Our long state nightmare is finally over. And by nightmare, I mean about 6 days’ worth of post-election confusion about who was going to be our governor: that one white guy from southern Connecticut who promised to slash the budget, tax us fairly, and do it without causing any discomfort, or that one white guy from southern Connecticut who promised to slash the budget, tax us fairly, and do it without causing any discomfort.
See what I did there?
(Please note that the above was just done for comedic affect. There is a difference between most candidates and most parties, no matter what Ralph Nader and/or Ron Paul tells you. To say otherwise is laziness disguised as being “above the fray.” Now allow me to step off my soapbox, if you please.)
But seriously, it is nice to know who our next governor will be. Of course, I was so discombobulated by the whole thing, I waited an extra week to post this, just to make sure no one was going to find another box of ballots and have Foley winning by 20 thousand.
That didn’t happen, so here I am, lapsing into my post-election malaise. To paraphrase Dana, I love following politics. I live from Mid-October to the Tuesday after the first Monday in November and the rush is so huge, I don’t come down until a week later.
"The Hell you say?"
But, that’s where we are now. So, with the last gasp on my enthusiasm, let my share what I learned from this cycle.
Democrats Had a Bad Day
Seriously. It happened!
Connecticut and Massachusetts Exist in A Different World
While the rest of the nation was done with the Dems, the two most populous states in New England affirmed their love of the liberal.
Voters Always Hate Spending, but They Only Vote Against It When They Are Worried About Their Own Spending
I’m not saying that we, the people don’t actually mean what they say—although, on occasion, we all express concerns for politic issues we don’t care all that much about—only that it becomes issue #1 when we are feeling our own purse strings being tightened.
Most of us know that government debt does not really work the same as individual or even business debt. China is not going to swing by and foreclose on our roads or our armed services tomorrow. That’s why, in flush times, while it is always something we talk about, voters rarely actually vote en masse in a matter that indicates they give a damn. That’s why you saw government debt grow during President Reagan’s second term and President George W. Bush’s first term and no one was all that worried about it.
When times get rough, though, we all worry. And we start to worry about everything financial. Thus, even though we know that the US is really not going to go bankrupt—and certainly not in any way that we understand it—we still vote as though it is a possibility.
In retrospect, I feel sort of bad she didn't win since it means she has to go back to doing...well, whatever is happening here.
You Still Cannot Buy Your Way into Office
You can get damn close, but it is still isn’t guaranteed. Linda McMahon, Susan DelBene, and Meg Whitman will all tell you this.
Election Night Coverage is Universally Bad
I don’t care about your political orientation, what region of the country you call home, your socioeconomic status, or your occupation, this is one we can actually all agree on. I don’t know why or how to fix it—although certainly less “experts” would be a start—but I do know it is true. Even The Daily Show and The Colbert Report turned in less than great efforts with their live election coverage that night.
Your Crazy Might be My Favorite and Vice Versa
We can all agree that Representative Michelle Bachmann is a conspiratologist with either a deeply paranoid worldview or a wildly cynical one, right? Or that Representative Charles Rangel is so corrupt, it is amazing he does not literally ooze it out of his pores like some kind of viscous reminder that everyone has a price? And, of course we are all onboard with the idea that Representative Barney Frank is pure liberalism run amok in human form, with all the pot and gay references that that implies? Or that Senator David Vitter is so removed from family values that it is a miracle he can speak the words without imploding into a black hole of irony?
"Now that I have won, let me warn you about the one world currency."
Sure! Except we cannot. The old joke goes that people hate Congress but love their Congressmen (and women) and even in an election year like this, with a massive turnover of Representatives, there remains some truth to that cliché. As much as outsiders might find them ridiculous, these Representatives and Senators, and those like them, keep getting elected because their constituents like them, trust them, etc. And chances are, you are not immune to it either. For instance, even the venerable Brendan Loy stuck with Senator Lieberman longer than most. I look at the list and while he is not my Representative, I certainly disagree with the perspective on Representative Frank. While you might not find fault with any of my summations here, chances are you probably have a soft spot for a Representative or Senator in your own backyard that most outside that lady or gentleman’s district would find sort of incomprehensible.
Good for comedy? Sure. Good for democracy? Not so much.
Our Congressional Houses Are Less Diverse Than Before
The newest class of Congressmen and women features the least women and minorities in years. That’s a damn shame. We shouldn’t vote for minority candidates just because of their status, don’t get me wrong here. Anyone who didn’t vote for Angle in Nevada, O’Donnell in Delaware, or Greene in South Carolina did so with my full blessing. We should vote for qualified candidates above all else. But how sad is it that both parties seemingly recruited so few qualified minority candidates?
Voter Fraud Probably Happened. And That’s Okay. Especially Because It is Pretty Darn Rare.
Admittedly, this is more opinion that observation, but there it is. I know there are plenty of people out there who find the idea that people who shouldn’t vote are still doing it horrifying. Or that there are people who might vote multiple times despicable. I don’t actually disagree overall. I just happen to disagree with the idea that a.) it is such a widespread problem and that b.) that stopping “bad” voters is more important than making sure everyone who can vote gets to. It is sort of a William Blackstone approach to voting; to paraphrase his formulation on crime, “It is better that 10 people get away with voter fraud than 1 person who has the right to vote be unfairly turned away.”
Generally speaking, if you are attempting to stop someone from voting or trying to get votes tossed out, I think you are on the wrong side. Disagree if you wish, but that’s just how I feel. And I feel that this year’s election reflects the idea that fraud is a fairly limited phenomenon.
And a prediction, if I could:
Liberal Pundits Are Wrong. The Republicans Will Have No Problem Corralling Their New Members
I am sorry, but it is true. Republicans have always been better at this than Democrats. This whole thing about Boehner is going to have to “herd cats” is ridiculous. It is something to say after you get beat down, which is fine. It is good to self soothe. Just be ready for the inevitable taste of reality to intrude.
As always Tim can be reached at parallax2 [at] juno [dot] com, followed on Twitter @UnGajje, or friended on Facebook. Please feel free to do so or comment below.
It is better that 10 people get away with voter fraud than 1 person who has the right to vote be unfairly turned away.
Hmm. I’m afraid I can’t agree with this. I do agree that voter fraud is wildly and cynically blown out of proportion — if it’s as widespread as some conservatives seem to believe, why do we almost never see convictions for voter fraud, given that most prosecutor’s office are not exactly run by liberals who might be suppressing prosecutions as part of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy? — but, if it were so widespread that there were 10 fraudulent votes for every potential discouraged vote, that would be a very serious problem, because fraudulent votes “disenfranchise” legitimate votes by diluting their impact. Granted, it’s not as direct as the disenfranchisement that occurs if someone is directly and individually prevented as voting, but it’s still extremely serious. Bottom line, we all need to be serious about BOTH voter fraud AND voter intimitation/discouragement, and we need to support reasonable and legitimate and honest efforts to deal with these problems, but we also need to recognize that no electoral system is perfect, elections have a margin of error, and we need to NOT demagogue these issues for partisan purposes, and we need to SHAME those who would so demagogue these issues, because those cynical bastards are doing incalculable damage to the public trust in an electoral system that, by and large, works pretty darn well.
Okay, fair enough. 10:1 would be a rather high ratio. If it was literally that, we would have a problem with voter fraud. My point being that I can deal with a limited number of people getting away with fraud in order to ensure everyone who votes can is something I still stand behind, but you are right, 10:1 would be a bit much.
Pingback: Read my rough draft and seriously help please? | Sales Engineer Unlimited
Fair enough. I don’t necessarily disagree. But I also think, and I’m sure you agree with this, that we should take whatever steps are reasonably possible to cut down on voter fraud, while also doing our best to ensure that those steps don’t also disenfranchise legitimate voters — and while declining to be ridiculous and hysterical about the issue, of course.
I also think a distinction needs to be made between anti-fraud steps that disenfranchise legitimate voters, and anti-fraud steps that cause very mild inconvenience which convinces extremely unmotivated voters that it’s not worth the trouble to vote. (I don’t have any particular anti-fraud step in mind, I’m just talking in general terms.) If someone is presented with an extremely low and insignificant hurdle that they’re perfectly capable of clearing in order to show that they’re a legitimate voter, and yet they decide it’s not worth their trouble to vote because of that hurdle, that person isn’t being “disenfranchised,” they’re simply deciding not to vote. We can’t define this down to the lowest common denominator where any anti-fraud step that discourages even one voter from voting is automatically out, because at that point, it would be impossible to take any anti-fraud steps, since there is always going to be someone who says, “f*** it.” There’s a difference between being disenfranchised and making a decision not to bother to vote.
Agreed
Pingback: Tweets that mention CotW: Timely Election Debrief -- Topsy.com
1)Bottom line, we all need to be serious about BOTH voter fraud AND voter intimitation/discouragement
So what is your opinion on how the Holder Justice Department handled the New Black Panther case?
2) Someone explain to me how showing a valid picture id when voting would be anything other than a low and insignificant hurdle?
1.) To be honest, we knowledge of it is woefully low. I know the gist–allegations that Holder had it dropped because it involved Black plaintiffs–but when I went to look for more info, all I could find were sources like the Washington Times and conservative bloggers. Which in and of itself doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. In fact, the lack of a NYTimes or Washington Post type source (or even something like a Daily Kos diary piece) is intriguing to me. That said, if it is true, of course it is bad and wrong. But the only perspective we seem to have on it is a conservative blogger who resigned from the DOJ so I do have bias concerns.
2.) I actually have this discussion with my wife, the Thunder, all the time. I, in my “had a license since 17, grew up in suburbia” way, doesn’t think it is a big deal. However, she often points out to me that while most of the country does naturally have IDs because they drive, city dwellers do not necessarily and it is thus a standard that weighs unfairly on them. And I understand that point. So I am a bit torn. But I hear you, gahrie, I do.
Tim, WaPo had a lengthy article on the New Black Panther case last month, and it’s been covered by numerous non-conservative sources as well. And as the WaPo story says, the voting section of the DOJ Civil Rights Division is headed by Christopher Coates, who was hired during the Clinton administration after working for the ACLU, and whose name came up in an internal watchdog report criticizing politicized hiring at the division during the Bush administration and referring to him as “a true member of the team.” So I don’t think you can so easily dismiss this story on the grounds that the only perspective out there is from “a conservative blogger who resigned from the DOJ.”
… covered by numerous other non-conservative sources as well.
WaPo is obviously not a conservative outfit.
while most of the country does naturally have IDs because they drive, city dwellers do not necessarily and it is thus a standard that weighs unfairly on them.
No it isn’t. A State ID card is easy to get, and people show picture ids constantly in today’s world, whether it be to travel, to cash a check, to use a credit card, and so on.
Besides..what is wrong with people having to make some minimal effort in order to vote?
Do people really believe there are people running all around the polling places producing multiple fake ID’s and aliases to vote? Nobody cares that much. The voter fraud issue is with the voting machines that produce no record or hard copy, and apparently can be hacked to produce a vote for a desired candidate. In one instance I read about a candidate got 100,000 votes from a county with 10,000 registered voters. That’s concerning.
The Black Panthers made you change your secret ballot? Really?
Candidates still buy elections, how much has Bloomberg spent personally for his last 3 election wins? Close to a billion. I guess he thinks he’s a great mayor.
Sandy, I was more referring to individual fraud, not the hacking thing. The possibility of hacking does concern me very much. Also, Bloomberg does spend tons, but he does not win just because he spends more, which was more my point. Spending alone does not guarantee a victory.
As for the others who pointed out that WaPo covered it, thanks. I should have been clearer in that my “research” consisted of a brief google search before I responded to gahrie.The first three pages contained no sources like WaPo. So thanks for setting me straight.
Gahrie, I hear what you are saying, I was just pointing out the argument against. And, lest I be deliquent in this, people can move through the world without id with some ease. I have “see ID” on the back of all my credit cards (well, all 2) and I have not been asked about ID in at least a year. Places like Stop and Shop allow you to cash checks with just your stop and shop card (although S&S’s are probably fairly rare in cities). The people who would be most effected by this probably don’t do air travel and that’s the only kind that requires ID (buses and trains do not). Etc. Again, I am not disagreeing with you, per se, I’m just saying there does exist arguments on the other side.
Everyone, that I know, after the last election here in LA practically scoffed when I asked them if they voted. Actually they took me more seriously when I told them about the UFO’s over Manhattan. Nobody voted. I was the only one. But the most infuriating thing is that my dear personal friend got an absentee ballot and had her boyfriend fill it out and mail it in for her with his choices. And he votes Republican down the line (obviously since this is cheating). I was enraged and told her how horrible it would be if Meg Whitman is elected governor. It didn’t sink in until I sent her a picture, since she knows nothing. Her response was, “Who cares, what difference does it make, do you really think anything will be any different no matter who is elected”. I thought George Bush answered this question last decade.
I haven’t missed an election since 2000.
I haven’t missed an election since 2000.
I haven’t missed one since Nov. 1983
Unless ID’s are free (at least the initial ID, if you lose it you have to pay a fine, etc.) they should not be a requirement for voting. Having to pay to vote is a bad direction to go in.
Thats not to say there aren’t good arguments for or against ID requirements in general, i’m just saying that having to pay to vote is the wrong direction.
David:
What if they aren’t free, but there are (relatively easily obtainable) hardship waivers for people who have trouble paying?
While I obviously don’t want to see us moving in the direction of a de facto poll tax, there’s a big difference between “paying to vote” and “paying for something indirectly related to voting,” and I’m not sure I accept the absolutist “you shouldn’t have to pay for anything related to voting” line. For instance, unless you happen to live walking distance from your polling place, you most likely have to pay for gas, or a bus fare, to get there. Maybe you happen to get a ride, but certainly not from the government. Also, “time is money” for a lot of people — even though your employer is required to give you time off work, that doesn’t mean you won’t have to make up that time another way, depending on your profession. For instance, if I lose 1.2 billable hours to go vote, that’s 1.2 billable hours that I have to make up later in the year. That’s not costless. There is automatically a “cost” to the time it takes to vote, even if it’s not a direct fee. The question is how indirect of a “cost” we’re willing to accept.
Anyway, it seems to me that a photo ID requirement is okay if there’s either a free, or fee-waivable, option readily available for low-income folks. Mind you, this doesn’t mean eliminating driver’s license fees. This can be solely related to non-license photo IDs. Hell, if the government can’t afford to give up whatever fees it regularly collects for such IDs, there can be a special option for a free or fee-waived ID that’s only good for voting.
If there’s not such an option, then it’s not OK to require ID, I’d say.
I also think it should be possible to obtain an expedited photo ID on election day if you don’t already have one. Not at the polling place (that would be fraught with problems) but at some central regional location where they can reasonably process such things without undue delay. Maybe the DMV shuts down on election day and handles only this. I dunno. But I’m concerned about people either forgetting/not knowing they need an ID, or losing their IDs the night before the election or whatever, and being unable to vote as a result. There needs to be some recourse for that. If you can prove your identity in precisely the same manner that’s required to get a photo ID normally, you should be able to get a quickie ID and go vote.
Bottom line, there has to be a way this photo ID issue can be worked out in a manner that achieves both sides’ legitimate purposes, namely that everyone should be able to vote without any financial barrier and without significant logistical inconvenience, and at the same time, that everyone who is voting should have their identity verified. There is no reason why those purposes cannot both be achieved. (Well, no reason, except the parties’ conflicting, non-legitimate, political purposes — Republicans WANT fewer poor people/minorities to vote, because they tend to vote Democrat, while Democrats, for the same reason, want to prevent ANY barriers to those folks’ voting, even if the barriers don’t amount to “disenfrachisement” (but would simply discourage lazy unmotivated voters from bothering to vote), and even if the absence of those barriers incidentally makes fraud easier).
By the way, please don’t say I’m claiming that the GOP is racist or hates poor people, because I’m not, any more than I’m claiming that the Dems love voter fraud. I’m just saying both parties want to win, and the fact is, the GOP generally maximizes its chances by making it marginally harder for less-motivated folks to vote, while the Dems generally maximize their chances by making it easier for those same folks to vote, even if that also results in more fraud. That’s just the political reality and everyone knows it, and it’s what drives 95% of this discussion, unfortunately.
Just so we are clear here, what you are saying is YOU hate poor people, right? Just making sure I am hearing you correctly.
Of course! Lazy bums.
[/political career]
“All conservatives must die. Die, conservatives! Die! Die! Die! Die! Die!” exclaimed Tim Stevens.
Well..someone else has a career in liberal politics ahead of them……
Hey! I told you that in confidence, gahrie!
Republicans WANT fewer poor people/minorities to vote, because they tend to vote Democrat, while Democrats, for the same reason, want to prevent ANY barriers to those folks’ voting, even if the barriers don’t amount to “disenfrachisement” (but would simply discourage lazy unmotivated voters from bothering to vote), and even if the absence of those barriers incidentally makes fraud easier).
I think that is an untrue oversimplification. What annoys the GOP is the bigger picture machine: unions allocating millions of dollars and mobilizing hundreds of thousands of personnel to pick up every poor, half-breathing human they can and taking them to the polls, shepherding them through the process to a successful vote for the Democratic candidates. I’m sure many of these voters are quite lucid and just need a ride to the polling place, but what also ends up happening in a lot of these precincts is a reckless disregard for voter identification / verification safeguards in the guise of cramming as many warm bodies into the voting booths as possible. I don’t ask that every voter pay his or her own way to get a voter ID or a ride to the polls, but what I do ask for is a de-gooning of the process whereby we don’t have hundreds of thousands of voters who have zero knowledge or interest in the issues or the elections, but who pulled the lever for a D because a union-sponsored lout drove him to the polls and just about filled out his ballot for him, then gave him $5 to go buy a BIg Mac and fries. Somehow I don’t believe that was the kind of democracy Jefferson intended — or even Jackson for that matter.
…a de-gooning of the process…
Excellent phrase.