For all the political beliefs and practices that I disagree with, there aren't all that many that truly irk me to the point of writing a post on a blog that's admittedly supposed to be predominately about philosophical and mental mysteries. The recent trend of effectively diminishing the democratic power of the vote, however, pisses me off enough to do so. Despite this trend being pushed pretty much entirely by only one political party (and its associated ideology) for what appears to be only for increasing its numbers in elected positions, I'll try not to be too partisan in this article (as inherently difficult as this will be).
This trend, as I see it, formally began with the 2010 Citizens United ruling that I wrote about in June. The Supreme Court ruled that, via the First Amendment, corporations (and unions) could not be restricted in their independent political expenditures. This allows corporations (and unions) to pour unlimited amounts of money — millions or even a billion dollars if they wanted to — into super PACs in order to sway the election in favor of their candidates. Flooding elections with unprecedented amounts of money can not only be used to destroy a candidate the corporations don't like (and could therefore unfairly cause voters to dismiss the candidate), but will undoubtedly cause candidates to fall nicely in line with the corporations' often not-so-average-person-friendly agenda (see that June article for a more complete analysis). Voters will not have a fair or honest crop of candidates to pick from nor a fair or honest campaign to observe if the effects of Citizens United are allowed to continue (and these effects are already being seen). This ruling, which is opposed by 80% of respondents to a Washington Post-ABC News poll1 (which included Democrats, independents, and Republicans), will lead to corporations in effect buying elections. Democracy diluted.
The political action committees that these corporations pour their money into are the super PACs. They don't give directly to candidates and their campaigns nor their parties so they can spend as much as they like and as if they were actually coordinating with them. It's not just corporations who are exploiting this, however. Individuals can bypass the normal limits on donations when they give to super PACs since they're not giving directly to a candidate or party (most super PACs operate like they're part of a candidate's campaign anyway, so these people are effectively supporting candidates directly). This allows exceptionally wealthy individuals who have their agenda or beliefs at stake to try to buy the election the same way corporations can. Giving all this extra influence in an election to a select group of individuals and corporations is not at all in the spirit of democracy that this country was founded on.2
The more recent dilution of democracy has been the efforts in various states like Florida, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee to enact voter ID laws in order to prevent voter fraud. Supporters of these efforts contend that non-citizens, people voting twice, and disenfranchised criminals among others are committing their respective frauds during elections and that these laws are necessary to prevent them. When a huge investigation was done that examined every alleged case of fraud that the investigators could get from all 50 states — over 2000 in all — they found that "while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent." Regarding voter impersonation, a whopping ten cases were discovered to be legit. Pennsylvania's new law meant to combat this nearly nonexistent threat will, according to a recent report by the state, affect 9% of eligible voters because they don't have the proper IDs now needed to participate in their democracy (the number is an incredibly 18% in Philadelphia). When this is the case, such laws cannot be reasonably motivated by honest concern about voting fraud — they're a partisan effort to inhibit voters from an opposing party. According to a Daily Show segment that humorously and succinctly discusses and sums up this assault on voting rights, in the states afflicted or soon to be afflicted with these laws, 25% of African-Americans, 20% of Asians, 19% of Latinos, 18% of 18-24 year olds, 18% of seniors, and 15% of those earning under $35,000 annually don't have the required IDs. All of these groups are minorities and almost all generally support the same political party. Preventing what could easily total in the millions of people from voting in order to stop an infinitesimal rate of voting fraud is preposterous (and that is pretending that that is what it's supposed to be about). All this accomplishes, other than putting a lot more politicians of the benefiting party in office, is to degrade democracy in America. People shouldn't have to go out of their way to get an ID in an oft-convoluted system in order to exercise one of the most basic human rights on the planet.
The final tactic meant to suppress voting was by shortening the early voting period in certain counties in Ohio (this is the one tactic that fortunately did not spread beyond one state). What's really incensing isn't that it's being done, but being done only in a select number of counties while others are getting their early voting period lengthened. In another Daily Show segment, Jon Stewart again explains concisely and humorously how Ohio's Secretary of State broke individual county ties on whether to shorten or lengthen the counties' early voting periods in order to benefit his party (fortunately the outcry was so great that the Secretary was forced to agree to uniform early voting periods). Even though the Secretary claimed that individuals would still get their vote in if they really cared about it enough, there was still absolutely no reason (outside of creating an unfair advantage for his party) to lengthen some counties' early voting while shortening others. Whether they're about to leave on an out-of-country vacation, have difficulty getting to the polls due to work or disability, or some other reason, cutting the already established period for people who need to vote early will only dilute the voting pool and inhibit the democratic process.
The frightening thing is that these tactics meant to dilute democracy across the United States are becoming increasingly blatant. With Citizens United you could try to argue that it is a First Amendment issue even though the obvious drawbacks are terrible for the democratic process, as four-fifths of the electorate can plainly see. With these new voter ID laws, supporters could once claim that they are necessary to combat voting fraud, but it's been conclusively proven that the laws will disenfranchise millions more than they will stop and has shown to be a thinly veiled attempt to suppress voters on one side of the aisle. And with Ohio's devious ploy to cut the early voting periods of counties that vote one way while lengthening those of counties that vote another, no real reason was given — just a politician using his power for his own party's gain. It seems as if these people are becoming increasingly unafraid to show their desire to restrict the rights of voters who will vote against them. Instead of "let's let the people decide whether or not our agenda is what's right," it's "screw the other side, we'll degrade the whole country's democracy in order to get our way."
The United States was the world's first great democracy since the Roman Republic two millennia ago and to see partisan tactics meant to suppress it for political gain is appalling, sad, should be infuriating to everyone — even those who's preferred politicians will benefit from it. Even though there are plenty of people I strongly disagree with on many issues out there, I still want them to have the right to vote that they deserve and to vote under the same conditions and without the threat of corporations and extremely wealthy individuals buying and swaying elections and candidates. To dilute this nation's democracy like this is in complete opposition to what America was founded on and a cheap, unjust ploy that should not and cannot be tolerated by anyone.
1 Scroll to question number 35 for the poll.
2 The supposed suppression of free speech by limiting donations, even to super PACs, is discussed in my June article in case you're concerned.
This trend, as I see it, formally began with the 2010 Citizens United ruling that I wrote about in June. The Supreme Court ruled that, via the First Amendment, corporations (and unions) could not be restricted in their independent political expenditures. This allows corporations (and unions) to pour unlimited amounts of money — millions or even a billion dollars if they wanted to — into super PACs in order to sway the election in favor of their candidates. Flooding elections with unprecedented amounts of money can not only be used to destroy a candidate the corporations don't like (and could therefore unfairly cause voters to dismiss the candidate), but will undoubtedly cause candidates to fall nicely in line with the corporations' often not-so-average-person-friendly agenda (see that June article for a more complete analysis). Voters will not have a fair or honest crop of candidates to pick from nor a fair or honest campaign to observe if the effects of Citizens United are allowed to continue (and these effects are already being seen). This ruling, which is opposed by 80% of respondents to a Washington Post-ABC News poll1 (which included Democrats, independents, and Republicans), will lead to corporations in effect buying elections. Democracy diluted.
The political action committees that these corporations pour their money into are the super PACs. They don't give directly to candidates and their campaigns nor their parties so they can spend as much as they like and as if they were actually coordinating with them. It's not just corporations who are exploiting this, however. Individuals can bypass the normal limits on donations when they give to super PACs since they're not giving directly to a candidate or party (most super PACs operate like they're part of a candidate's campaign anyway, so these people are effectively supporting candidates directly). This allows exceptionally wealthy individuals who have their agenda or beliefs at stake to try to buy the election the same way corporations can. Giving all this extra influence in an election to a select group of individuals and corporations is not at all in the spirit of democracy that this country was founded on.2
The more recent dilution of democracy has been the efforts in various states like Florida, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee to enact voter ID laws in order to prevent voter fraud. Supporters of these efforts contend that non-citizens, people voting twice, and disenfranchised criminals among others are committing their respective frauds during elections and that these laws are necessary to prevent them. When a huge investigation was done that examined every alleged case of fraud that the investigators could get from all 50 states — over 2000 in all — they found that "while fraud has occurred, the rate is infinitesimal, and in-person voter impersonation on Election Day, which prompted 37 state legislatures to enact or consider tough voter ID laws, is virtually non-existent." Regarding voter impersonation, a whopping ten cases were discovered to be legit. Pennsylvania's new law meant to combat this nearly nonexistent threat will, according to a recent report by the state, affect 9% of eligible voters because they don't have the proper IDs now needed to participate in their democracy (the number is an incredibly 18% in Philadelphia). When this is the case, such laws cannot be reasonably motivated by honest concern about voting fraud — they're a partisan effort to inhibit voters from an opposing party. According to a Daily Show segment that humorously and succinctly discusses and sums up this assault on voting rights, in the states afflicted or soon to be afflicted with these laws, 25% of African-Americans, 20% of Asians, 19% of Latinos, 18% of 18-24 year olds, 18% of seniors, and 15% of those earning under $35,000 annually don't have the required IDs. All of these groups are minorities and almost all generally support the same political party. Preventing what could easily total in the millions of people from voting in order to stop an infinitesimal rate of voting fraud is preposterous (and that is pretending that that is what it's supposed to be about). All this accomplishes, other than putting a lot more politicians of the benefiting party in office, is to degrade democracy in America. People shouldn't have to go out of their way to get an ID in an oft-convoluted system in order to exercise one of the most basic human rights on the planet.
The final tactic meant to suppress voting was by shortening the early voting period in certain counties in Ohio (this is the one tactic that fortunately did not spread beyond one state). What's really incensing isn't that it's being done, but being done only in a select number of counties while others are getting their early voting period lengthened. In another Daily Show segment, Jon Stewart again explains concisely and humorously how Ohio's Secretary of State broke individual county ties on whether to shorten or lengthen the counties' early voting periods in order to benefit his party (fortunately the outcry was so great that the Secretary was forced to agree to uniform early voting periods). Even though the Secretary claimed that individuals would still get their vote in if they really cared about it enough, there was still absolutely no reason (outside of creating an unfair advantage for his party) to lengthen some counties' early voting while shortening others. Whether they're about to leave on an out-of-country vacation, have difficulty getting to the polls due to work or disability, or some other reason, cutting the already established period for people who need to vote early will only dilute the voting pool and inhibit the democratic process.
The frightening thing is that these tactics meant to dilute democracy across the United States are becoming increasingly blatant. With Citizens United you could try to argue that it is a First Amendment issue even though the obvious drawbacks are terrible for the democratic process, as four-fifths of the electorate can plainly see. With these new voter ID laws, supporters could once claim that they are necessary to combat voting fraud, but it's been conclusively proven that the laws will disenfranchise millions more than they will stop and has shown to be a thinly veiled attempt to suppress voters on one side of the aisle. And with Ohio's devious ploy to cut the early voting periods of counties that vote one way while lengthening those of counties that vote another, no real reason was given — just a politician using his power for his own party's gain. It seems as if these people are becoming increasingly unafraid to show their desire to restrict the rights of voters who will vote against them. Instead of "let's let the people decide whether or not our agenda is what's right," it's "screw the other side, we'll degrade the whole country's democracy in order to get our way."
The United States was the world's first great democracy since the Roman Republic two millennia ago and to see partisan tactics meant to suppress it for political gain is appalling, sad, should be infuriating to everyone — even those who's preferred politicians will benefit from it. Even though there are plenty of people I strongly disagree with on many issues out there, I still want them to have the right to vote that they deserve and to vote under the same conditions and without the threat of corporations and extremely wealthy individuals buying and swaying elections and candidates. To dilute this nation's democracy like this is in complete opposition to what America was founded on and a cheap, unjust ploy that should not and cannot be tolerated by anyone.
1 Scroll to question number 35 for the poll.
2 The supposed suppression of free speech by limiting donations, even to super PACs, is discussed in my June article in case you're concerned.
No comments:
Post a Comment