I actually agree. When I wrote about the two opposing tactics, I was not even really thinking about good vs. evil. I had just read the study I had linked to, and found it interesting that since the tactics oppose each other, they could, in theory, establish a stable equilibrium. If both parties focused either on increasing or reducing voters, It would be more likely to disrupt the system, if the tactics were successful.
I imagine if I had found a right wing forum and posted the same thing, I would probably have gotten an equal and opposite response. And probably the people who would have snapped at me there believe that what they are doing is in the name of good, as it keeps people from having more than one vote, or keeps millions of illegal aliens from voting against the interests of the country, or whatever. You and I know that those problems are likely exaggerated, and the guys smoking the cigars in dark rooms are actually talking about making it harder for those likely to vote democratic to do so. I guess where we differ in opinion is that most here believe strongly that the democrats do not, and would never engage in shady tactics to win elections. I think Bernie supporters probably disagree.
I do, however, think that the Democrats hold the apparent moral high ground on this one. Certainly making sure that elderly or poor people get to vote is actually noble. I think that the move to allow felons to vote was done purely because of the assumption that they would vote democratic, and would not have been done otherwise. Even so, the supporters could describe it as being done to make sure that each person was able to have their voice in the election.
More over the status quo is that felons already can or do get their voting rights back. Its simply done on a case by case basis without guarantee or time line. The current debate is about process. Making it automatic or allowing Governors to restore voting rights in batches instead of signing thousands of individual pieces of paper, or even more complicated processes.
And it certainly isn’t pure altruism either. But it isn’t rote opportunism either. The left has an ideological interest in fostering voting rights across the board. Its one of the base legs of progressive politics. And its one that’s pushed even when a more oportunistic option is viable.
For example the DNC in modern times (lets say since the current coalitions form circa Regan) has engaged in gerrymandering. But far, far more often they’ve pushed for clean redistricting, and thier efforts never reached anything like the scale of what the GOP has done recently.
And voter suppression efforts from the GOP don’t stop at voter ID and gerrymandering. Many of these same laws, and other efforts where that’s not the case, heavily restrict everything from early voting. Absentee ballots, vote by mail. And even the number of polling places, poll workers, voting machines and the like.
This sort of everyone does it, everything is for personal gain thinking leads to everything being dismissed (or dismissable) as rote electioneering. Its why you hear right wingers complaining that Puerto Rico only has a chance at state hood, or that it shouldn’t get one because the DNC wants to skew the electorate and pick up the extra “safe” house and senate members.
“I imagine if I had found a right wing forum and posted the same thing, I would probably have gotten an equal and opposite response. And probably the people who would have snapped at me there believe that what they are doing is in the name of good, as it keeps people from having more than one vote, or keeps millions of illegal aliens from voting against the interests of the country, or whatever.”
That’s likely. But they must then face the fact that their party leadership had been on record that the rules they enact restrict the vote, not of illegal immigrants or felons but of ordinary citizens. Instead they should be debating and doing some serious soul searching. New voters and disenfranchised voters don’t vote for them. They should do an ideological shift, find what’s palatable in their ideology. or market themselves better. Not go along with unconstitutional and/or fraudulent measures, their party will die as a result, horribly. They will have behaved like organized crime, earning the contempt of a considerable part of the population. In the long term it’s the end of democracy or the end of the GOP, or both.
Democrats can’t possibly be entirely clean. But voter registration drives and get the vote out campaigns are in no way comparable to voter suppression, no matter what they motive. If there’s some fraudulent registration and voting involved, that’s comparable.
I wouldn’t be enthusiastic about allowing persons convicted of serious crimes to vote. I suppose it depends on the felony Whatever I think of illegal aliens and their rights, the vote is certainly not one of them. Nobody should be able to vote more than once.
…as well as an open invitation for an unethical administration to abuse the legal system as a means of disenfranchising their opposition.
Step 1: felons lose the franchise.
Step 2: supporting the wrong party is now a felony.
Step 3: landslide! Huge mandate!
But, of course, you don’t have to be that blatant about it, especially when political allegiance is strongly correlated with identifiable third factors (e.g. wealth, religion, ethnicity…). You don’t even need to disenfranchise all of your opponents; just enough of 'em to tip the balance.
Take a “justice” system that is heavily biased along class and racial lines, mix with felon disenfranchisement and you’ve got a permanent thumb on the electoral scales.
In my State, felons can vote once they have served their sentences or finished their probation. That seems fair to me, but I don’t really know that much about incarceration. I assume (though that can get me into trouble) that the main reason for denying currently incarcerated felons from voting is the likelihood that they would vote for any candidate that promised them leniency. That, and their likely unorthodox views on violent crime. But that is pure conjecture on my part.
Well, first, oops by me. I confused Terry McAuliffe with Tim Kaine. I’m having a bad 24 hours (lots of stuff on my plate). So, I removed my post. Sorry. (Sorry to whomever gave me likes. I feel so much shame that I made such a sophomoric mistake.)
Second, since it’s McAuliffe, I’m sure that he isn’t naïve as to think that some or even a lot of those votes won’t benefit the party. However, I stand by the the argument that white collar criminals or even criminals who may come from a higher socio-economic background also benefit and may just as likely register Republican. Additionally, McAuliffe’s attempt to return these voting rights to released felons isn’t a different policy than the majority of U.S. states.
I’m glad your state gives reinstates former felons’ voting rights. Mine does, too. However, this varies widely from state to state and currently there are 10 states that do not always allow reinstatement, two that allow absentee voting from prison (Maine and Vermont), and the remaining 38 state reinstate only after time served with or without parole+probation (similar to what Virginia was advocating). Furthermore, there are several states who disenfranchise voters who have some sort of misdemeanors, so these restrictions often go further than what most people would consider as fair. If there was any issue that deserves a Constitutional Amendment, this is it.
Finally, whether one served time for a violent crime shouldn’t really make a difference. Once someone has completed their sentence (plus parole and/or probation), their obligation to the state has been fulfilled. G. Gordon Liddy served his time and is still a registered Republican voter and had (has?) a partisan radioshow. I’m sure those of us who were around during Watergate wonder if this kind of felony deserves a second chance, but you have to take the bad with the good.
So far as I’m aware there is currently no debate or demand for return of voting rights to currently incarcerated felons. The argument and stories in the news, particularly everything in Virginia is entirely about returning voting rights to people with a felony record after they’ve been released. Much of the country lacks a clear time line or process for returning voting rights to these people. In Virginia’s case it can only happen if the governor signs an individual order for each felon. The attempt was to allow the current governor to issue a blanket order restoring voting rights to all those entitled to it in one go. Since that’s been blocked McAuliffe has been signing those orders individually as fast as he can. In other words these people are getting their right to vote back, one way or the other. The GOP and Virginia courts appear to be trying to make sure it happens after the election.
You appear to have badly mistaken the point and origins on this particular issue. Its a long standing inequity, and one the left has been interested in for a long time. These people are supposed to get their voting rights back. Nothing I’m aware of in the constitution or US law says you lose your right to vote forever if you ever commit one crime. In a great many cases these people never see their voting rights returned. Whether McAuliffe, and other sitting democrats are pushing it more prominently now because it will drive a presumed increase in their own voter demographics is immaterial. Its a long standing problem that people have been struggling to fix for decades.
Not sure these are good examples. The French revolution and the Russian revolution were initially revolutions of the upper middle class. Louis was the victim of a well organised black PR campaign, whereas the French king who really was extremely bad for the poor - no. 14 - was never successfully challenged. With @CarlMud, I would like an example of where the disenfranchised have really managed a successful revolution that has lasted, and though I think the American revolution is closer to this than either of the other two cited, we do seem to be entering an era of a decline in democracy and the rise of plutocracy.
Indeed most are not. The simplest and strongest argument that prisoners should be allowed to vote is that conviction and sentencing for many offences are rather arbitrary.
I am slightly irrelevantly reminded of Terry Pratchett’s version of Australia, in which elected politicians are sent to prison immediately to save time later.
But which bit? As a Rincewind without the protection of she who must not be named, I’d last about 5 seconds in Ankh-Morpork, and though the island from which Rincewind is so peremptorily summoned to XXXX might have its attractions, I guess being sex slave to a lot of Amazons would become tiresome after a while. I think I’ll stick with the here and now where nobody is actively trying to kill me. That I know about.
My only quibble with your post is that I’m unsure what the “neo-” is doing there.
Trump’s campaign has definitely old fashioned Fascist elements and there’s nothing neo about it.
Seen as part of a broader Republican drive to prevent unwanted people from voting - though as yet no forcing opponents to drink poisoned castor oil - it’s just following the playbook of the 1920s and 1930s with nothing really new in the mix.
The Irish revolution was the culmination of a century or two of repeated attempts/resistence. Both from the completely disenfranchised/peasant class, and more organized efforts from educated upper middle and upper class elements with at least some access to government.
Though in the end the successful one was drawn (at the top at least) from experienced military and government types and the same educated middle class on up elements that you’re talking about. And promptly sparked a civil war, a long period of serious ethno-religious and class based oppression, and long standing territorial tensions over the north. Together with that fact that the Republic of Ireland is barely a century old, “stable” might be a bit too early to call in this senae. Despite the Republic of Ireland having a stable, modern democracy.
“neo” as in “new” or “second”. Like how Trump’s Neo-Nazi followers are given the “Neo” descriptor, even though they haven’t had an original thought in decades, but they’re a second wave of fascists, distinct from the first wave that took power 80 years ago.
That being said, I definitely agree with your comment regarding the 1920s and 1930s playbook. Heck, given Trump’s ascendance, one could potentially make the argument that the voter disenfranchisement laws under discussion are no longer just a return to Jim Crow, but have folded in a resurgence of the Nuremberg Laws as well.
It’s because an entire race of citizens are significantly more likely to be arrested and then incarcerated, with the result that a high percentage end up being denied the right to vote, often for the rest of their lives. It’s one more way to disenfranchise based on prejudice…in other words: illegal, immoral, and un-Constitutional.
)