More than Machines
Today, as the electorate goes to the polls, any number of rumors and allegations will fly about new election laws, fraud, intimidation, and dirty tricks. Obsession with Diebold voting machines, in particular, has reached an all time high. Journalists and film-makers have flooded the market with exposes, tell-alls, and even do-it-yourself cheating manuals, to point up just how imperiled the vote is.
It is hard to see how this declaiming is doing much to improve our democracy.
In fact, it is likely to have at least an opposite effect than that intended. The more you convince people their vote won't be counted properly anyhow, the more you play into already existing cynicism and apathy. The unintended message - 'voter stay home', not 'voter go protest.'
Moreover, some of these problems are no doubt real, and dismaying, but they also smack of the parties getting their excuses ready. A bit of corruption here and there might throw the odd district to one side or the other, but the Democrats and Republicans can't blame their election (mis)fortunes on dirty tricks. They live and die by the quality of their campaign and their candidates. We should not give either party an excuse to shift responsibility for their political fortunes elsewhere.
The above two arguments are even more true considering that, historically, disenfranchisement and corruption are most likely at historical lows. The most notorious examples - of restricted suffrage, poll, literacy and property taxes, public voting - aside, we should recall just how corrupt elections used to be. In the 19th century, it was common to have the partisans of one party hire gangs to beat up anyone going to the poll who was suspected of voting for the other side. Mass naturalizations of immigrants by partisan judges the week before an election was a regular procedure in northern states. These are but two of many examples of how much corruption there was in prior elections. This is not to dismiss real limitations on the effective use of the franchise now, but it is relatively minor compared to much more profound problems with American democracy. It is not as if our political life would be truly and deeply democratic if elections ran more smoothly. The obsession with technical problems not only reinforces cynicism and apathy, it reflects a narrow diagnosis of the problem, and deeply limited political imagination amongst the partisans of democracy.
It is hard to see how this declaiming is doing much to improve our democracy.
In fact, it is likely to have at least an opposite effect than that intended. The more you convince people their vote won't be counted properly anyhow, the more you play into already existing cynicism and apathy. The unintended message - 'voter stay home', not 'voter go protest.'
Moreover, some of these problems are no doubt real, and dismaying, but they also smack of the parties getting their excuses ready. A bit of corruption here and there might throw the odd district to one side or the other, but the Democrats and Republicans can't blame their election (mis)fortunes on dirty tricks. They live and die by the quality of their campaign and their candidates. We should not give either party an excuse to shift responsibility for their political fortunes elsewhere.
The above two arguments are even more true considering that, historically, disenfranchisement and corruption are most likely at historical lows. The most notorious examples - of restricted suffrage, poll, literacy and property taxes, public voting - aside, we should recall just how corrupt elections used to be. In the 19th century, it was common to have the partisans of one party hire gangs to beat up anyone going to the poll who was suspected of voting for the other side. Mass naturalizations of immigrants by partisan judges the week before an election was a regular procedure in northern states. These are but two of many examples of how much corruption there was in prior elections. This is not to dismiss real limitations on the effective use of the franchise now, but it is relatively minor compared to much more profound problems with American democracy. It is not as if our political life would be truly and deeply democratic if elections ran more smoothly. The obsession with technical problems not only reinforces cynicism and apathy, it reflects a narrow diagnosis of the problem, and deeply limited political imagination amongst the partisans of democracy.
1 Comments:
As usual, you're hitting the most salient point: the effect on voters of the articles and shows about vote rigging. My view, admittedly three days later (did anything happen those three days, I was gone???), has a slightly different emphasis.
I completely agree with the thrust of the argument, which I take to be that we don't want to discourage people from voting because they think Diebold et. al. will steal their votes.
Still, I can't help thinking that the plethora of stories in the SCLM helped to reduce the amount of fraud that actually took place, and to ready the populace for a fight if the real fraud was significant enough to require one. If, that is, Rove pulled off the trick with the rabbit and the hat that many folks expected him to, myself about halfway to being among them…
Post a Comment
<< Home