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.”
David wants to go back to poll tests. And Annie of course, David wants to have people decide for us who is “informed” just as he wants to decide who is a “virtuous woman”
Hubert, It has been repeatedly shown, and you can google it, I won’t do the research to get the clicks for you, that voter fraud is a fallacy. (Someone above commented aout Pa where the reps trying to pass the ID law photo for voting said it will help us get a Romney win> Yep, that’s voter fraud alright, from the GOP trying to change the rules because they seem to get it that they have alienated more and more voters.
Photo ID is nice except when people cannot get proof of their birth, city halls burned down, gone, women whose married names don’t match the voter roll name etc.
There has always been voter fraud, or fraud by those counting the votes, they later being probably in major election.
http://www.examiner.com/article/florida-campaign-workers-drop-like-flies-amid-voter-fraud-charges
http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-when-1099-felons-vote-in-race-won-by-312-ballots/article/2504163
If they prosecuted it, they would be putting people in jail every election cycle.
There’s about 15 + book on voter fraud on Amazon.
The first time a read a book on it, it was written by two brothers, from Broward County Florida who had video recorded workers punching holes in ballot cards. I went and even confirmed the information with their attorney Roy Black. The caught voter fraud 3 times, two local and one national. They even sued the Republican National Committee. You can imagine how that worked out for them.
Don’t be naïve.
They could care less how you vote, they, the ruling oligarchs will determine the winners no matter what. Actually they will pay others to do it for them.
leejcaroll wrote: “Hubert, It has been repeatedly shown, and you can google it, I won’t do the research to get the clicks for you, that voter fraud is a fallacy.”
Florida only has 30,000 dead people registered to vote. I guess that’s not too bad.
I guess you think we should not pay attention to cases like the following?
“In 2012, Henry won a city commission seat for zone five and was in office when he was charged and arrested for voter fraud after one of his workers fraudulently requested absentee ballots. Henry was suspended from office by then-Governor Charlie Christ. Henry resigned his seat shortly thereafter.
http://mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2012/9/2/derrick_henry_campai.html
And 2.75 million people are registered to vote in more than one state. Is that okay with you too?
http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=85899370677
Well David there you go again. They did not vote, therefore it is not voter fraud, it is errant registration, the PEW click you gave clearly makes that point despite your attempt to distort the report. this is an issue with registration and the rolls not being updated/ cleaned out.
leejcaroll wrote: “Well David there you go again. They did not vote, therefore it is not voter fraud, it is errant registration, the PEW click you gave clearly makes that point despite your attempt to distort the report. this is an issue with registration and the rolls not being updated/ cleaned out.”
I never said it was voter fraud, nor did I distort anything. I simply pointed out registrations of dead people and registrations of living people in multiple states. The inference is that these are holes in our voting system where voting fraud could take place. If you can’t see that logical connection, then you are living in denial about the potential for voter fraud. I also provided in the same post a case of someone who clearly was charged with voter fraud, which illustrates that it does indeed happen. I noticed that you were mysteriously silent about that.
I watched a video last year about a guy who was able to receive a ballot to vote as Eric Holder. The man was white and it was very easy for him to receive a ballot to vote as if he was Eric Holder. He made up an excuse not to vote and left, but it certainly illustrates that the potential for voter fraud exists.
For me, the potential for fraud is enough to point out a problem. I think that when voter fraud actually happens, it would be very difficult to identify and prove.
David actually, said, “I think voting is too open and should be restricted more. ”
All are equal under the law, David, not just those you like. Your ideas are like cancer to civil society.
davidm2575
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.
====================
That is equanimous of you and fair minded.
However, it might cause even more strain on our vote counting.
And would be discriminatory.
Which I do not think Professor Turley would support.
The problem with voting these days…
1. Voter fraud. There were several cases of voter fraud in Obama’s “elections”. Of course no one would dare challenge the voter fraud because they would be labeled a “racist”.
2. Measures to prevent voter fraud, such as requiring a valid form of ID are forbidden because it would inevitably cut down on voter fraud, thereby dramatically reducing changes of a democrat winning an election.
3. Votes on items such as a ban on homosexual marriage are almost always overturned by an activist judge, legislating from the bench.
So yes, I guess you could say that voting is on the way out. Too much corruption and remedies to fix it are frowned upon.
Thanks Mike . I think you are right about the elimination of direct voting for Senators.
Larry:
Your story got me so annoyed, I forgot to thank you for taking on the topic. By the way, I believe the move to eliminate the direct election of senators flows from the same mindset.
I have my doubts about a Supervisor of Elections who doesn’t know the proper name of the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, we all know what Mike Bennett is attempting to do. In a state in which the Republican Party is able to act with impunity, it will do so.
All arguments premised upon an expressed desire that only informed, knowledgeable persons vote are insulting and paternalistic. The right to vote includes the right to determine the sufficiency of the available information necessary to make a decision.
There are pestilential forces at large in this country who believe that voting is a privilege that ought to be reserved to the better sort of people, by which they mean persons of financial substance, the current measure of virtue in our civic religion. This belief is yet another product of the increasing fear among the increasingly wealthy that the poor will seize their assets through the voting booth. Virtually every Republican domestic policy position reflects that fear. Given the stark realities of demographic trends, the only way to prevent political power from accruing to the undeserving is by adopting measures to stifle their ability to sit at the political dinner table.
When laws can be adopted that take away the rights and property of people, there will always be a push to do so by some group or another. Thinking that poor people are not going to vote for greater benefits, and tax those wealthier than they, is one of the primary problems with democracy. And conversely, the wealthy voting for greater benefits from the public treasury to the exclusion of the poor. Democracy without the protection of individual rights is merely a formal legalization of theft and coercion that the wealthy generally win.
If individual rights and property are protected, than governments ability to tax is thwarted, negating political power. However, where is the line, because it appears for 240 years of our democratic Republic, the line always favors the usurpation of individual rights to the benefit of the political system and the wealthy that control it. Whether it’s the BAR enacting UPL, or Standard Oil being broken up by the government in collusion with it’s “competitors”, something that is not taught in the majority of text books. Go figure, government being used to stifle competition under the guise of protecting it. If inferior companies cannot compete, let’s break up the most competitive company, as Standard Oil was. Of course higher prices and lower wages occurred after the breakup. As noted the wealthy will even prey on one another.
The wealthy are going to have greater influence on the system because of the pure monetary paybacks to the system they can offer. The poor at best can vote for the lesser of two evils on the ballot. In head to head competition, the wealthy will always win the political game, unless we protect individual rights. This conclusion is what really brought me to libertarianism as it is the only ideology that truly attempts to protect individual rights; the others being highly hypocritical at different ends of the spectrum.
I have yet to ever hear anyone provide a logical argument that tells us where in the sand the line between the protection of individual rights and what limitations of government should or should not be placed on the political system. Some say the only real function of government should be to protect individual rights. But government must usurp the individual rights of somebody in order to get the money to do anything.
This is the proverbial catch 22 in my opinion. I have finally come to the conclusion, that they only way to cure free market problems, is by free market solutions and why I keep writing about a Voluntary Association of Jurists. Everyone has the ability to support the Jurist of their choice and the number of jurists is only limited to the number of people who want to participate.
Thanks for the links Darren and AY. Darren, the Washington process is a god one.
Dear Gus, Voting and democracy may be an imperfect system but I wonder if most of us would fair better under a despot or a tyrant or even a benign dictator. Excuse me but I will vote for voting.
Now let’s talk about forcing our politicians to take a stand for voting, against poll taxes either direct or indirect, procedural other rules that are crafted to discourage voting by minorities, women, the poor and most importantly as many Republicans are brazen enough to admit, DEMOCRATS. Let’s keep working to open the grip of corporations on our congress, the White House and our state houses and end the influence of ALEC and Lobbyists. It is time for voters to insist that they are people but that no matter what the Supreme Corporate Court says corporations are NOT!
Long live the American Voter!
There’s a war going on between the supporters of democracy and its detractors. Thanks for the update from the front, Larry.
Great work and insights as always.
Mespo wrote: “There’s a war going on between the supporters of democracy and its detractors.”
Yes, there is that war, and there are very logical reasons for why democracy is a bad illusion.
The quote below is from:
Universal History: from the Creation of the World to the beginning of the Eighteenth Century.
by Alexander Fraser Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee, Senator of the College of Justice, and Lord Commissioner of Judiciary in Scotland, and formerly Professor of Civil History, and Greek and Roman Antiquities in the University of Edinburgh. Published 1860.
“The people flatter themselves that they have the sovereign
power. These are, in fact, words without meaning. It is
true they elect their governors ; but how are these elections
brought about? In every instance of election by the mass of a
people — through the influence of those governors themselves, and
by means the most opposite to a free and disinterested choice, by
the basest corruption and bribery. But these governors once
elected, where is the boasted freedom of the people? They must
submit to their rule and control, with the same abandonment of
their natural liberty, the freedom of their will, and the command
of their actions, as if they were under the rule of a monarch. But
these governors, it is said, are, in a republic, chosen from the
people itself, and therefore will respect its interests; they are not
one but many, and the will of each will have a control from that
of his fellows. That they are chosen from the people affords no
pledge that they will either be wiser men, or less influenced by
selfish ambition, or the passion of tyrannizing; all experience goes
to prove the contrary, and that the will of the many is in truth a
mere chimera, and ultimately resolves into the will of one, we
have already shown.”
One only needs to look at modern day Iraq and Afghanistan to understand the limitations of democracy. It might do us some good to punch holes in this sacred cow of the Democratic party.
Voting should be open and equal access to all…. I’ve read a few articles about restricting it to protect propertied and moneyed folks…. Which is as crazy as it was 50 years ago… But holder said something this last week that made sense…..http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/politics/holder-urges-states-to-repeal-bans-on-voting-by-felons.html?_r=0
Larry:
I really don’t know where to begin with some of these states that have voter disenfranchisement practices. One would think federal legislation would be the answer but given some of these politicians even this route looks bleak. Maybe the voters themselves need some kind of initiative process if it is available in those states.
There is another issue that I forgot to mention with Washington’s voting laws.
Upon registering to vote, the election officials mail out a voter ID card which is included in the confirmation paperwork. It is a cardstock card that is perforated to the notice. While our state does have universal mail in ballots it is useful for establishing residency, changing districts, and for situations where the voter needed it. It was useful prior to the mail in times in that it provided a bona-fide valid identification for voting purposes if the person did not possess an official state or federal identification card.
The state does make accomodations as well as it reasonably can. For example if a voter is hospitalized, either unexpectedly or for some time, he / she may have the hospital fax a request for an absentee ballot up to and including election day and election officials will facilitate the person voting.
Voter disenfranchisement is a crime. Election officials are prohibited from interfering with or preventing the registration or voting of any eligible voter. Some violations by election officials and those attempting to duplicate or illegally vote on another’s behalf are felonies.
Here is a link to the criminal section of the law
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=29A.84
Voting is a concept that has many promoters. Voting does not lead to liberty and a productive life. It is instead *mob rule* and throws a smokescreen over corrupt politicians. #VotingIsMobRule
Joe Wilson,
Please show us the evidence of your claim that there is a voter fraud problem in this country. Show us the indictments or the many convictions that must be on the recent books according to your statement.
We want voting from people interested enough to know what they are voting for
David, I live in a mainly Republican area, and I have to say that most of them are not qualified by your measure. In fact, I had an F/O who is GOP and we were talking about the 2000 election, and he opined that he had to vote GOP because he could not vote for a man who disrespected the Oval office that he got a blow job in it. My response was, GEE I did not know Al Gore got a hummer too! That genius had a four year degree from Liberty University too! His ability as a pilot was as good as his judgment in politics.
The counter argument is there are those that vote many times for the same candidate at the same election because of lax voter verification. How is it one needs a valid ID to drive, board a plane, receive welfare and for many other federally sanctioned activities but not to vote.
David,
The Florida vote by mail is for absentee ballots and you have to request that a ballot be sent to you. The Washington State system sends the ballot to everyone who is registered.
rafflaw wrote: “The Florida vote by mail is for absentee ballots and you have to request that a ballot be sent to you. The Washington State system sends the ballot to everyone who is registered.”
No, I register one time, and forever after that, the ballot is sent to me in the mail. I have been told that I still have the option to go to the voting booth, or I can return the ballot by mail. I don’t know what they would do to me if I did both.
“…..some conservatives claim that early voters are untrustworthy and not informed enough on the issues.” How ridiculous.
I’ve voted by mail for so long that I can’t remember the last time I was in a voting booth—maybe in excessive of three decades and during that time I’ve lived in California and now Montana. I originally had to register to vote in each State by showing photo ID and proof of citizenship. But seriously , this is so simple and on every election my wife and I get ballots and then we discuss the issues and potential office holders.
“Untrustworthy and not informed……those monikers can successfully be applied to dozens of Congressional Politicians, and those that spring to mind all end with (R).
What scares Corporatists more than anything? That Americans still have one vote for one person. There are many many more working class Americans than Corporatists.
Veronica, I feel your disgust. The right is fearful of more people casting a ballot, since they are aware that those they keep away form the ballot box are generally democrat voters.
Here’s another GOP whine about early voting:
“The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama’s ground game. The Democrats carried most states that allow many days of early voting, and Obama’s national field director admitted, shortly before last year’s election, that ‘early voting is giving us a solid lead in the battleground states that will decide this election.’
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/28/republicans-admit-voter-id-laws-are-aimed-at-democratic-voters.html
The evidence is overwhelming that republicans want fewer potential democrats to vote:
A research study from two University of Massachusetts Boston professors confirmed what the Black community has known for years: voter-suppression laws are partisan measures that disproportionately target them.
In a study titled, “Jim Crow 2.0? Why States Consider and Adopt Restrictive Voter Access Policies,” Keith G. Bentele and Erin E. O’Brien found many predominant factors like race, age, citizenship, political party and class play an influential role in introducing restrictive voting laws to a state.
Bottom line for GOP is if you can’t beat them with vote totals, make sure they can’t vote!