An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
It’s All About Negativity
When I look at the campaign tactics used in America, I am often struck by the low grade personal attacks used, the hatred, the fear, the bitterness, the list goes on and on. It truly is incredible. There seems to be but one kind of strategy: make everything as negative as possible. Don’t focus on your own, positive plans / ideas, focus on how much of a (incompetent) jerk your opponent is.
People are not called on to vote in favor of something, but in opposition to something.
The New York Times seems to have noticed that those strategies are running out of hand as well…
65 Responses to “It’s All About Negativity”
JJC
I would expect you would find that a large portion – if not a majority of the poor work on weekends.
And still there is not, there is early voting &Absentee ballot voting – both of which cover possibilities that you will be unable to vote on voting day.
The only other option would be to make it a federal holiday – which even in that case Many people do work on holidays.
We do not have a mandated Monday through Friday work schedule in the United States. Ever walk into a store on a weekend? People that are there as employees who have schedules to be there on the weekend. Your non-work day thought has no basis for reality.
Both political parties love early voting, yet I despise it and won’t early vote unless that’s the only way I GET to vote. Early voting means that you’re locked in to a vote before all the information is available. If your candidate does something so reprehensible that you’d change your vote to someone else (even a write-in), you don’t get that chance.
I know a lot of people love it, and the parties love it precisely BECAUSE it lets them lock in votes early, but I think it should be limited to only people with need instead of made widely available as it is in much of the country (my county in Colorado, for example).
CS You reject that anyone who still would somehow find it difficult to vote could do so by absentee, yet you argued that religious people who might be disenfranchised by Sat or Sun voting would find their remedy in the absentee process. I guess what’s good enough for them isn’t good enough for anyone that has a conflict with their work schedule??
As “interested” says above, there’s no possible arrangement that doesn’t inconvenience somebody. But his/her suggestion that Saturday would inconvenience just as many as Tuesday does strikes me as, to put it politely, counterintuitive–do you really, seriously believe that as many people have Tuesday off as Saturday?
So unless there are so many people whose religion prohibits them from voting on Saturday that the number affected equals or exceeds those who work on Tuesday and have Saturday off, I believe the greater numbers should be accommodated.
Having said that, I can’t resist: how can you suggest that a religious restriction against voting on a certain day merits equal consideration with obligations at work? Is religion anything other than totally optional? A job is likely to be a function of what’s available.
You simply aren’t entitled in this argument to demand proof that some employers make it more difficult to vote. The fact that I have to go to work at all makes limits my freedom to vote whenever I’d choose that day. Why should that be? Why isn’t the reduction of that inherent limitation a primary objective, especially when it comes at no cost?
CS:
1. The disenfranchisement is much greater in scale than the fraud, not to mention it equally distorts the vote.
2. The disenfranchisement can be easily seen as a calculated collective strategy by a large and powerful political entity. Why do you think it is that it’s always Republicans who make the arguments against making it easier to vote?
3. Accusing me of being deeply cynical, if not immoral, is a transparent diversion from the issue you plainly choose not to address: Republicans regularly and systematically endeavor to depress the vote.
Because of the first amendment: the second clause which is often ignored, that the state shall not infringe on the practice of religion.
Believe it or not, some people do take the practice of their religion to be as serious of an obligation as their jobs. You may not agree, you may think that is silly, but the constitution protects it.
Since you have disallowed any stats or facts to be used to back up assertions, there is no way I can argue with your assertions that obstruction to voting is more widespread than voter fraud, so there’s no point in me discussing it further under the conditions that you’ve demanded.
Since you have disallowed any stats or facts to be used to back up assertions, there is no way I can argue with your assertions that obstruction to voting is more widespread than voter fraud, so there’s no point in me discussing it further under the conditions that you’ve demanded.
This is a pitiful evasion. I demanded nothing. There is very obviously nothing to stop you from introducing any stats or facts you want. On one issue I said I wouldn’t. You’re attempting to make quite a lot more of that than is warrented.
You think voter fraud is just as widespread as disenfranchisement. Or maybe you don’t but you’d rather avoid admitting that you don’t. I admit I’m not at the moment prepared to engage the argument, other than to say known problems in Ohio in ’04 point to disenfranchisement as much more of a problem. Frankly, it seems obvious enough to me, but maybe I’ll have to bone up on the nitty gritty.
As to your comments on religion, a hot topic for both of us, I don’t think there’s really a case to be made that having voting on the Saturday infringes anyone’s practice of their religion, which a person chooses of their own accord. I’m think you’re disinclined to suggest there’s compulsion or coercion involved in this choice.
The issue of whether people take their religion seriously is yours, not mine. I don’t doubt it all, I just don’t think it merits special treatment in non-religious contexts. Obnoxious though it may be to you, I think it fair to insist on this point.
Maybe so.
I never claimed that voter fraud and voting obstruction were taking place at equal levels. My argument (and the position of the bipartisan commission) is that it doesn’t matter; when elections are as close as they are lately, either one of these can effect the outcome even if they are occurring only to a limited degree. My stance is that both issues need to be addressed and I’m baffled as to why anyone would dispute that, as long as the ID situation can be handled without being burdensome.
jjc
Yes and No. If one of your points to making voting easier is to also greatly assist the poor into voting, than changing the day will not greatly alter it.
For example here in 04′s election – like I said I knew I couldn’t be here on voting day to vote. So I did the early voting. It was really quite good, you had about a week or so to get down to one of over a dozen locations to vote. And the early voting was also open on at least Saturday – a day I voted.
There has got to be a level of personal responsibility to go and vote. The above is just one example, add in absentee ballots – polls that are open early in the day and close late. There are quite a few possibilities to allow someone to vote if they want too. What more do you want – mandatory polls in grocery stores? How much more until your in the area of accomodating the lazy?
There has to be a level of personal responsibility. Heck there are even communities where the party will pick you up and take you to a voting station just so you will vote. Course you have to ask for the ride.
I never claimed that voter fraud and voting obstruction were taking place at equal levels. My argument (and the position of the bipartisan commission) is that it doesn’t matter;
Well then maybe we’re arguing at cross purposes. I think if disenfranchisement is a bigger problem, it deserves more attention. The House is doing the opposite.
Maybe to you that’s just politics. But if so, I’ll still go with deeply cynical if not immoral.
Well, I’ll take it as a sign of improvement that you are no longer denying that the fraud issue exists.
Regarding the House bill, I’ve already stated my cynicism over the fact that they chose to focus on this one issue. That doesn’t negate the fact that I support what they are doing on this one issue. I hope that other measures will go farther to remedy all of the opportunities for deceit and disenfranchisement.
interested: If one of your points to making voting easier is to also greatly assist the poor into voting, than changing the day will not greatly alter it.
I think we’re both speculating about this one. The problem I see with your take is that employees at stores that are open seven days a week mostly cancel each other out as to off days, so the net effect is minimal compared to employees at any other type of business, which, of course, is still clearly the majority.
CS, I didn’t deny that the fraud problem exists–here’s my statement: This year we have a lot of places instituting picture voting cards to counter the threat of a largely non-existent fraud problem.
It meant to imply denial that its existence, such as it is, justified partisan legislation likely to affect move valid than invalid voters. You could fairly extrapolate somewhat from this, but not to where I’m outright denying the existence of fraud altogether.
I failed to read the cynicism into your reference to the House’s dealing with the single issue of voter ID, but I give you credit for raising it voluntarily.
CS,
The people you vote for will never, ever, ever address voter disenfranchisement.
In terms of changes in the voting system, while I’ve never seen instances of it being used for officials I do know of one system that uses it. The Hugo Awards are the awards presented by the World Science Fiction Convention every year for categories such as best novel, novelette, etc. My wife and I managed the entire process for one WorldCon and just the voting section for another. It certainly can produce interesting results but while some have complained there’s never been anyone unhappy enough to seriously propose changing it.
As far as what day to hold elections, why should we be limited to one day? What would be wrong with Saturday and Sunday or Friday and Saturday?
As far as what day to hold elections, why should we be limited to one day? What would be wrong with Saturday and Sunday or Friday and Saturday?
I agree. No reason other than our need for instant gratification on learning the results.