Posted on 07/20/2015 5:15:57 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
By passing automatic voter registration, which places the responsibility for registering on governments, rather than individuals, we could easily boost turnout. Other reforms to make voting easier, such as making Election Day a holiday, non-partisan voter registration drives, and early voting periods, should also be implemented.....
GOP politicians like Scott Walker work hard to suppress the vote. New data gives us a good idea why
This week the Census Bureau released their data on voter turnout in the 2014 election, and the numbers are abysmal. In 2014, only 41.9 percent of the voting age citizen population turned out, the lowest number census has recorded since they began collecting data in 1978. But these broad numbers obscure an even more important reality: that the decline in turnout between the 2012 Presidential election and the 2014 midterm was strongest among low-income people (see chart) and people of color.
As it happens this is also the first election since the Supreme Court struck down a key provision in the Voting Rights Act and conservatives rushed to pass discriminatory laws aimed at suppressing voter turnout. There is a large body of evidence suggesting that when voting is easier, more people vote, and that voter suppression laws disproportionately impact the poor and people of color. The turnout numbers from 2014 are dramatic: At the lowest income bracket, less than 1 in 4 citizens of voting age turned out, and only half were registered to vote, a drop of 48 percent from the presidential election. At the highest bracket the Census records data for ($150,000 and above), 80 percent were registered and 57 percent voted, a drop-off of 29 percent from the presidential election. However, another data source that surveys the wealthiest 1 percent found that in 2008, 99 percent voted, suggesting bias at the very top might be even higher.
In a previous Demos explainer, I argued that lower class bias in voter turnout would lead to more economically progressive policies and benefit the poor. In an upcoming piece, I expand on that argument with new data. One thing I examine is how policies that reduce turnout among people of color effect policy. To do so I used the American National Election Studies 2012 survey to examine differences in public opinion between white voters and non-white nonvoters. I focus on four questions about fundamental disputes about the role of government: whether government should increase service, boost spending on the poor, guarantee jobs and reduce inequality. I examine net support, meaning I subtracted the percentage of people in support of the law from the percent in favor.
As the chart above shows, the preferences of white voters are dramatically different than non-white nonvoters. While on net white voters want government to decrease services (52 percent say cut services and 24 percent say more, with 24 percent saying keep them at the same), nonwhite nonvoters overwhelmingly favor expanding services (16.8 percent, 47.1 percent and 36 percent, respectively). While a modest majority of white voters want more spending on the poor (26 percent to 24 percent with 49 percent saying keep spending the same), support among non-white nonvoters is dramatic (57.2 percent, 7.9 percent and 35 percent respectively). All told, nonvoters of color have vastly different preferences about the size and scope of government than white voters.
The divergent preferences of nonvoters mean that boosting turnout would change government policy to be more beneficial to the poor. The implications of universal voter turnout would be dramatic, as a brief examination of the international, historical and state level data suggest. Examining data from 19 countries over 22 years, Peter Lindert writes, “A stronger voter turnout seems to have raised spending on every kind of social program.” A study of Latin American countries from 1970 and 2008 finds that increasing democracy boosted spending on education, health, social security and welfare. Economists Dennis Mueller and Thomas Stratmann estimate that if voter turnout in increase from 40 percent to 80 percent, it would reduce the Gini Coefficient (which measures inequality on a scale from 0 to 1) by .04, which is equal to the entire effect of taxes and transfers in the United States. New studies examining differences in class bias (differences in turnout between the rich and poor) at the state level suggest that boosting turnout would reduce inequality by pushing policy in a more progressive direction.
Obviously, voter turnout can’t remedy all the gaps in participation in the American political system. As the chart below shows, the richest Americans engage with the political system far more across the board. But this only increases the importance for reducing the bias in voting, which is the simplest to remedy. One archaic barrier that political scientists agree reduces turnout is registration. By passing automatic voter registration, which places the responsibility for registering on governments, rather than individuals, we could easily boost turnout. Other reforms to make voting easier, such as making Election Day a holiday, non-partisan voter registration drives, and early voting periods, should also be implemented.
In addition, we must fervently fight voter suppression. As Naila Awan has noted, conservatives in North Carolina used the gutting of the VRA to ram through a bill to eliminate same day registration, early voting and pre-registration while also passing a strict voter ID law. In Wisconsin, Scott Walker has pushed for a voter ID laws that would disenfranchise as many as 300,000 eligible voters. Such bald attempts to suppress voting deserve to be universally condemned.
In addition, we should increase the voices of average Americans through a robust public financing system. The donor class is 90 percent white and 70 percent male. A whopping 42 percent of campaign contributions come from a tiny portion of donors, the 0.01 percent. Rather than 25,000 hyper-wealthy Americans dictating policy, a public financing system could increase the representation of people of color and working class people as well as women, in the donor pool. Research on the New York City public financing program suggests that it boosted diversity in the donor pool. Creating fair districts should also be a priority, because it would make every vote matter, encouraging voter turnout. Voting matters. The best evidence for why it does is how damn hard oligarchs fight to make sure you can’t.
July 16, 2015, The Hill: Dems float compromise linking Confederate flag to voting rights
[full text] House Democrats are floating a legislative deal linking the thorny Confederate flag debate with expanded voting rights.
Republican leaders last week were forced to scrap a vote on an Interior Department spending bill — and suspend their appropriations schedule indefinitely — over a partisan disagreement about displaying the Confederate flag in national cemeteries.
Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.), the third-ranking House Democrat, said Thursday that Democratic leaders will drop their push to attach flag-related amendments to appropriations bills, freeing Republicans to pursue their spending agenda, if GOP leaders will agree to consider an update to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a central part of which was gutted by the Supreme Court in 2013.
"I'm here to say to you that the members of the Congressional Black Caucus and the full Democratic Caucus are willing to sit down with the Speaker and work out a way for us to allow the proper display and utilization of ... the flag in certain instances if he would only sit down with us and work out an appropriate addressing of the amendments to the Voting Rights Act," Clyburn said during a press briefing in the Capitol.
"We believe that there's a proper place for all of us to honor our heritage, and nothing is more of a heritage to African-Americans than the right to vote."
The Democrats have been pushing a VRA update unsuccessfully for two years. With their new strategy, they're hoping the high-profile controversy surrounding the Confederate flag — which has only deepened since last month's racially charged killing of nine parishioners at an historic black church in Charleston, S.C. — will give them leverage in that fight.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) alluded to the Charleston massacre Thursday, suggesting that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and other GOP leaders need to do more to address institutional racism than attend funerals in the wake of tragedies.
"There has been an opportunity for the Republican majority not just to send a condolence card or show up at a service but to translate that into action," Pelosi said. "And we are now segueing from the conversation about the flag to a conversation about voting rights now."
The voting rights issue has been under the spotlight since June of 2013, when the Supreme Court struck down a VRA formula defining which states required federal approval before changing their election procedures. The law had applied on a blanket basis to nine states — most of them in the South — with documented histories of racial discrimination.
Writing for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that, while the federal government has the authority to monitor elections for fairness, the coverage formula is outdated and therefore unconstitutional. He invited Congress to update the parameters.
"Our country has changed," Roberts wrote, "and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions."
The ruling has had immediate practical implications, as a number of conservative states — including Texas, North Carolina and Alabama — have since adopted stricter voting requirements that had been on hold under the old VRA.
Supporters of the tougher laws, which include new photo ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements, say they're necessary to fight voter fraud and ensure the integrity of the election process.
Critics counter that problems of fraud are exaggerated, and the tougher rules are just a Republican gambit to discourage minority and other vulnerable voters, who tend to side with the Democrats.
Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who was savagely beaten during a landmark civil rights march that led directly to the VRA's passage in 1965, said Thursday that the tougher state requirements are a naked conspiracy to disenfranchise certain groups.
"Across the country, there's a deliberate, systematic attempt to make it harder and more difficult for the disabled, students, seniors, minorities, the poor, and rural voters to participate in a democratic process," Lewis said. "We must not let that happen."
In February, Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and John Conyers (D-Mich.), the ranking member of the panel, introduced legislation to update the VRA's coverage formula. Lewis and Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) have introduced similar bills.
GOP leaders have declined to move the legislation, arguing that the current VRA offers sufficient voter protections — a message amplified by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) in response to questions Thursday.
"While the Supreme Court struck down the old coverage formula that required certain states to pre-clear their voting rule changes with the federal government, the Court left in place other important tools in the Voting Rights Act, including the section that allows federal judges to place jurisdictions under a pre-clearance regime if those jurisdictions act in an unconstitutional and discriminatory manner," Goodlatte said in an email.
"So, strong remedies against unconstitutional voting discrimination remain in place today."
A GOP leadership aide noted only that, "Any action on the VRA would begin at the Judiciary Committee." [end]
Um, no.
Sorry, Salon, but the ‘clearest evidence’ is documented vote fraud and actual poll workers engaging in same while being praised for it.
For 2500 years we, whites, have produced the best minds on the planet, the greatest flourishing of the arts and sciences ever seen, the most complex and organized societies. We have White Supremacy, whatever exactly it may be, because we have been the earth’s most successful race. No other has come close. Deal with it.
LMAO!!! Same old tired talking point...
The Democrats in Congress are frivolous people, and this is further evidence of it.
Might be the best example of Darwinism.
Anything that makes “voting” easier for the uninformed, lazy, easily bought citizens who are interested only in a free ride on somebody else’s horse, is DOA for me.
Anyone who wants to can register for himself. It is not impossible for ANYONE to go to a courthouse and register. Making it a GOVERNMENT responsibility is bloating an already overbloated government. I am for less government and MORE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Your blah blah blah is all about communist control of America. YOU want bigger government and I want LESS government messing with my life.
The GOP should stop wasting money on PR. Just pay folks $1,000 to NOT vote.
The Dems are hell-bent on implementing this stuff by hook or by crook. Most likely with help from SCOTUS.
It’s not frivolous. If fully implemented the Dems would never lose another election.
Requiring proof of having voted to receive government benefits is also on the table IMHO.
Now Scott walker is being blamed for voter lethargy! Good Grief, next he’s going to be blamed for the drought in CA.
FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.
I want LESS government messing with my life.
Just consider the next democrat talking point, MANDATORY voting. It’s the cats meow.
Are they going to force the minorities to watch PBS, listen NPR, and read the classics ‘because it’s good for them’ too?
Nope, this is just about seeing to it that the DNC counts every uncast ballot as a straight ticket vote for their party.
If the electorate were engaged in the debate, things may not go as well as the Democrats would like.
Keep them uninformed, misinformed, and dependent. Hollywood will do the rest to demonize anyone who’d consider voting for a Republican.
I hope this idiot isn't trying to pass this off as real research. In a grad course I had in econometrics, the prof pointed out that there was a 99.999% correlation between rainfall in Iceland and cotton crops in the South. The lesson, however, was that a correlation without substantiating theory to explain it is just that: a correlation. As such it's worthless. As to Scott Walker blocking voting, he was trying to reduce illegal voting. Big difference. Dead people in Lake County, IN, still vote, often multiple times. A poll worker in Cincinnati bragged that she voted 6 times for Obama in the last election. Thankfully, she's in jail. I laud Walker's efforts and can only laugh at this "research".
Alternative interpretation of the data: lower “turnout” due to lower voter fraud.
The next phase will be vote totals adjusted by income and race.
The whites also created the best place in the world for the other races to live.
In the 70s they had dreams that the democratic citizens of America would be able to vote online, not just for candidates, but for (funding) whatever cause was being debated.
‘Gimme convenience or gimme death.’
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.