Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 14 Share on Twitter 1 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 11/12/19

If Voting Is So Important, Why Aren't Fair, Open, Verifiable Elections Important?

By       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
(# of views)   3 comments
Author 9
Follow Me on Twitter     Message David Swanson
Become a Fan
  (142 fans)

It's impossible in U.S. society not to frequently encounter the demand to vote, no matter what, no matter for whom, as a basic civic duty. Voting is supremely important, we're told, a right, a responsibility, a moral requirement, something people died for which if you don't use (even if it's useless) you will effectively be pissing on their graves. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said "If everyone would vote, it wouldn't matter what the billionaires wanted."

Let's accept all of that at face value for the sake of argument. Let's suppose it is our primary duty as members of society to vote. Personally, I always do, and it takes about 5 minutes out of my year. Sometimes I even promote candidates, and one might ask why that isn't a supreme duty too, since it can impact how and whether numerous other people exercise their sacred duty to vote. Or we could extend that line of thinking further and ask why it isn't the duty of each of us to work to change our culture so that only better candidates can get nominated, since that seems relevant to our duty to vote for some of those candidates. But I want to ask a different question at the moment.

Why does it seem to be of so little importance in U.S. media and politics that U.S. elections be brought up to, say, Bolivian standards of openness, fairness, participation, and verifiability? Is it our duty to keep up appearances despite living in an oligarchy? Or is it our duty to actually create some form of representative government that we can respectably mislabel a "democracy"?

At least part of the answer to why corporate media and elected officials care so little about reforming the U.S. system of elections is that many in power do not want more people voting or their votes being counted (more on this below). Another part of the answer is that everyone in power was put there through the current system. Another part of the answer is probably that once you've told people that all they can do is vote or be miserable, it's hard to tell them all the things they'd need to do to reform the system of voting, and it's not plausible to tell them that they can vote themselves the right to meaningful votes. Also, it's a matter of basic national faith, even if nobody believes it, that the United States is not broken, especially in any ways that any other countries are not broken and you can't fix what's not broken.

Yet another part of the answer is shear inertia. The U.S. electoral system is exactly like everything else in the United States in not having been reformed. This is a country that doesn't use the metric system or end the semi-annual changing of everybody's clocks, purely because that would amount to doing something, not because any powerful group opposes it. Yet, the U.S. election system has not just been staying the same. It's been getting worse.

Hidden History

Thom Hartmann's latest book is called The Hidden History of the War on Voting, and I like it despite despising the use of the word "war" for things that aren't wars. Hartmann lays out a case that rightwing think tanks, media outlets, pundits, and politicians are working hard to make voting in the United States harder for some and easier for others. The case includes documentation of racism, disinformation campaigns, voter suppression, gerrymandering, unverifiable vote counting, and keeping inspiring candidates off the ballots through financial corruption, corporate media bias, and other means.

As with many things in U.S. politics, this is a tale of Republican action and Democratic inaction. Republican secretaries of state have purged 17 million people from the election rolls just between 2016 and 2018. After the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013, 14 GOP-controlled states restricted access to voting within a year, especially for communities of color, students, and retired people. North Carolina closed 158 polling places in the 40 counties with the most African Americans. Nationwide, black and Hispanic voters typically wait much longer in line to vote. Indiana Governor Mike Pence's voter ID law reduced African American voting by 11.5 percent in that state.

Nixon sabotaged peace talks. Reagan sabotaged hostage release plans. But by the year 2000, the Republican platform only stood a chance if voters were prevented from voting, so that's where the emphasis went. Florida threw tens of thousands of African American voters off the rolls, and still needed an assist from the U.S. Supreme Court to steal the presidency for George W. Bush.

The trend continued. Between 2012 and 2016, Ohio purged over 2 million voters, over two-thirds of them in heavily African American and Hispanic counties. In Wisconsin about 17,000 voters were turned away in Wisconsin for lacking the type of ID required by a new ID law.

In numerous states, ID laws disproportionately prevent women from voting, as they've disproportionately changed their names upon marriage or divorce. In North Dakota, legislators passed a law requiring a street address to vote, precisely because Native Americans tended not to have street addresses.

Here are the nations that do not provide a right to vote in their Constitutions:
United States
United Kingdom
Azerbaijan
Chechnya
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Jordan
Libya
Pakistan
Singapore.

I should have just said "the world's leading democracies," right? Some U.S. states are now making it a crime carrying jail time to make the slightest mistake on a voter registration form. Land of the free!

Don't Mention It

To his credit, Hartmann mentions the unmentionable when it comes to U.S. elections. There are so many other problems that one hardly needs to mention that which must not be mentioned, and yet Hartmann does mention it. The rest of the world treats, and the U.S. prior to 2000 treated, exit polls as the gold standard by which to measure the credibility of election results. In the U.S. post-2000, the official results are used to "adjust" exit polls to match their unbelievable results. Oddly, the adjustment is almost always in the direction of more votes for Republicans hence the name "red shift." In states without Republican secretaries of state, there is virtually no shift, and never has been.

If Hillary Clinton had not had her heart set on blaming Russians, she might have blamed quite a few things for her 2016 defeat, including: an electoral college that gives a win to a loser; open intimidation and incitement of violence; stripping of voters from rolls; court battles to oppose the counting of votes; voter ID laws; a scarcity of polling places in poor neighborhoods; corporate media that promoted Donald Trump because it was good for ratings; her own godawful resume and campaign; etc. And also this: the exit polls showed Clinton winning Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, but an inexplicable red shift altered those results.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

Rate It | View Ratings

David Swanson Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

David Swanson is the author of "When the World Outlawed War," "War Is A Lie" and "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union." He blogs at http://davidswanson.org and http://warisacrime.org and works for the online (more...)
 
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Follow Me on Twitter     Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Feith Dares Obama to Enforce the Law

Obama's Open Forum Opens Possibilities

Public Forum Planned on Vermont Proposal to Arrest Bush and Cheney

Did Bush Sr. Kill Kennedy and Frame Nixon?

Eleven Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military

Holder Asked to Prosecute Blankenship

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

3 people are discussing this page, with 3 comments


Starbuck

Become a Fan
Author 24974
(Member since Oct 24, 2008), 1 fan, 188 comments
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

On the topic of paper ballots, President Trump has come out supporting this position. While I do believe in machine counting, a paper ballot that can be audited makes perfect sense.


Regarding Voter ID laws, the solution to the ID problem is to make getting necessary ID easier, not ignoring voter fraud. State "Real ID" cards for CITIZENS that do not drive should be free. And the ridiculously complicated model for getting them in most states needs to be streamlined.


We live in a society where you can barely function without some form of ID (no air travel, no cashing checks, can't drive, can't drink, can't buy a gun, can't get into many movies .. need I go on). No one cries racism of any of the above scenarios. They all exist for the same reason: to prevent fraud.


As to the electoral college, as I've pointed out repeatedly, the 2016 election was the ultimate proof why it remains vital to the protection of our REPUBLIC. The entire difference that flipped the popular vote from Clinton to Trump can be accounted from by California, a state which has almost become a joke from the levels of voting irregularities that happen here. Protecting the nation from a rogue and disproportionately sized state is one of the biggest reasons the electoral college exists and must stay in place.


Can you please reply and explain what you mean by "establish a personal right to vote"? As far as I am aware, any US Citizen that is not a convicted felon has a right to vote. What are you proposing that is different from that, other than maybe allowing felons to vote (I presume after they have completed their sentences)?


As an added note, we need to eliminate the "jungle primary" that is in place in Louisiana and California. This was put in place by Democrats and Republicans. Its primary effect (if not hidden goal) has been to push "third parties" off the general ballot. In Florida, Democrats have taken a stand against the jungle primary proposal. I'd be interested to see them take the same stand in California, where they pretty much have the power to kill the jungle primary. I'm not holding my breath since it is part of the reason they now control all statewide offices and more than 2/3 of all district offices. Principles are usually a matter of convenience where politicians are concerned.


The jungle primary kool-aid might taste sweet initially. But in the end, it is a poison pill. Floridians should reject it and California and Louisiana should drop it.

Submitted on Wednesday, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:43:50 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help

Jill Herendeen

Become a Fan
Author 18898
(Member since Jul 18, 2008), 22 fans, 1 articles, 3002 comments, 1 diaries
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

Just one picky point: Hillary actually WON the 2016 election. Read Jonathan Simon's analysis in mint press news' "Donald Trump warned of a rigged election, was he right?"

Submitted on Wednesday, Nov 13, 2019 at 9:51:20 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
Indent

Richard Pietrasz

Become a Fan
Author 6357
(Member since Jun 7, 2007), 13 fans, 1 quicklinks, 2889 comments, 1 diaries
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to Jill Herendeen:   New Content

Legally, the only votes that count in a US Presidential election are the ones cast by the electoral college. We all know that, but semantics are important.

Submitted on Thursday, Nov 21, 2019 at 10:42:07 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment