can vote too” legislation will be introduced and passed? Or has it already been introduced?
Should voting be restricted or increased? If money is speech, shouldn’t voting be considered the ultimate speech on who citizens want as their representatives? Is it time for a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to vote and outlawing any restrictions in that right? Is it just coincidence that the reduction in voting precincts happens disproportionately in minority areas? What do you think?
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY LAWRENCE E. RAFFERTY
“The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.”
Who is the judge of who is “informed” enough? During a debate with conservative woman I brought up Personood Laws. She had never heard of any such thing. A woman, a white voting woman. However I would not be in favor of her rights to vote being tampered with.
Annie wrote: “Who is the judge of who is “informed” enough?”
There are various ways to do this, but one method in regards to being informed enough is to have people fill in the name of their candidate for a particular office rather than have a multiple choice selection. Another is to ask basic civic questions about the government office being voted upon that might cause their vote to count more heavily than those who cannot answer them.
I’m not for taking away anyone’s vote. Everyone is being governed by the laws and therefore ought to have a say in government. I just favor those who have taken time to become more informed to have a bigger say in government. Right now, beyond voting, your only other way to have a bigger say is to run for office or become a journalist.
“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal”
Emma Goldman
Darren,
I like the Washington State model, but how do we get states like Florida and others to allow any system that attempts to get full participation? Yet alone get it accepted on a national level.
rafflaw wrote: “Darren, I like the Washington State model, but how do we get states like Florida and others to allow any system that attempts to get full participation? Yet alone get it accepted on a national level.”
Florida already allows voting by mail for everyone. It just doesn’t force everyone to do it. Every election here in Florida, I am mailed a ballot that I fill in and mail back.
Bill Moyers new form of voting:
Why Democracy Fails – https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en&fromgroups#!topic/harrietrobbins/UU38TwCmrjQ
It is one of the most difficult conclusions I ever came to.
Veronica, you are so right, there will come a time when critical mass will be hit and those who so far are being quiet will roar. It’s not only minorities, it’s women who are being marginalized and whose rights are being trampled on. It’s minorities and women who are going to be the deciding factor in Presidential races. State wide with the gerrymandering, it will be more difficult, but I think can be overcome by masses and masses of voters.
davidm2575
I think voting is too open and should be restricted more. Something is wrong when the vote of an educated and intelligent man like Jonathan Turley is canceled out by the vote of an uneducated and disinterested loser on the street who is offered a hamburger to come vote. If democracy is going to have any true meaning, we need a system of weighted votes.
================
Very big of you.
So, would you settle for .25 of a vote for yourself?
Dredd wrote: “So, would you settle for .25 of a vote for yourself?”
Of course. Even less. Someone as well informed as Jonathan Turley should probably get 5 votes to my 1 vote.
We have heard the republican motive for these changes – the guy in PA said it loud and clear – more votes FOR Romney ! We all heard him say it – do the Repubs really think the country is blind to what they are doing – there is no debate on this as far as I am concerned, their views on everything spell out loud and clear that they have no respect for anyone who is not on their side, you have to be the conservative type with the right attitude, clothes, family, friends, church etc etc… We all know who these small minded characters are – some of them are the loudest ‘Christians’ on the block, they only want a society with people who are exactly like themselves because anyone else or any other ideas represent a big threat to them. They are scared by that ! They do not think for themselves, only ‘fit in’ to what they see as ‘normal’. The biggest laugh is that they are brainwashed by the corporate controller class to think they are actually part of that world – if most of these little conservatives who follow like sheep knew what their 1% ‘bosses’ actually thought of them they would be broken hearted !!! You are totally expendable you fools !!!
Sorry if my disgust is coming thru loud and clear –
I think this country is reverting backwards about 60 years in the past 5
ever since Obama managed to get past their shenanigans and get voted in ! Oh my God, how did that happen !! Ok America if you really WANT to alienate those who WILL be the majority in a few years, go right ahead and do this nonsense, you are setting yourselves up for a very nasty fight later.
I am in wonderment at the tolerance of the non-wasp population of this country – but it will not last if you persist with this.
These voter repression efforts are an insult to the core of the Constitution.
One way we addressed the problems in Washingotn State is that all voting happens via mail in ballot. It eliminates any bottlenecks in polling locations, the question on producing positive ID in order to vote, and many other issues such as homebound voters. We still have an absentee ballot procedure as well. It seems to work well.
voting by mail from the comfort of your house is the easiest way to vote.
In Ohio every registered voter has the opportunity to vote this way.
Thumbs up, LDL. Correlating one vote cancelling out another is incorrect on its face. The answer is not about determining who is “worthy” of voting. Registered is registered. The answer is to make sure MORE people are registered and that MORE people actually get to the polls. And discouraging people to vote by whichever means one chooses to do so is what will ultimately destroy, not the GOP or the Democratic Party, but our democracy as a whole. There is no democracy unless the entire electorate has the means and ability to vote.
joelbwriter wrote: “There is no democracy unless the entire electorate has the means and ability to vote.”
What destroys democracy even more than this is when people go into the voting booth and have no idea who the people are on the ballot and just vote because that is their “civic duty.” The ignorant vote is worse for a democracy than no vote at all, because often the ignorant vote cancels out an informed vote.
Representative Democracy is no democracy at all. Those who are elected, no matter what their personal preference, must please their largest campaign donors or the donors will switch to another candidate at the next election. The only true democracy is govt by Sortition (lottery) and when that was put in place in ancient Athens, those who were selected, quickly changed the rules so that their sons and cronies could inherit positions of power.
Voter Identification is not too much to ask. I would respectfully suggest that obtaining the proper identification and doing what is necessary to cast your individual vote is simple personal responsibility. Those who already take “personal responsibility” for their lives, and the consequences of their actions and decisions, will cast their vote. Those who do not, won’t. We need to stop this “poor Americans are victims” mentality. They have a civic responsibility once a year, once every two, once every four years ? Yet, they can’t figure this out ? I don’t buy it. Maybe the focus and dollars spent should be done so toward educating uneducated and low income as to the cause, effect, and individual responsibility of casting a vote.
Who knows, all these attempts at voter suppression may backfire on the Republicans, perhaps it will bring out more minority voters than ever before. What better way inspire and activate voters, than to make it so very obvious that there are people out there who condsider certain people unworthy of casting a vote? I’ve even heard some conservatives say that only homeowners should be allowed to vote. I predict the more they try to exclude the minority vote the bigger the turnout. What could be a better visual than lines and
Iines of Americans waiting for hours to engage in their constitutional right to vote?
You are assuming (making as ass out of you and me) that voting counts. It might if we still had a democracy. I voted in every election from 1964 through 2006, every time cringing for voting for the lesser of 2 evils. Finally, in 2008 I had had enough. Prior to the election, McCain and Obama and my 3 representatives voted to bail out the banks. That was it! Nobody who runs for office represents me so don’t give me that BS that voting matters, i.e., tell me the difference between Bush and Obama? The multinational banks and international corporations (recognize fascism?) have bought our government, all 3 branches and it will get much worse before it becomes better.
We need to do more in schools and in homes where children are home-schooled and as a nation to help people learn civics and the issues. People are uninformed bec. news is not being read or watched and when TV news is on, it focuses not on important issues but which celebrity has been caught at something dumb. As a child of the ’50s, politics was discussed at the dinner table. In school, I took history and social studies and civics and learned. My grade school was a polling place and we were all shown how to use the (wonderful) old voting machines behind the magical curtains.
We can do more to inform voters and ensure voting. The taking away of voting rights is one of _the_ most harmful things our country is doing, state by state, and at the level of SCOTUS. I saw that “The Nation” launched “Project45” (http://www.thenation.com/article/178256/why-now-time-reform-how-we-elect-president) which is not a solution — it is action and it is about thoughtful consideration about one aspect of what we do. We can make this better. I’m convinced .. or still idealistic and hopeful.
david —-
R U 4 Real?
Sheesssshhh….
Voter suppression by any other name is still the same. We already have the popular and electoral for the biggie. Who would get to decide who is worthy enough to have a vote – You? A Mensa test?
Forget about having an “integrity” test….
Sheessshhh…
Concur Vincent
It is a quest of the dinosaur. They know they are on the way out and that (one day in the future) – there simply will be left 1 versus left 2 – in future elections.
Unless they do their gerrymandering, vote rigging and booth blocking –
They Are Extinct!
On the other hand is the GOP going the way of the Edsel? By trying to stifle voting access is it not in effect dooming itself?
Vincent Gormley wrote: “By trying to stifle voting access is it not in effect dooming itself?”
I’m a Republican. I don’t know any Republican whose motivation is to stifle voting access. What we want is fair and informed voting by everyone qualified to vote. We want voting from people interested enough to know what they are voting for.
I think voting is too open and should be restricted more. Something is wrong when the vote of an educated and intelligent man like Jonathan Turley is canceled out by the vote of an uneducated and disinterested loser on the street who is offered a hamburger to come vote. If democracy is going to have any true meaning, we need a system of weighted votes.