With Rights Come Responsibilities
January 13th, 2009 | by JP |I guess I don’t have really strong feelings about the bill, or same-day registration except for this: Proponents of same-day talk about the importance of the right to vote, and I agree wholeheartedly. However, with that right comes responsibility.
How can you look me in the eye and tell me you think your right to vote is important, and yet you don’t have the time to register beforehand? It doesn’t cost anything except time – and if it’s not worth your time, then how can you say it’s important?
“It would disenfranchise [insert group here]”. Baloney. Same day voting is a product of the instant-gratification society we’ve become. If it’s applied equally, then it will impact equally. I’m no more disenfranchised by a lack of same-day voting than anyone else.
“Some folks think they’re registered when they’re not.” Odds are that’s because they didn’t choose to exercise their right to vote in a previous Presidential election, and the County election officials correctly deduced that if it wasn’t important enough for them to vote for the leader of the free world, then they probably don’t want to be on the list.
In the instance that you were incorrectly purged, take some personal responsibility [there’s that pesky word again] and make sure you’re registered. You get a nifty voter registration card, too. That’s a pretty good sign that you’re registered. Don’t have one? Maybe you’d better check to see if you really are registered. Again, it doesn’t cost anything to find out except for time.
I guess I’m frustrated by the folks who talk about how important this is, yet they don’t behave like it’s that important. It’s enabled by the well-intentioned folks who want to make sure that everyone who wants to vote, so they provide tools for the lazy and uninterested to take part in something they really don’t care about; then raise the specter of disenfranchisement when those tools are challenged.
Allowing for some hyperbole, what’s next? Next-day voting for folks who forgot, or just couldn’t get out of work? Extend it a week? Maybe year-round voting, and we just keep going until the results are what we want?
Voting is a critical right – people die for the right to do what we take for granted. If you don’t take it seriously enough to exercise the responsibility of looking to see if you’re even registered – what business do you have voting in the first place?
25 Responses to “With Rights Come Responsibilities”
By auntie lib on Jan 13, 2009 | Reply
Hear! Hear! I say we ought to require tests that prove the voters have some friggin’ clue about what they are voting for too.
I know – dream on!
By Craig on Jan 13, 2009 | Reply
c.f. Franken vs. Coleman
By problembear on Jan 13, 2009 | Reply
to limit someone’s right to vote because of an arbitrary law based on convoluted logic or some elitist’s idea of what a voter should know or is worthy of is the very definition of fascism.
the more republicans argue against same day registration the worse they look and the more vigilant we will be to protect the freedom of all voters in the state of montana.
By JP on Jan 13, 2009 | Reply
1. Ridicule the opposing idea. check
2. Call someone a name. check
3. Make a grandiose statement. check
4. Provide a constructive counter-argument.
Problembear, here’s a couple thoughts. First, what man-made laws aren’t arbitrary? Second, please point out where my logic is convoluted. Third, explain how it is ‘elitist’ to expect someone who supposedly values their right to vote to take the time to register for same?
Continuing down the path – how would removal of same-day voting encroach on any single freedom guaranteed by the U.S. or Montana Constitution?
I mean, I can have my mind changed – it’s happened before; But make an argument.
By JP on Jan 13, 2009 | Reply
I’d also add that my good friend Matt Singer is a very vocal proponent of same-day registration, and I do hope he comes by to poke holes in my argument.
I’m sure he’s a bit preoccupied right now trying to actually defeat the legislation in question, but hopefully he’ll find some time sooner or later.
By Doug on Jan 13, 2009 | Reply
Well, since we’ve come this far, I really don’t see any turning back, but one can “hope”.
By Craig on Jan 13, 2009 | Reply
Re: the screwdriver set.
Someone had to have done that to warrant the warning.
By problembear on Jan 13, 2009 | Reply
knocking down obstacles to anyone’s right to vote needs no argument if you are a free-thinking american. protecting that right also needs no argument to any sensible person. the only one who needs an argument is the person, party or government who dares to deny the voter’s right to cast a ballot.
the words wasted by your arguments fall on deaf ears because it is self evident that making it harder for a citizen to vote as a sort of “test” of their worthiness is the very definition of arrogance and the aristocracy that our patriotic forefathers fought for.
By JP on Jan 13, 2009 | Reply
Thanks for coming back, Problembear. I do wish you’d actually answer the question instead of redirecting into position statements and loquacious dismissals.
I’ll distill it down for you one more time.
How does the removal of same-day voting make it harder for anyone to vote? Provide an example. Something. Please?
By problembear on Jan 13, 2009 | Reply
last comment last word- against. and thanks craig for getting my blood going again. almost slipped back into hibernation. loved the signs doug. S.O. tells me it is time to stop trespassing and bothering everyone….
By MikeH on Jan 13, 2009 | Reply
Actually, maybe we ought to return to what the “founding fathers” required for an individual to be able to vote – “freeholder” status. They felt those who owned property were more inclined to vote intelligently by studying the issues from all points of view. Sort of validates Auntie Lib’s point of view.
And I sure don’t see why any responsible person wouldn’t be registered well before the date of the election. Those namby-pamby arguments of disenfranchising people who didn’t take the time to register earlier is plain BS. No one takes away your right to vote by setting requirements on voter registration. You still have the right, you just have to ensure you’re registered properly and on-time. It’s called personal responsibility! End of argument.
By JP on Jan 13, 2009 | Reply
Oh, and re:screwdrivers
The fail is strong with that one.
By problembear on Jan 13, 2009 | Reply
ok now S.O. is hitting me with the frying pan again but can answer jp with this before i have to retreat. why does limiting the time to 30 days before an election from the current law which allows registration up to the day of the election make it harder to vote??? that is self evident to any but the most obdurat individual.
By JP on Jan 13, 2009 | Reply
According to the article I read (and linked), it closes registration the Friday prior to the election, not 30 days prior.
By Steve on Jan 13, 2009 | Reply
PB – I think the better argument is that same day registration leads to greater instances of voter fraud, thereby diluting the vote of those who can legitimately vote.
Just think of swarms of yuppies dressed in J. Crew pouring off of buses, rushing the polling station demanding to be allowed to vote, voting, then returning to the buses to assault another polling station and illegally vote again somewhere else.
By Matt Singer on Jan 14, 2009 | Reply
Well, J.P., what is your argument, exactly? That people shouldn’t be lazy? OK. I agree. That lazy people shouldn’t be allowed to vote? Sorry. Bzzt. That doesn’t follow.
Here’s my argument — the Montana Constitution explicitly guarantees a right to vote (although it uses higher falutin’ langauge than that). Sure, along with rights come responsibilities, but those responsibilities really ought to be pretty uniform.
Voter registration as it currently exists in this country basically is a burden for a unique group of people — folks who move a lot. I have to re-register to vote once a year. I’m simultaneously supposed to pack all my crap, move it, update my address with the post office, my bank, my credit cards, my auto loan folks, the DMV, etc.
Now, as you might surmise from my transient life style, I have yet to purchase a house, which indicates I’m of middling income and definitely have to work, far more than a 9-to-5.
I know that I have to register and keep my registration up-to-date because I do this stuff for a living. A number of my peers don’t really know the ins-and-outs of election law. Insanity, I know, but in their defense, they are genuinely surprised to learn how relatively complicated the laws are.
And all for what reason? To punish “lazy” people? That seems like a terrible justification for a pretty expensive and cumbersome piece of public policy.
Deregulate voting.
By auntie lib on Jan 14, 2009 | Reply
Matt ~ How hard is it to “update my address with the post office, my bank, my credit cards, my auto loan folks, the DMV, etc.”? A nuisance to be sure, but not hard. The “etc” should automatically be updating your voter registration – it’s virtually the same process, certainly no more difficult.
Your argument is weakened though when you acknowledge, “A number of my peers don’t really know the ins-and-outs of election law”. That’s the underpinning of my frustration: That somehow people who are so unaware of the very basic responsibilities of citizenship should be given special consideration to assure they get their rights.
Bullpucky, guys.
Let’s call this effort to “franchise” these poor voters exactly what it is – a very thinly disguised plan to take advantage of the ignorance, apathy, and stupidity of certain segments of our society for the political gain of another. Those of us who are at all politically savvy know exactly what’s going on. It’s still a pig.
By JP on Jan 14, 2009 | Reply
First – Thanks for the first solid argument I’ve heard on this subject, Matt.
I’d like clarification on two things – first on the lazy people. I don’t think I said they shouldn’t be allowed to vote. However, if their laziness keeps them from voting, why do we insist on dragging them kicking and screaming to the polls? For what purpose?
And again, if they’re that lazy – what happens if they actually start missing election day because the second Tuesday in November is too burdensome – do we change it? Make it a floating day? Allow for post-election-day voting for those who just couldn’t possibly make it on election day? Seems to me in the interest of total inclusion you’re throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
As far as the nomads like yourself, you already know you have to change your post office information, bank, credit cards, auto loan folks, DMV, so when you’re at the courthouse updating the address on your driver’s license – fill out a change of address card for your voter registration. Seems common sense to me, and you’re already down there.
It doesn’t take knowledge of state licensing procedure and MCA to know you need a driver’s license, and it doesn’t take knowledge of postal regulations to change your address. It also doesn’t require knowledge of election law to register to vote.
Correct me if I’m wrong (and thankfully, you will!) but your argument still comes down to ‘just too busy’. If that’s the case, I respectfully disagree.
There’s ample time in a year for someone who genuinely feels their vote is worth something to get registered. It’s free, it’s easy, and it’s relatively quick.
I’ll admit I don’t know the intricacies of the legislation (current and proposed) like you do, but I’m confused as to why it’s any more expensive and cumbersome to say registration ends at 5pm on Friday versus 8pm on Tuesday.
This from a guy who has railed against electricity deregulation, financial law deregulation, banking deregulation, and corporate deregulation as bad? Seriously?
Anyway, have fun today in Helena. Ted’s legislation won’t pass anyways – in no small part due to your efforts and I applaud you for it. Come back and banter when you have time.
By auntie lib on Jan 15, 2009 | Reply
When all is said and done, even the IR has to admit that this isn’t some philosophically high-minded issue:
“…people making these late-coming registrations are more likely to simply vote in line with their own personal interests. If that means expanding government services rather than decreasing the size of government, Democrats should benefit from these new voters.”
Just calling the way it is. Bring on the lipstick – the pig’s showing.
By Pete Talbot on Jan 15, 2009 | Reply
Sometimes things fall through the cracks. I’ve heard numerous stories about all kinds of people showing up at the polls on election day and not finding their names on the rolls, for a number of reasons.
Should folks not be allowed to vote because of a lost registration card, or some confusion over the process, or a clerical error … ?
By JP on Jan 15, 2009 | Reply
Absolutely, Pete – mistakes happen. I do believe that’s what a Provisional Ballot is for; so those who are caught in a clerical snafu can vote, and have their vote counted once they get the confusion cleared up.
Moving the closure of voter registration to the Friday prior wouldn’t impact that one bit.
By Matt Singer on Jan 15, 2009 | Reply
The ‘deregulate voting’ is tongue-in-cheek, I hope.
My other point here is that the rules are what we make them. The important rules for understanding civics are not the particular voting rules of your state (and voting rules vary wildly state-to-state from NoDak with no voter reg to MN with polling place same-day voter reg to OR with exclusive vote-by-mail to WA with some county exclusive vote-by-mail and others mixed like Montana).
My other point here is that a lot of this stuff isn’t laziness. It’s a particular kind of ignorance — whether that is ignorance of one own’s registration status (who here knows how many elections a voter can choose not to participate in before he or she is made inactive and eventually removed from the voter rolls? also – is it possible to vote every two years and still be rendered inactive? [hint: it is]) or ignorance of the need to be registered 30 days in advance.
Laziness is a trope advanced by the stably employed and housed to punish a group of people still figuring out a lot of shit in their lives. We want equal rules for everyone, fine, let’s require that every individual register 30 days for each election in which they plan to participate. That’s actually a level playing field. Would we see fewer youth voting under that scheme? Yeah, but we’d see lower turnout overall. And toward what goal other than making life hard for people? I sure as heck don’t know.
By JP on Jan 15, 2009 | Reply
Who’s talking about being registered 30 days in advance? Washburn’s bill says the Friday before the election. My math says that’s four days, not 30. Both you and PB have mentioned 30 days prior – where’s this coming from?
And I guess I just disagree with legislating to support laziness and/or ignorance. You call it voter suppression, I call it promoting responsibility.
By Rocky Smith on Jan 16, 2009 | Reply
I don’t want legitimate voters disenfranchised, but I want the integrity of elections protected. Same day registration is fraught with vote fraud potential. Know anyone who voted in two states on the same day? I do.
By Steve Mosby on Feb 21, 2009 | Reply
Sir, you are utterly wrong! With great freedom comes great responsibility. People need to take the time to register…there has to be some standard/ accountability set to see that people who are not eligible to vote do not. There are so many ways to cheat on voting…same day registration makes fraud so easy…NO …be responsible…submit to registration and prove you are eligible…and get over this nanny state mentality!