NYT: Republicans are as Determined as Ever to Only Grant Voting Rights to the Privileged Few

[kpete]

NYT Editorial: "The imposition of harsh new requirements to vote has become a partisan issue, but it should not be. These rules are an assault on democracy itself." The Republicans are as Determined as Ever to Only Grant Voting Rights to the Privileged Few, Rather Than the Entitled Many.
http://www.buzzflash.com/

Editorial
The Myth of Voter Fraud

Published: May 13, 2008

Missouri and at least 19 other states are considering passing laws that would force people to prove their citizenship before they can vote. These bills are not a sincere effort to prevent noncitizens from voting; that is a made-up problem. The real aim is to reduce turnout by eligible voters. Republicans seem to think that laws of this kind will help them win elections, but burdensome rules like these — and others cropping up around the country — pose a serious threat to democracy and should be stopped.

The Missouri legislature is, as Ian Urbina reported in The Times on Monday, on the verge of passing an amendment to the State Constitution that would require proof of citizenship from anyone registering to vote. In addition to the Missouri amendment, which would require voter approval, Florida, Kansas, South Carolina and other states are considering similar rules.

There is no evidence that voting by noncitizens is a significant problem. Illegal immigrants do their best to remain in the shadows, to avoid attracting government attention and risking deportation. It is hard to imagine that many would walk into a polling place, in the presence of challengers and police, and try to cast a ballot.

................

The imposition of harsh new requirements to vote has become a partisan issue, but it should not be. These rules are an assault on democracy itself. The current conservative Supreme Court showed last month, in its ruling upholding the Indiana ID law, that it will not perform its historical role of protecting voters. That puts the burden on state legislators, governors, state courts and ordinary citizens to ensure that the right to vote is not taken away for partisan political gain.

more at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/opinion/13tue1.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

[izquierdista]

1. Voting by nonthinkers

The far bigger problem is voting by people who can't or won't think. Who base their choice on which candidate swills beer better, which one can catch their attention with a brightly colored key ring.

Perhaps democracy, every adult being entitled to one vote, is NOT the best system. It certainly allows in those who have no basis making decisions: the drunks, the stoned, the feeble-minded, the easily conned, the stubborn-and-stupid, etc.

[kpete]

2. sorry to disagree

"we the people" refers to ALL the people

[DainBramaged]

3. Why should being stoned or drunk prevent you from the right to vote?

I made up my mind a long time ago as to whom I am voting for for President, so if I party hardy before I go to vote, does that mean I should be excluded from voting? Or does it mean that Repukes want selective voting to ensure 100 years rule by a failed party with failed logic running a failed government.

[izquierdista]

5. Would you trade your vote for a drink?

Or maybe a toke? Anyone whose vote would be bought off so easily is one I would not want to see voting.

As it is now, far too many votes are bought off with slick advertising and swift-boating. What's wrong with this picture is the same thing that is wrong with drive-up liquor stores. Yes, people have a right to buy booze and yes, people have a right to drive; but when you put the two in such close proximity, isn't it illogical not to expect some mayhem to result?

People have the right to be as stupid as they want. And yes, under the current system, it's one man, one vote. But if people won't give up stupidity for a second and make choices based on intelligence, how can the entire system come up with an intelligent result?

[nashville_brook]

13. so, who else do you think shouldn't be allowed to vote? is there a test they can take?

[Land Shark]

14. When ALL vote/rule = Democracy, when less than ALL do so=ARISTOCRACY

this is definitional. Any kind of educational, class, sophistication, literacy or other test or prerequisite to voting creates a subclass, an aristocratic subclass, that then rules the country.

We are then neither a democracy nor a republic, both of which by definition are "people"-ruled. (our history is in large part a battle over who constitutes a "person" for purposes of voting, but the poster above did not suggest that the "uneducated" or whatever were not "persons" but that was the only technicality/loophole to keep the sheen of democracy while engaging in de facto aristocratic rule. Bringing back the argument that certain persons are not people is, to say the least, a dead letter.

[nashville_brook]

16. i usually hear this "too dumb to vote" from country club republicans -- aristocracy not a problem

for them. amazed to see it pushed on DU.

[asthmaticeog]

4. Electoral eugenics. Brilliant.

Asshole.

[izquierdista]

7. And fuck you too

if you think there is no way to have better elections.

[asthmaticeog]

9. Is that what I said? That there was no way to have better elections?

No, clearly that's not what I said. You're advocating for what, exactly, intelligence testing for voting eligibility? Because citizenship alone doesn't make one enough of a stakeholder in society to deserve the franchise? OK, I'll bite. Let's have intelligence testing to qualify for the voting franchise. And we'll set the cutoff at ONE I.Q. POINT above your test result. I'm guessing about 81 or so ought to do it. And let's make that the cutoff for employment and breeding eligibility, too.

[unpossibles]

6. please don't lump people who drink or smoke as "the feeble minded" or lacking any sense

Carl Sagan was a toker, and I'd hardly say he was unintelligent or uninformed.

I do think we need to encourage people to be more proactive in learning about issues and being their own media, but I hardly think calling for more of an oligarchy is the answer either. That's what the Republicans want: fewer voters.

[izquierdista]

8. How about we give Carl

a six-pack, two shots of schnapps, three joints and a hooker. Think we could squeeze an unintelligent vote out of him?

Maybe I'm just being half Republican; I want fewer DUMB voters.

[unpossibles]

10. well, he's dead, but the guy was a genius and a six pack and two joints won't change that

And by the way, I want fewer Ignorant voters, not fewer dumb voters.

I take it you have some issue with people who smoke or drink and cannot understand the difference between a user and an abuser.

[electropop]

11. Poll tests were outlawed for very good reason

Southern whites used to use tests such as "how many bubbles on the bar of soap?" We cannot allow any such thing to happen ever again. If you don't like democracy, I suggest you either join the GOP or head to North Korea. We are desperately trying to save our democracy, not give up on it.

[tbyg52]

12. Even if I bought your argument

which I (somewhat reluctantly) don't (it's a nice theory, but would in actual practice be used for vote suppression, just like everything else of its ilk has been), I don't think any case can be made for cutting out people based on what Republican doesn't want them to vote....

(Edited for usual stupid typos, proving that under your plan I probably wouldn't get to vote.... ;) :hi:)

[Reynardo Parris]

15. Case in point: Indiana voter ID law

Did you hear the news about the nuns who were denied the right to vote? I was outraged. Everyone knows that this type of vote disenfranchises minorities and older women/men.

[judasdisney]

17. Rights to the Privileged Few? But this is so unlike the Republicans