It's Not About Voter Fraud. Let's Just Dispense with That, Okay?

[paft.livejournal.com]

From the Columbus Dispatch:

“I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban — read African-American — voter-turnout machine,” said Doug Preisse, chairman of the county Republican Party and elections board member who voted against weekend hours, in an email to The Dispatch. “Let’s be fair and reasonable.”

Central to the widespread political myth of false equivalency is an almost willful cluelessness about the natures of both conservatism and liberalism. Conservatism is typically perceived as the default position, liberalism as a challenge, or, as many right-wingers see it, an affront.

Many on the right will therefore depict liberal access to the political process as an amiable luxury rather than an essential. This attitude is most evident in hard times. We saw it in the wake of 9/11, and we're seeing it now in our current economic crisis. The right wing -- now indistinguishable from the Republican party -- is intent on selling the notion that liberals are not just wrong in their eyes, but somehow illegitimate, even borderline criminal. Vote for a liberal, or even just a perceived liberal, and you are abusing your access to the vote and calling into question your competence as a voter.

Hence the language used by Preisse in the above quote. African Americans are not truly "voters," in his mind, but cogs in the "voter-turnout machine." Cutting back on early voting is therefore not disenfranchising voters -- it's preventing a mindless, malevolent "machine" from influencing the political process.

That belief is what's truly behind the Republican drive to institute voter IDs, and any extended discussion with voter ID apologists will swiftly make that evident. There will be a token effort to tie the issue to voter fraud, but point out the fact that such laws are much more likely to disenfranchise legitimate voters than stop fraudulent ones, and the right wing arguments will shift over to the notion that if some voters are unable to jump through the extra hoops set up for them, like applying and paying for the ID, or using an absentee ballot, or standing in line for nine hours and missing work, they are not competent enough to vote anyway.

In short, it's not about fear of fraud. It's about putting up barriers. And it looks more and more like the Republican Party in Ohio wants a repeat of what happened there in 2004.

Crossposted from Thoughtcrimes

Comments

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Jon Stewart has been covering this quite a bit lately:

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

It reminds me a bit of the way that Hamilton created a "Christian" voting bloc to counter Tammany Hall. I remember a sneaky trick that was pulled in Hoboken, NJ when the developers' party put up a candidate with the same name as the tenants' rights advocate in order to confuse her voter base. There is no end to the ways that certain elements try to rig the outcome of the election.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

when you can't win, cheat.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Indeed, look only at the language coming from some on the right. In their eyes, people voting Republican are people who've made an informed adult decision on who to vote for. People voting Democrat are just sheet being deluded by some kind of voodoo chicanery. That phrase you used: "liberals are not just wrong in their eyes, but somehow illegitimate, even borderline criminal." That sums it up perfectly, and one need look no further than certain corners of livejournal to find that attitude in abundence.

So it's not fraud! It's keeping those "dangerous people" away from the polls! And, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the voter fraud epidemic doesn't exist. This was never about fraud, it's about winning by any means neccesary.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

This isn't a thought crime. It's an actual crime. The fact that some states can have more accommodating voting laws than others for a federal election is completely ridiculous.

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

Conservatism is typically perceived as the default position, liberalism as a challenge, or, as many right-wingers see it, an affront.

I dislike this sentiment because I see both conservatism and liberalism as challenges to the default. Though maybe that's what I get for growing up in a blue state and becoming politically aware mainly during the Clinton years.

Republicans will do whatever it takes to win, as long as they can get away with it. It's sad that the guy's quote ended with "Let's be fair and reasonable," when he's trying to deny access to the polls.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

And the US has the audacity to think it has a right to "spread democracy". The US spreading democracy is like a hooker spreading chastity; "I don't kiss on the mouth!"