| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| GOP Assault on Democracy - Legitimate Voters |
| 2012-08-24 |
| I started to post the WaPos hand-wringing about this subject, but found this Last week, Judge Robert Simpson of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania refused to halt a discriminatory new state law requiring voters to show photo identification. It was the judicial equivalent of giving democracy the bird. The American Eagle bird? Since you're significantly more likely to be struck by lightning than encounter an actual case of voter fraud, The difference being, lightning leaves a mark. the law is really just a solution in search of a problem. Or, rather, a political party in search of a vote to suppress. The ruling was rendered only more offensive by its flippant dismissal of the burden that obtaining a photo ID places on people who are young, poor, minority, elderly or some combination of these (read: Or have an ID at high school? The Pennsylvania debacle is just the latest evidence of what Robert Reich has called our shrinking democracy. He served in the administrations of Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and was Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997. GOP legislators in 34 states have proposed voting rights restrictions that would slash the number of eligible voters this election. No, sweetheart, the plan is to reduce the number of ILLELIGIBLE voters. And it's not just that if Republicans have their way, fewer people will be allowed to vote. If you follow the money in this campaign -- and there's plenty to follow -- it becomes clear that fewer of the votes cast will matter because of the effects of an antiquated Electoral College and the increasing dominance of high-dollar donors. Didn't I just read that some of the biggest dononrs are media companies, giving 90% to the Donks? How did we get here? It starts at the ballot box. When he signed the Voting Rights Act 47 years ago, President Johnson called the right to vote "the basic right without which all others are meaningless." Apparently Johnson never met Judge Simpson. The Pennsylvania law's opponents estimate that it could disenfranchise 9 percent of the state's voters, and a recent study showed the measure would disproportionately affect African Americans and Latinos. A report by the Brennan Center for Justice estimates that as many as 5 million Americans will be kept from voting because of similar laws around the country. Meanwhile, attacks on the Voting Rights Act are due to have their day in front of a sympathetic (not to the voters) Supreme Court in the next term. But decimating voter rolls is only the most visible instance of our shrinking democracy. She's terrified Bambi will lose. But it didn't petrify her pen. In the 2008 election, nearly twenty states were in play. Today, thanks to the Electoral College, the map of states that "matter" in the presidential campaign has shrunk to six or seven. According to statistician Nate Silver, this means there's now a 34 percent chance that Ohio alone will decide the election. And once the campaigns have zeroed in on the handful of states that interest them, they focus in even more -- on the six percent of Americans who are still undecided. Unless you live in one of these swing states or share a media market with one, you could be forgiven for thinking there was no presidential campaign going on at all. Mrs. Bobby just returned from Texas, where there is no campaigning, to Virgina, where both candidate bombard the airwaves with relentless, negative ads. She preferred Texas. And while the number of meaningful votes shrinks, so does the number of meaningful voices. Funny, I think they all count, even mine in 2008. The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision means that our political system now takes its cues not from the governed, but from the anonymous generosity of the most partisan of the 1 percent. And even when the donations aren't anonymous, the picture is ugly: In July, both President Obama and Mitt Romney spent more time with high-rolling donors than they did in public events with voters. Few people spending more money to influence fewer voters in fewer states: That's what shrinking democracy looks like. The only thing growing is the price tag. This is more than an election-year issue -- it's an existential crisis. Fortunately, it is also a problem we know how to solve. Even better, the solutions are non-partisan. The outlines of a stimulus package for our democracy might start with universal voter registration, guaranteeing that every eligible American can get access to a ballot, along with a constitutional amendment protecting the right to vote. EXCUSE ME? All this whiny tripe to get to a recommendation we all agree on? Eligible voters should get to vote. That's what the evil Trunks are trying to do. So we don't need a constitutional amendment, we just need you to wise up. Showing her progressive colors now, she wants to get away from that tired, old, out-of-date plan designed a zillion years ago. We could finally replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote, in the spirit of the To expand democracy, we need to shrink the amount of anonymous, corporate money that goes to campaigns and candidates. Corporations are citizens. They also employ workers, who are citizens. They have rights, too. New York City's innovative public funding system, which generously matches citizen contributions, is a model for how to inject public, low-dollar donations into the political system. We must fight to transform the public air waves into a "democracy commons," where all candidates and parties receive free air time. And we need to intensify the national grass-roots push for a constitutional amendment to remedy the Orwellian conceit that "money equals speech" and "corporations are people." Americans have fought and died for the right to govern themselves in an inclusive democracy. Indeed, it is the expansion of the vote -- to African Americans, women, the young -- that is the hallmark of our democratic experiment. It's time to choose whether we're going to move closer to the promise of our founding ideals, And I'm for it. I don't think you are, however. And like immigrants, you chose to ignore the essentail adjective - illegal - all the better to tar and feather your conservative enemies. That makes you an enemy of democracry in my book. |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #16 Since you're significantly more likely to be struck by lightning than encounter an actual case of voter fraud, So, Does this mean that 8,000 people in North Minneapolis were struck by lightening the day of the 2010 election? That's how many felons voted illegally. Did I mention that Al Franken was elected by a few hundred votes? So was Governor Dayton. Very simply voter fraud decided every statewide election in Minnesota in 2010. |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2012-08-24 23:03 |
| #15 Such a target rich environment! First off, she is begging the question by asserting that there is no reason for anti-fraud measures because there is no fraud. As for you're significantly more likely to be struck by lightning than encounter an actual case of voter fraud,, it may be true that *individually* you are unlikely to be struck by lighting or personally encounter voter fraud, that does not mean they never happen. Never mind that it is a meaningless comparison. According to Wikipedia (yeah, I know!), Lightning strikes 40–50 times a second worldwide, for a total of nearly 1.4 billion flashes per year. OK, that is the whole world. Let's just focus on the US with this interactive map. The actual count is going to vary over time, but when I looked at it, there were 2~3 dozen strikes showing. We don't have a map of illegal voting, but we do know that attempts to clean up the voter registration lists have met very strong resistance, and that just smells. If fraud is not a problem, why the fuss? |
| Posted by: SteveS 2012-08-24 19:13 |
| #14 3. And in Donk speak, lying about flooding the polls with unqualified voters and withholding the military vote in certain places is considered a legitimate campaign strategy. Moreover, you try to accuse your opponent of what you do. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2012-08-24 17:28 |
| #13 Katrina vanden Heuvel is so far to the left, WaPo offerred to buy out RedState.com just to balance things out. Katrina vanden Heuvel is so far to the left, they have to beg Barky to say something nice about profits, just to counterbalance things. Katrina vanden Heuvel is so far to the left even Shelly is saying: "STFU, Kate!" |
| Posted by: badanov 2012-08-24 16:46 |
| #12 LBJ did the same thing as a young man in Texas, back when there was a poll tax, driving around with an automobile trunk full of dollar bills. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2012-08-24 16:43 |
| #11 RJSchwartz has it. My position used to be: make the official gummint ID free. Absolutely free. Any citizen can have one. Free. Did I mention it's free? Then find all the ones without an ID and give them one. But now my position has 'evolved': come in and gitcher gummint ID and I'll give you a fresh fifty dollar bill. [Note to middle class: yes, you're paying for this, at least up front] Give away money (it's the Democratic way) with the ID, and you won't ever hear another complaint about people not having a photo ID to vote. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2012-08-24 16:24 |
| #10 How do you manage life without an ID? I can't get a parcel at the post office without one. |
| Posted by: European Conservative 2012-08-24 15:00 |
| #9 I notice there is no effort to find the folks without photo ids and help them get them so they can vote. Why would that be? How hard would it be to get a bus and bring a whole nursing home or housing unit to the DMV and get ID cards or whatever. Better to complain and keep the numbers mysterious I guess so you can continue baseless claims and hope to continue the mailin ballot fraud. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2012-08-24 14:53 |
| #8 "I think that the country could survive four more years of Obama. But I don't believe the country can survive in a country full of people that would reelect him." -Rush Limbaugh talking about the "moron vote" the other day on his show. Spot on. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2012-08-24 11:44 |
| #7 No, sweetheart, the plan is to reduce the number of There...that's better, or Illegitimate or ineligible or illegal or immigrant or... |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2012-08-24 11:09 |
| #6 > refused to halt a discriminatory new state law requiring voters to show photo identification. All cross border travel requirements are now discriminatory. They haven't thought this through. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2012-08-24 09:48 |
#5 That makes you an enemy of democracry in my book. Meh. I'm an enemy of democracy, too. I prefer the republic we're supposed to have. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2012-08-24 09:21 |
#4 we need to shrink the amount of anonymous, corporate money that goes to campaigns and candidates How do you shrink a value that's already zero? The only campaign or candidate accepting anonymous donations is Obama's -- unless you think there really is a US citizen named "Doodad Pro" living in Gaza. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2012-08-24 09:20 |
| #3 In the great lexicon of Donk Newspeak, 1- flooding the voter rolls with unqualified voters which undermines the value of local qualified voters is not considered suppressing the vote. 2- delaying the distribution of absentee voting materials to military personnel or directly challenging the absentee ballot of military personnel is not considered suppressing the vote. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2012-08-24 09:03 |
| #2 If you own shares of Southern Company of Duke Energy, you get a proxy statement in the mail and have a right to vote on directors and officers. No skin in the game, you don't vote but do receive the benefits of the power generated by successsful companies. Perhaps I look at voting a bit differently. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-08-24 08:39 |
| #1 According to the Donks, a legitimate voter has to be dead or phony to vote. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2012-08-24 08:02 |