One of the key questions explored by political philosophers like Hobbes and Locke was that of the foundation of legitimate political authority. When the 13 colonies revolted against the rule of the king, they also sought a foundation on which to ground political authority. While there are many ways to solve this problem, the founders of the United States elected to adopt a philosophy shaped heavily by John Locke. The basic idea is that legitimate political authority requires the consent of the governed and that the majority should rule. Being aware of what Mill later called the tyranny of the majority, the founders put in place constitutional protections against possible oppressive incursions by the majority (and the state).
While these ideas appeal to me psychologically because of my upbringing, they also stand up well to philosophical scrutiny. As such, I accept that political legitimacy stems from the consent of the governed and that majority rule with proper protection against the tyranny of the majority is a good idea. There are, of course, those who disagree with these views—but that fight goes far beyond the intended scope of this short essay. For the sake of this essay, I will assume that these two basic principles are correct—leaving it open that they could be refuted.
Since the legitimacy of the government depends on the consent of the governed, it is essential to this legitimacy that the governed can provide or withhold their consent. As a practical matter, voting is a key part of this consent. A citizen can also provide consent by not voting—if they are free to vote and elect not to do so. If a citizen is denied the right to vote unjustly, then their consent is not secured. This weakens the legitimacy of the government since the government would be extending its authority beyond the consent provided by the citizens. To avoid a charge of absurdity, I must make it clear that I am not claiming that disenfranchising a single citizen destroys the legitimacy of the state. Rather, each unjustly disenfranchised citizen reduces the legitimacy of the state by a miniscule amount. I cannot, of course, draw an exact line at which a state would lose legitimacy by disenfranchisement—to require this would be to fall victim to the line drawing fallacy. But if the majority of citizens were unjustly disenfranchised, then that would seem to be a clear case in which the state would lack legitimacy. At levels less than this, the legitimacy of the state would be reduced proportionally to the degree of unjust disenfranchisement. Roughly put, the more citizens that are unjustly disenfranchised, the less legitimate the state. Individual citizens who are unjustly disenfranchised can make a good case that they now owe little or no obedience to the state that has disenfranchised them—but this is a matter for another essay. Suffice it to say that the principle of no taxation without representation is well established in the United States.
While we publicly and loudly praise the right to vote, the United States has a long and persistent history of unjust disenfranchisement. While the past is of interest, what is of great practical concern is the present unjust disenfranchisement of citizens.
One standard means of disenfranchising voters unjustly is to use the specter of voter fraud to “justify” various measures that deny citizens their right to vote. While voter fraud does exist, all the evidence shows that it is incredibly rare. To use an analogy, the obsession with voter fraud is like a person who thinks that Americans face a grave danger from excessive exercise and that obesity is not a serious problem. As such, they work hard to impose restrictions and limits on exercise while expressing no concerns about the health effects of being overweight. While athletic overtraining does occur, it is not a problem that afflicts the general population and the focus should be on the greater problem. Likewise for voter fraud and voter suppression: voter fraud does occur, but the real problem is voter suppression.
There is also the fact that the methods put forth as addressing voter fraud are often ineffective against the sort of fraud that has occurred. These methods, however, tend to be effective at disenfranchising legitimate voters, especially narrowly targeted voters. One example is the Republican’s voter ID law in North Dakota that requires voters to have an ID that shows a street address. Many native American voters live in rural areas and have PO boxes rather than street addresses and they are now trying to get new IDs that meet the requirement of the law. In terms of why the law exists, it is not because there was an epidemic of fraudulent voting by people using legitimate government IDs that lack street addresses. Rather, it is because Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp won her election by less than 3,000 votes in 2012. 80% of majority-Native counties voted for her, so suppressing their votes could help spell victory for her Republican challenger. This law will also impact other citizens.
Another example of voter suppression, one that is on the ballot this fall in my adopted state of Florida, is restricting felons from voting even after they have served their sentences. Under Rick Scott, Florida has a Kafkaesque system by which felons can attempt to regain their right to vote. If the voters make the correct decision this fall, this could be changed so that most felons have their voting rights automatically restored after the serve their sentence. While felon disenfranchisement impacts Republican and Democratic voters, it is generally seen as impacting Democrats more—which explains why Republicans tend to favor it more than Democrats.
There are various other ways in which citizens are unjustly disenfranchised, most of which are the result of strategies of the Republican party. It might be countered that I and the Democrats are only concerned about voter suppression because the voters being targeted are more likely to vote for Democrats. One might go beyond this and claim that I and the Democrats would be fine with the suppression of Republican voters. One might point to how Democrats engage in gerrymandering and other political trickery, perhaps even their own version of voter suppression.
My reply is that I cannot speak for the Democrats; but I can speak for myself. My view is that voter suppression is wrong regardless of who is being unjustly suppressed. As such, if the Democrats engage in voter suppression, I condemn that as strongly as I condemn voter suppression by Republicans. Or anyone, for that matter. While I would generally prefer that a Democrat win (if only from the pure self-interested fact that Democrats tend to be much friendlier to education and more pro-environment than Republicans), I would rather lose an election fairly than win through voter suppression. This is because, as noted above, voter suppression reduces the legitimacy of the state by robbing citizens unjustly of their opportunity to consent. In a nation that professes to be a democracy (yes, I know that it has a republican system at most levels) to rob citizens unjustly of their right to vote is a crime of the highest order. This is because it denies the foundational right of the citizens of a democracy and damages democracy itself. As such, voter suppression is treason, plain and simple.
Ho, hum.
This comes up every year before an election – and any time anyone looks beneath the surface of these wild, accusatory left-leaning blog posts, op-eds, and articles, one finds that in general, everyone agrees with the first part of your article and your conclusion – it’s the big “Republican Conspiracy” part that is problematic.
The logic goes something like this:
1. There are laws in every state governing elections and voting rights
2. Some of these laws are difficult to follow for some people.
3. Therefore, this is a purposeful act on the part of Republicans to illegally curtail the voting rights of people who would probably vote for Democrats.
The text, “The United States has a long and persistent history of unjust disenfranchisement” in your post is linked to an NPR article accusing the Republicans, not the United States. What is the unjust disenfranchisement?
First on the list – Alabama requires a photo ID.
Well, if that isn’t a throwback to Jim Crow, I don’t know what is.
Of course, what isn’t stated here is that a photo ID can be obtained in person, through the mail,or online. There is a government funded organization called “Free Legal Help Alabama” that helps citizens navigate through legal issues including how to obtain a valid ID at low- or no- cost. There is a long list of acceptable documentation, and referral services and government funded agencies at the ready to help those individuals who do not have any of the dozen or so acceptable forms of ID.
Let’s not forget the old adage, “Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part”. Presidential elections are held every four years, others every two years. Yet this issue comes up in a panic “on the eve of an election” every time. Suddenly, someone who has no ID wants to vote and doesn’t have the correct ID, so it’s naturally a Republican conspiracy to disenfranchise them. Where have they been for the last two years? Have they ever heard of a Post Office? No one is going to convince me that these people just sit home 24/7 because they have no way to get anywhere or do anything.
Second on the list – Ohio,Georgia and other states have enacted “Use it or Lose It” laws, which strike voters from registration rolls if they haven’t participated in an election in a prescribed period of time. Draconian, isn’t it? We might as well be living in the Middle Ages.
Of course, it’s pretty important to hear the other side of that – even though we know the Republicans are complete liars and it’s obvious this is just unjust racist disenfranchisement – but just for laughs, let’s take a look.
According to the National Council of State Legislators (NCSL),
“The goal of maintaining an accurate voter list is to ensure that eligible voters are able to cast a ballot, to keep track of who has voted to prevent anyone from voting twice and, by reducing inaccuracies, speed up the voter check-in process at polling places. Voter registration lists are the foundation of everything else in election administration.”
Wow. Those guys are pretty tricky. That almost sounds reasonable – that is, if we didn’t know better.
So what could be the cause of these inaccuracies?
The voter has moved
The voter has died
The voter has been convicted of a felony
The voter has become mentally incapacitated (maybe registering as a Republican can count for this ..? that would solve a bunch of problems!
These states go out of their way to cross check with other states, with the DMV, with employment records – and even send out postcards to voters to see if they’re still around.
So what’s the “prescribed period of time”?
In Ohio, the state is allowed to cancel voter registration if,
1. The citizen did not vote in two years and
2. Did not confirm their address and registration by returning a prepaid post card, and
3. Did not vote in the following four years.
It’s really a good thing that we already know that the Republicans are racist liars, otherwise we might be tricked into thinking this isn’t so unreasonable.
If I don’t hear from a student for several weeks, and they turn in no homework and don’t respond to my emails, I give them an F. And I notify their academic advisor. Not unreasonable at all – just making sure they haven’t dropped the class or dropped out of school. The F gets their attention, and if and when they do see me, we can talk about changing the grade.
Ugh. What a waste of time. I’m going back to work.
For unjust disenfranchisement in the United States, we could start with slavery and work forward from there to Jim Crow and beyond. We could also look at how women were denied the right to vote until the last century.
Well, I guess we could – but that’s not what’s going on today. We can have a robust conversation about world history, and talk about all kinds of injustice. Of course, neither slavery nor women’s voting rights were ever limited to the US – nor was the US even close to the last place to abolish slavery or adopt women’s suffrage.
But that’s an entirely different conversation, isn’t it?
I would think that as a logician and a philosopher, you might be interested in some of the logic behind the accusations that are being made, and whether the circumstances can or do prove any kind of malice or intent.
As an example, I linked an article by the National Council of State Legislators which described the goals of maintaining accurate registration lists and requiring identification for voting. I am a rational person, and these rules seem perfectly reasonable to me.
I also realize that there are some groups of people who have difficulty fitting in to structures that are established by rules. Homeless and unemployed, for example, or those who don’t drive – there are many examples of people for whom it is very difficult to simply produce a driver’s license and cast a ballot.
The question I have is,
“Is this some kind of sinister plot hatched by a bunch of Republicans to pro-actively prevent these people from voting?”
To make that kind of leap requires that we set aside all critical thinking and simply act on hatred alone. Sadly, that’s what’s going on. It’s no different from the recent Kavanaugh hearings, or the several posts you put up about “If A and B, then C”.
So in the grand scheme, this is just another example of a heated political battle – and some wild accusations being thrown around in hopes that they will stick enough to get others to hate Republicans.
It is very difficult to make the case that requiring a Photo ID is a purposeful disenfranchisement, when municipalities and state governments go to extreme measures to help the indigent, to help minorities, to help the elderly, and to help anyone who needs help to navigate the system, to waive costs, to offer guidance.
The National Mail Voter Registration form is available in Bengali, Chinese, Hindi, Japanese, Khmer, Korean, Spanish, Tagalog, and Vietnamese.
Voters guides, which include information on registering to vote, are available in Cherokee, Chinese, Dakota, Japanese, Korean, Navajo, Spanish, Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Yupik.
But – by the logic being presented here, it’s pretty obvious that someone, somewhere, is trying to prevent Israelis from voting in US election, because there’s no Hebrew …
In most states, National Mail Voter Registration Forms (in any/all those languages above) are available in state and county public assistance offices – SNAP/Food Stamps, WIC, Services for the Disabled – you can fill them out on site while you’re picking up your check – and if you have any problems there’s someone there to help, and they’ll mail it in for you. They’ll probably waive the fee and provide a stamp, too
So the big question that I have for you is – at what point does a consequence prove intent? How does this fit in the logical scheme of things?
At my institute, and probably yours, too, we use an online Learning Management System (LMS) which was designed with course continuity in mind. All communications with students – including assignment sheets, syllabi, homework dropboxes, and grades (along with a whole host of other things) pass through this LMS.
I have some students who are on scholarship, and don’t have much money. These students may not have laptop computers or Internet where they live. Some may not have smartphones. Are we discriminating against these students?
Students can come to campus and use our computer labs free of charge, 24/7. But it’s hard sometimes to get here! The buses are inconsistent, and sometimes it’s rainy or snowy …
How far do I need to go to accommodate these students? The rules are in place, the are consistent and exist for a reason. Am I purposefully disenfranchising them by enforcing rules that are difficult to follow?
The problem arises if someone happens to notice that a majority of these students are of a particular race, origin, gender, or whatever. Now we have a group, and it’s easier to make the charges stick, isn’t it?
People in this country know what it takes to cast a ballot. They are told in a dozen languages, they are told by mail, they are told by voter outreach efforts.
I would be grateful if you would take the time to parse the logic for me. I don’t understand.
Just as Republicans fight against studies of gun violence, Democrats fight against studies of voter fraud.
My wife is an immigrant. She gets called for jury duty and has to explain that she is not a citizen. They have no clue who is a citizen. It is incredibly easy for non-citizens to vote if they have a mind to.
First, most people do not want to vote. It would be odd if non-citizens were putting in the effort to try to vote, especially since they would be easy to catch and the penalties for fraud are high. Second, this is not a real problem. http://time.com/4669899/illegal-citizens-voting-trump/
Most states, I recall, pull jurists from a database of drivers licenses. You don’t have to be a citizen to have that license.
I encourage studies of voter fraud. If it is real and significant, then it should be addressed with effective counters. But, if it were a real problem, the Republicans would be dropping bank on studies and listing all the prosecutions for voter fraud. But, the Republicans generally just make vague claims about fraud and say it is really big. When pressed, they cannot present evidence for these claims. Since the Republicans control most of the government, they could prosecute voter fraud on a large scale-even if the evil Democrats fought to hide the criminals. Yet, we don’t see this happening. The best explanation is that the Republicans have few if any cases of fraud to prosecute.
Singing the fraudulent fraud song also damages democracy by undermining the faith of the citizens in the elections.
I believe 17 states have no voter ID laws. Vladmir Putin could fly into NY and vote. Can we think of anything in regard to citizen interaction with government that does not require identification? This seems completely absurd to me. I can’t even take out a library book without ID. What exactly is preventing even the poorest of people from obtaining a $10 state ID? Perhaps the millions of dollars being poured into campaigns (at now record levels) by Leftist rabble-rousers could be spent buying voter IDs for the homeless criminals that Democrats assure us will sway the elections in their favor. Instead, the Dems conduct illegal busing schemes.
BTW, studies do conclude that when criminals do register to vote (they usually don’t), they register as Dems over 50% of the time and as Repubs less than 20%.
I really do not have a problem with felons who have served their time voting. In fact, there are stories in the military of men who committed felonies, were convicted and imprisoned, and then after serving in military prison, got out and had honorable careers.
But, the Dems could have problems with their argument that once criminals have served their time, they have paid their debt in full. For instance, the Lautenberg Amendment prevents (in some states), people convicted of domestic violence from owning firearms. And of course felons cannot own firearms legally. Consistency would demand that these people be given back their gun rights. However, Locke did say that criminals forfeit their rights and can even be made slaves (forced labor in prison, which we still do).
Pragmatism > Ideological constructs. In an ideal world we don’t need IDs to vote. In an ideal world I don’t need an ID to get a library book, because all people in a rich nation should be allowed to have access to books. But… a $10 ID seems to be what a legal court would call “minimally intrusive”. Poorly written laws are not exactly the same as bad reasons to have the laws in the fist place.
The next thing to ponder is why the Democrats find it so necessary to pander to criminals and college students. these two groups seem to view government as Santa Clause. Locke would not approve.
I agree with you about firearms. If a felon should get back their right to vote after they serve their time, then they should also have their second amendment right restored. To believe otherwise is to be morally inconsistent. As you said, the Democrats should support both. As should the Republicans.
While it might sound absurd, getting that ID is a real barrier for some people. After all, what is easy for you and I could be quite hard for others. To use a silly example, suppose that a citizen had to run 3 miles in less than 30 minutes to be able to vote. We could do that easily and would scoff at the slackers who could not. But many folks can’t do something so easy.
One study shows that 5.7 million “non citizens” voted in the 2008 election. This is hardly a small problem if true.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/19/noncitizen-illegal-vote-number-higher-than-estimat/
Mind you, this article was written by a PHD student. This made my head hurt.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xjwmp/what-it-feels-like-to-be-disenfranchised-by-a-voter-id-law
Tons of DACA (illegal) voters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veE5-O6wACw&feature=youtu.be
Can you link to the arrests?
In the context of all the answers here, I’m going to repeat my comment. This is not about whether voter suppression exists, or could exist, it’s not about the legitimacy of government or the rights of Americans.
Let us not forget that this is a blog about philosophy, about logic, about reason, and about critical thinking.
The logical construction being used here is about the most insipid, irrational, and invalid argument possible, and yet it is a very common trope of the left. The fact that you, Michael, fall into this trap is somewhat disconcerting. I wish you would address this argument like you do so many others, and demonstrate to us how it is even remotely valid.
What I’m talking about is of course this:
Premise 1: There are regulations in place regarding voting
Premise 2: Some people find it difficult to follow these regulations
Conclusion: Therefore, those who find it difficult are being purposely disenfranchised, and their ability to vote is being deliberately repressed.
Here’s another example of the same argument:
Premise 1: There are red lights and stop signs placed on the roads I take to get to work.
Premise 2: If I get too many lights red, i will be late to work.
Conclusion: Therefore, the State of New York is deliberately trying to make me late for work.
I have too much stuff to do in the morning. I have to take care of the cats, make coffee, turn the heat down – life is so difficult for me. I have to stay up late catching up on email. Other people have it a lot easier than I do – they get to bed earlier, they don’t have the same problems I have waking up in the morning, and they are more able to leave 20 minutes earlier for work. I am being discriminated against.
Getting an ID is difficult for me. I don’t get out of the house much, and I don’t drive a car. The buses take so long to get downtown, and the Post Office is crowded. I worry about where my next meal is going to come from – and I just can’t think ahead two years until the next election. My circumstances aren’t really covered by the “rules” but it’s too much of a pain to get down to the registration office to talk to a counselor. I am being discriminated against.
I wish you would address this argument like you do so many others, and demonstrate to us how it is even remotely valid.
Your breakdown and analysis of what is…for lack of a better word, discussed here continues to be spot-on. Pitty no one cares, least of all Mike. I mean I care and I’m certain you get some validation elsewhere but in general our society has devolved into a disaster waiting to happen mostly because the vast majority of people are weak intellectually and spiritually and thus avoid having their perceptions challenged. While specialization has enabled us to make great scientific and technical strides, the decline of cross pollinating social structures has balkanized thinking in such a way that even many, many smart people do not understand how little they know and how much they think they know that they don’t know. Sometimes I see a glimmer of hope of improvement in this regard thanks to discussion forums and such, but quite often those devolve into people talking past each other or locking out, either overtly or more subtly, contrasting opinion.