Why has the GOP been so gung-ho about curbing early voting and extended voting hours? Is it to save costs and somehow avoid fraud? Nah. It's to reduce voting by Democrats. Don't believe me? Ask some folks who used to be in the GOP power structure, but now aren't.
Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason…
A new Florida law that contributed to long voter lines and caused some to abandon voting altogether was intentionally designed by Florida GOP staff and consultants to inhibit Democratic voters, former GOP officials and current GOP consultants have told The Palm Beach Post.
35 view(s)
The problem is, of course, that nobody who believes otherwise will be convinced by this. They will assert that this is retaliation by disgruntled ex-GOPers and that it's an insidious attack on them by the Left.
I mean, seriously, when did proof ever mean anything to these people?
Sure +Scott Randel the same as when confronted with counts of voter fraud, Democrats stick their fingers in their ears and tell us "this never happens."
Democrat=Good, Republican=Evil.
I have no doubt that both parties will do things to ensure that policies that aren't "good for them" are stymied.
I guess my question would be why is early voting only a "minority" thing? I mean, according to all racist Republicans, minorities don't work anyway, so why should it matter when they get to the polls?
[Swelp me I'm going to boot some G+ programmer in the butt, because it's gotten way to easy to mouse-track down to the bottom of the comment to click on submit and have the comment close, losing everything typed.]
Early voting is not, per se, a "minority" thing. It's a working poor (and unemployed poor) thing. It's a "I don't have a car to conveniently zip down to the polling place that day" thing. Or a "I don't get paid time off and I can't afford to take time off work to go down to the local polling place during working hours to on election day to vote" thing. Or a "I hold down two low-paying jobs to make rent, so even if the polls are open to 7 I can't make it in" thing. Or a "Yeah, I only have one job, but after that I need to be home watching the kids, not dragging them on a bus to the polling place" kind of thing.
Those aren't matters of (in)convenience that only affect minorities, of course, but the poor. That the poor are disproportionately made up of minorities is the association there. And that they tend to vote Democratic is where the partisanship comes in.
The Dems are thus incented, from a partisan perspective, to make voting for these blocs as easy as possible. And the GOP are thus incented, from a partisan perspective, to make voting for these blocs as difficult as possible.
The difference is that, to my mind, increasing voter turnout is, in and of itself, regardless of party, a civic virtue and a good thing for our nation. Thus, in this particular case, whether by coincidence or principle, the Dems are on the side of the angels.
As to the other, anyone who makes a blanket statement that voting fraud doesn't exist is lying or misinformed. The numbers are there. By the same token, anyone who makes the blanket statement that significant voting fraud exists, in sufficient numbers to match the numbers that are prevented or deterred by voter ID laws, is also lying or misinformed. The numbers simply don't support it.
By that logic, though, if each vote is very important (and I agree, that it is) shouldn't every step be taken to insure that each vote counts and isn't offset by fraud…… regardless of the number?
Sure. And if every vote is important, shouldn't every diligent step be taken to make sure that people can, vote, and and not simply throw a bunch of restrictions out there and say, "So now, you prove you're eligible — and, oh, by the way, the place to file your paperwork to get your ID is 50 miles away and open alternate Tuesdays and Thursdays between 1:30 and 3:30 pm."?
Ironically, part of what such voter ID rules really drive toward is a national ID, and a diligent, concerted, no-holds-barred effort to make sure that everyone can get one (You were born in back-podunk West Virginia 90 years ago and not only were there no birth certificates filed but the entire town got replaced by an open pit mine in 1938? Fine — we as a nation will figure out a way to make sure you have an ID, somehow, so that you aren't prevented from voting, driving a car, whatever) and can get it updated as necessary. The irony is that it's been the conservatives over the decades who have fought most strongly over such a thing, for fear of big government databases and the like — even though, for better and worse, we apparently already have those without at least the benefit of such a scheme.
If we're going to make proof of citizenship and identity the barrier to our civic life, then relying on a crazy-quilt of schemes to indicate identity for other purposes is probably not the best way of doing so.
No. You have to decide which is more important: preventing all voter fraud at the risk of disenfranchising legitimate voters or ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to vote at the risk of some voter fraud. I think the rights of the citizen to vote should always take precedence. It's the same rationale our justice system is supposed to operate on, that it's wrong to imprison one innocent person even if there's a risk that ten guilty people go free.
As I said, nobody who believes otherwise will be convinced by this.