Voting reform: ain’t gonna happen
After 2000, there were many calls for voting reform. Same in 2004, and now again. Voting fraud—or even the perception of it—can’t help but undermine trust in the legitimacy of the government, and that’s not good. So one would think that fixing the problems would have bipartisan approval.
One of the main arguments, and the focus for at least some of the rage, against George Bush was the voting turmoil in 2000. Bush was not responsible for Florida and the butterfly ballot, but he was the beneficiary and it served to channel anger against him and to amplify it, right at the outset. The same is true of Acorn shenanigans in the election of 2008 as they relate to Obama, and his previous connections to Acorn only make the perception worse.
This sort of doubt directed at a President-elect does not bode well for the institution of the Presidency itself, nor for the country. So why wouldn’t both parties do all they could to change it?
“Dream on, neo” you say. And you would be correct. Each party wishes to maximize the number and/or proportion of its own voters, for obvious reasons. For Republicans, this means making rules tougher (or at least keeping them traditionally tough) about who is allowed to vote. No motor voter. Definitely no aliens being able to present a utility bill on voting day. Forget about felons. I happen to agree with these rules, even in the abstract. I think that voting should be restricted to citizens, for example—I’m funny that way. And I am fairly certain I felt that way even back in my liberal Democrat days.
However, Democrats have a strong interest in allowing such people to vote, because they tend to vote Democratic. It’s really not rocket science. As the party encourages expansion of voting rights and winks at fraud that aims to include these voters, and solidifies its power as a result, why would that party ever vote to restrict the practice? And if you think Republicans are needlessly or even nastily or fraudulently restrictive, you would know the same is true of their policies.
It is sad but true that few politicians who are favored by certain voting policies would slit their own throats and vote against them, merely for reasons of justice or fairness or ethics. This is why, once this begins, it is unlikely to end—at least, as long as that party continues to be in power. And that party is more likely to stay in power as long as the voting policies that favor it are in place. It is a vicious cycle, or a wonderful cycle—depending on your point of view, and your party.
[ADDENDUM: Here, by the way, is how India handles potential problems. Sounds like a great system. But I doubt it will happen here, not only because of special interests, but because it is too centralized.]
The tragedy and ultimate end result of politicians who believe that gaining power trumps EVERYTHING else, will be the downfall of our country into totalitarianism. I actually think this is one of the big crises of our times. More of a threat to us than Fanny Mae, or Al Quida.
If the concept of one-citizen, one vote, becomes a complete sham – then the public will eventually lose all trust in the electoral system itself and the inherent “fairness” of election outcomes. Where does that ultimately lead us?
An ethical and honest person, whether on the left or on the right, would be in favor of strict photo-ID requirements and ethical and consistent methods of supervising elections, counting ballots, etc.
As an example, as a conservative, sure I don’t want tons of lower income democrats from the inner cities, shipped to various polling stations to vote twice. But here’s the difference: I also am just as opposed to some Republican doing the same thing – but instead with busloads of country hillbillies. (Sorry to use stereotypes on both sides to make my point – I’m at work and in a hurry – I mean no offense).
The argument that a photo ID requirement can “deprive” a poor person (whether inner city ghetto or white trailer park) his right to vote is a bad faith, disengenous argument which can only be made by someone who just WANTS THE POWER now, and does not give a shit about the long term destruction of our system. You need a photo ID to buy a six pack of beer. You need a photo ID to present with your charge card or check book at a grocery store. You need a photo ID to do just about any transaction in this society. Impede voters like it is some sort of Jim Crow poll tax – my ass. If it is the $5.00 bucks (oh boo hoo, skip buying ONE pack of cigarettes this week) that is the “deterrent” to obtaining a photo ID…..hell, add the cost of funding those to the welfare budget – I don’t care.
I’d just like to see elections won and lost….FAIRLY.
Or ulitimatgely we are all lost. And thirty years from now some Despot will be getting 100% of the vote like Saddam used to get. And we’ll be saying…how did it get to this?
India apparently handles voter problems by linking to Althouse. Reading Althouse is creatively penal.
and is definitely not penile.
The side in power currently uses that and political terrorism to get power… if they cleaned up the voting thing, they would lose and lose and lose.
ergo, they will not clean it up.
I have been saying for years now that if the Left ever gets back into power, they will make it permanent. They will take steps to ensure that no conservative can ever again win an election at the national level.
I guess now we’ll get to see if I was right.
If so, then what is our recourse?
“One of the main arguments…against George Bush was the voting turmoil in 2000. Bush was not responsible for Florida and the butterfly ballot…. The same is true of Acorn shenanigans in the election of 2008 as they relate to Obama, and his previous connections to Acorn only make the perception worse.”
neo- Your above statement seems to imply equality in the relative role of the 2000 vote brouhaha in FL and the 2008 A.C.O.R.N. “problems” relating to George Bush and Barack Obama, respectively.
On the one hand, there was no direct connection between Bush, his campaign, or any Republican with regard to the Palm Beach County ballots. In point of fact, the so-called irony of the “butterfly” ballot fiasco was that it was wholly designed and approved for use by Democrats who happened to be in charge of this at the time (and I don’t and never did believe there was EVER any intention of malfeasance on their part; they were just doing their jobs). I was living in Miami at the time, and believe me, we had no choice but to listen to every iota of every argument every day.
On the other hand, Barack Obama was, by his own admission a community organizer and activist, and it was well-known that he personally taught A.C.O.R.N. leaders. In fact, it was basically his entire resume other than his authorship of his 2 books, seeing that he chose to outright lie about his executive experience when he worked with Ayres on the Annenberg Challenge Board, among others. No matter how many others Obama ultimately “threw under the bus” when his ties to them posed greater liability than advantage, and no matter how outrageous and obvious the many A.C.O.R.N. violations became, that was the one group he refused to disavow. It is important to note that the A.C.O.R.N. problems were not simply allegations. There were actual employees who publicly admitted to violations (and some who said that said violations were so endemic to their operations that there was no way to even discover the extent); there were also people who publicly admitted to being coaxed by A.C.O.R.N. to register dozens and dozens of times. And that is just what we managed to learn about. Considering the virtual sifting of news related to Obama by the MSM, (i.e. airing only positive pieces and burying any controversies), we’ll never know the extent of A.C.O.R.N.’s effect on the election.
(And has anyone heard a word about those federal investigations in at least 12-14 battleground states? Doubt anyone will)
P.S. And then there was the $800,000+ of Obama campaign funds that were paid to one of the organizations under the A.C.O.R.N. umbrella of orgs., directly hiring their members to canvass for him and sign up voters.
The Clintons are back, as we all know. Look at the appointees. Hillary will run in 2012 from her springboard position of secretary of state. We all knew SOME kind of deal was made for her to as quickly and quietly back away as she did, and slip into a dark corner. Let’s face it, that ISN’T the Hillary we all know. Obama is expendable to the party, yet too big to fail as we’ve all heard – at the same time.
Whichever way the wind blows, they’re covered with him as the scapegoat or hero. And unless you are a far left democrat, you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
The election is over, but we are still hearing nothing but bad things (debunked things still perpetrated as fact, even) about Palin in the MSM, which is what will stick in people’s minds as it slowly dies down and fizzles away – once the MSM is satisfied their work is done.
It’ll be fun. As president, he can’t vote “present”.