To Vote or Not to Vote

Human Events ^ | 09/12/2008 | Gary Bauer

[Delacon]

In this year of historic firsts, it should surprise no one that political prognosticators predict Election Day turnout to exceed 60 percent of the voting age population for the first time in 40 years.  Americans have “change” on their minds.  But they’re getting decidedly different visions of it from two presidential candidates who stand diametrically opposed on almost every issue. 

Despite the stakes, there remain some conservatives who see little reason to exercise that which Samuel Adams called one of the most solemn trusts in human society -- the right to vote.  So, with voter registration deadlines looming, let me offer three reasons why this year especially, to vote or not to vote should not be the question for conservatives.   

Every vote counts.  Some voters don’t vote because they feel their single vote will not change the outcome of the election.  And while that statement may be strictly true, it’s also true that recent elections have often come down to just a few votes. 

Ask voters in Washington State.  In 2004, Democrat Christine Gregoire won the governor’s race by only 129 votes out of almost 2.8 million cast.  And recall the 2000 presidential election, when a few hundred more votes in Florida (527) or a few thousand (about 3,000) more votes in New Hampshire would have given the presidency to Al Gore. 

And if 118,000 or so conservative Ohioans (about 2 percent of Buckeye State voters) had woken up on Election Day 2004 and decided that their votes didn’t matter, we’d have John Kerry as president, defeat in Iraq and two leftwing Supreme Court justices. 

With polls 53 days from Election Day showing a dead-heat between the presidential candidates, there is little reason to believe this year’s election will not be as close as the last two. Even Barack Obama’s top advisor agrees.  At the Democratic Convention, Obama’s chief campaign strategist David Axelrod told reporters “This is a close election.  There’s not a whole lot of play.  We have no illusions that this is going to be anything but close.”
 
The Left is energized as never before.  USA Today recently reported, “Outside groups have spent more than $25 million since Jan. 1, 2007, on ‘independent expenditures,’ and more than 70 percent has gone toward Democratic candidates.”  Among the top spenders this year are Planned Parenthood, the AFL-CIO and the Service Employees International Union -- all leftwing groups. 

While conservative groups like my political action committee, Campaign for Working Families, are conducting get-out-the-vote campaigns, the Left is registering millions of new voters, and in some unlikely places.  Recently, the Washington Post reported that a number of organizations -- the ACLU and the NAACP among them -- are leading a nationwide push to get as many felons registered to vote as possible. That’s right -- felons, not ex-cons, but current inmates. The Post noted that in Ohio, “The NAACP will hold a voter-registration day at the Justice Center in downtown Cleveland…to register 'people caught up in the criminal justice system.” In California, activists "register[ed] people visiting prisoners and encourage[d] them to take registration cards to their incarcerated friends or family members, some of whom can legally vote."

I've heard of all kinds of voter registration efforts, but this may be the first time there’s been a coordinated effort aimed specifically at those behind bars. But not all the Left’s “outreach” is on the up and up.  In the past few weeks, there have been reports of voter fraud linked to the leftwing Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in battleground states like Wisconsin and Ohio.  Voting is a cherished right, acquired by the blood of patriots. Voter fraud strikes at the core of our representative democracy, cheapening the value of your vote and mine.

All this should serve as a reminder to conservatives of how determined the Left is to win.
 
The stakes are as high as ever. I still encounter conservatives disillusioned with politics or still angry that their candidate didn’t win the presidential nomination.  They often want me to give them one good reason to vote in this election.  My response:  Judges. 

Judges matter for several reasons.  Six of the Supreme Court’s nine justices will be 69 years old or older on Inauguration Day 2009, including all five of the court's left-leaning members. Court watchers predict that the next president will appoint at least two justices.

Also, the average tenure of Supreme Court justices since 1970 is 26 years. While presidents remain in office for four or eight years, Supreme Court appointees have the opportunity to shape our laws for a generation or more.  And they have.  Conservatives rightly complain about judges who wield raw political power to redefine our most basic values. It’s the only way the Left can succeed. Since it cannot achieve its goals through the democratic process via elected legislatures it shrugs off the people and goes to the courts, where it relies on political activists cloaked in black who answer to no one.  So many core issues today, from the sanctity of human life and definition of marriage to our religious freedoms, are determined by the courts.

But the U.S. Supreme Court is not the only court that matters.  It is often overlooked that the next president will appoint hundreds of judges to fill vacancies that will arise in the federal court system over the next four years.  The Supreme Court gets most of the publicity, but the lower federal courts make most of the rulings, on everything from abortion and marriage to immigration and gun rights.
 
With political experts predicting a strengthened Democratic majority in the House and perhaps a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, liberals understand that if their presidential candidate wins on November 4th, they will be able to ensure far-Left judges entrenched in the courts for a generation or more.
 
In such a close election and with so much at stake, to vote -- or not to vote -- should never be the question.

Former presidential candidate Mr. Gary Bauer is president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families.

[Delacon]

With political experts predicting a strengthened Democratic majority in the House and perhaps a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, liberals understand that if their presidential candidate wins on November 4th, they will be able to ensure far-Left judges entrenched in the courts for a generation or more.

Vote.

[org.whodat]

it should surprise no one that political prognosticators predict Election Day turnout to exceed 60 percent of the voting age population

If you believe this I have some good investments available.

[Delacon]

“If you believe this I have some good investments available”.

Actually, I’ve read several articles that put turnout predictions at 80% so you could say that 60% turnout figure is conservative.

[org.whodat]

Oh, I guess you read it on the Internet so it has to be true. Dang!!!!

[Delacon]

“Oh, I guess you read it on the Internet so it has to be true. Dang!!!!”

Believe what you want, but these predictions are coming from state election offices.

[org.whodat]

With a long record of being wrong, LOL

[Nevadan]

re: Every vote counts. Some voters don’t vote because they feel their single vote will not change the outcome of the election. And while that statement may be strictly true, it’s also true that recent elections have often come down to just a few votes.

Nevada and the rest of the country are stuck with Harry Reid in the Senate because of only 400 votes.

[RKBA Democrat]

From the article: “I still encounter conservatives disillusioned with politics or still angry that their candidate didn’t win the presidential nomination. They often want me to give them one good reason to vote in this election. “

I’m sorry Mr. Bauer, that’s just a little too pat of an explanation, and you know it. The reason why conservatives are walking away from the vote is not that their own pet candidate didn’t win, it’s that the bulk of the choices are completely unpalatable from a conservative point of view. And then there is a GOP that is widely regarded by conservatives as inept, corrupt, and ineffectual.

If there is actually some interest in getting conservatives to vote, perhaps some of the “leaders” of the conservative movement, such as Mr. Bauer, would consider embarking on a campaign to clean up the GOP? But no, they would rather engage in the all-too-predictable election year fear campaign.

I guess it’s asking just a little too much of those who profit from the status quo to consider biting the hand that feeds.

[Christian4Bush]

mark

[Delacon]

Ok, smart guy. To what authority would you turn to for election turnout predictions. Or are you just one of those people who like to hop on a thread to snipe for sniping’s sake and annoy people? If you are, let me tell you, its working.

[org.whodat]

The only autority for election turn out is historical results. I see no reason that they should be any different this time.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election#Trends

[org.whodat]

The high water mark was 1960, and there has been a decline since this, so to try and say that the turn out this cycle will be higher than 1960 is like betting on ten inside straights in a row.

[Delacon]

Mr. Baur refered to people like you as “conservatives disillusioned with politics” and explained why you should still vote. Judges. Its a good reason. In fact, there are few reasons more important to the conservative movement. I certainly can’t think of one good reason to stay home. It wont reform the republican party. It will most likely push the republican party even further to the left.

[org.whodat]

Ok, smart guy.

I'm waiting for a highly educated person, as you want to claim, and a person of such long standing on this board, as you also seem to think, plans on explaining how historical past trends are not true. Are are you one of those people who likes to attack people when they point out you are posting garbage.

[R. Scott]

One of my favorite bartenders registered to vote for the first time in over 20 years. She intends to vote for McCain, not Barrack Hussein - because she’s sick of Barrack’s BS ads.

[Delacon]

Your own wiki link shows that turnout has been trending upwards since 1996 and the 2004 turnout was 56.69%. So the 60% turnout that Mr. Baur mentions in this article is by no means a stretch and certainly didn’t merit your snarky comment that you had some investments you could sell me if I believed it. IMO turnout will be in the mid 60s because this is the first time that an incumbent president or incumbent vp wasn’t running since 1952. I’m guessing that is going to increase turnout a bit. We shall see.

[RKBA Democrat]

“Mr. Bauer refered to people like you as “conservatives disillusioned with politics” and explained why you should still vote. Judges. Its a good reason.”

Thanks for your response.

Roe v Wade became the law of the land in 1973. Since that time, the GOP has had the opportunity to appoint several justices to the Supreme Court. As a matter of fact, I believe that 7 of the 9 currently serving were appointed by GOP Presidents.

Roe v Wade is still the law of the land.

At a certain point, you have to evaluate people and organizations on their effectiveness.

I still think coservatives should vote. But we shouldn’t be laboring under the delusion that voting is going to result in a significant change in the status quo.

[Delacon]

“I’m waiting for a highly educated person, as you want to claim, and a person of such long standing on this board, as you also seem to think, plans on explaining how historical past trends are not true. Are are you one of those people who likes to attack people when they point out you are posting garbage.”

Please ref my previous post. And I am just one of those people who defends the voracity of the articles I’ve posted when people attack the article with nothing to back it up. You went on to claim historical trends support a low turnout only after I responded to your initial posts. I then went on to point out how historical trends have turnout increasing not decreasing. The 60% turnout figure that Bauer uses is a real possibility.

[Palmettomom]

My nephew, niece, and her husband registered and plan to vote. I’d been trying to get them to do it for years. They are going to vote against Obama, but my niece really likes Palin. The first thing she noticed during the announcement of Palin for VP was that Trig was wearing Carhartt and no shoes. That won her over.

[org.whodat]

If you think a minor deviation one time out of the total record given establishes a trend you need to go take a Statistical analysis course, and study probability's I have. Then you may be able to tell the difference between wishful thinking, also called spin and facts as they are.