We are non-commercial, all volunteer and supported by our readers. Please help sustain the Dew by making a donation.
Your Vote Might Count
Being Cavalier About Counting the Votes
There has been lots of talk during the 2012 election season about efforts to suppress the vote or, as I like to refer to it, “thinning the electorate.” The legislative requirement that voters validate their existence with documentary evidence was part of that effort, made supposedly less onerous by letting forgetful people fill out provisional ballots and then come back with the paper-work a few days later. Suspicious people assumed that the provisional ballots would, like the ballots of absentee voters never be counted, regardless of whether they’d be validated, because that’s what had always been done. Nobody bothered to count the ballots of absent voters, unless their number was large enough to make a difference in a tight race, because, speaking frankly, it would require a lot of work that people who couldn’t be bothered to show up in person weren’t worth.
Besides, rubber stamp voters who just followed the party line were largely considered a nuisance by the political operatives, who had to go through a lot of effort for what they considered to be entirely predictable results. Which they were in large part because a significant percentage of the vote, enough votes to make a difference, had always been thrown out, as a matter of course, because voters had made mistakes. See, it’s always the voters fault when votes don’t get counted.
When the State of Georgia was persuaded to go all electronic with voting machines, the Secretary of State was most conscientious and made lots of speeches to interested citizen groups, explaining that one of the main reasons for going electronic was because when paper ballots were used, they routinely threw out ten percent because of one mistake or another — like voting for three people instead of the two needed to fill available positions. Who knew that one mistake would cancel the whole ballot?
Some people might say that the documentary hoop is just another effort to introduce an “opportunity” for people to make mistakes and get their votes canceled. Others don’t get the problem because they can’t imagine why anyone would want to suppress the vote. It doesn’t occur to them that decades of hand-wringing over low voter participation were actually expressions of glee that only the habit-prone base had turned out and independent thinkers had been persuaded not to waste their time and stayed home. Who knew that the old guard had been working year in and year out, round the clock, to make voting a special event for some people (their base) and unattractive for most?
Who knew that the press and other purveyors of propaganda had a common interest in controlling the outcome of races, not just because they are into control, but because their business model is geared to the horse race and candidates contesting each other, rather than having to pay attention to what the voters actually do? Who knew that part of that business model demands a sudden end, a clear decision on election day, so they can go on to the next event, even though all the votes, absentee and provisional, haven’t been counted yet? Apparently not Dr. Carmona, who was persuaded to concede the election for the U.S. Senate from Arizona to Mr. Flake, even though over six hundred thousand ballots have yet to be counted; more than half of which are the result of early voting.
Presumably, the concession won’t count, if the results of counting the early voting ballots show that Carmona was actually selected by the majority. But, there’s still the problem that, if the people who filled out provisional ballots are led to think their vote is not going to count anyway, they likely won’t bother to come back with the validating papers, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy and validating the preconceived notion that some voters just aren’t serious and don’t deserve to be considered. And for some people, validating preconceived notions is sweeter than any success. Not to mention that counting is such a drag.
See, it’s not even necessary to posit any kind of antagonism to account for suppressing the vote. Laziness and a cavalier attitude will take care of it.
- Real Dems Count Votes Image: by Talk Radio News Service via their flickr photostream and used Creative Commons license.
Worthy of Comment
Also on the Dew
Well, He Hands You A Nickel, He Hands You A Dime . . . Such was the way Maggie's brother treated workers in Bob Dylan's "Maggie's Farm," but Charles Oscar Finley doled out considerably more to the Beatles in 1964: $150,000. Charles Oscar Finley longed to be adored, if not loved, though he acted despicably at times. He considered himself a self-made man and expected other men to meet his standards, even as those standards shifted wildly. In the mid-1940s, flat on his back with tuberculosis, Finley envisioned ways to make a fortune in the health insurance business. All Finley had Read on →
How does that happen? Mostly, it's the result of a mixture of hubris and inadvertence. Humans, stuck on themselves, think they know it all. Others are convinced "all it takes is the idea" (the ExxonMobil slogan) and, as it was in the beginning, man says the word and nature is obedient. Fortunately, the age of electronics has made it possible to virtually eliminate inadvertence. We can look ahead and simulate what will happen, if we repeat the mistakes of the past. That's what James Holland is doing with the various projects at Cannon's Point in the marshes on the coast of Read on →
When you get interested in painting you naturally look around to see what others who got this bug have done. Finding out what painters are doing in the U.S. today is like listening to rock on the radio. You have to wade through a lot of “forgettables” before you hear one that will be an “oldie” in ten years. Museums show oldies. Most of their collections have been filtered. The forgettables have been thrown out. On this painting journey you will run across an opinion that painting is dead, irrelevant, old paradigm. You can ignore that, and be sure you will en Read on →
In a class on Dante I'm currently enrolled in, Professor Frank Ambrosio of Georgetown University quoted the nineteenth century philosopher Friedric Nietzsche that human beings, as far as we know, are the only animals who make promises. I only add that humans are also the sole ones who break them. According to Ambrosio, Nietzsche puts the significance of human promising and its place with regard to freedom this way: "In man, nature set itself the task to breed an animal worthy of making promises." It's an extraordinary idea. What is it that allows an animal that lives in the here and now to Read on →