5 ms·
I always figure the parties hire consultants that tell them how changes to election laws will affect turnout. If it works in their favor, they'll push for it. Y
by nsxwolf 5y ago
I always figure the parties hire consultants that tell them how changes to election laws will affect turnout. If it works in their favor, they'll push for it. You're not going to support something that hurts your side, even if the change may be a good idea in and of itself.
- tshaddox 5y agoIt’s a little disingenuous to paint this as “both parties are only motivated by what would help them get more votes” if one of those parties advocates policies to increase voter participation and the other advocates policies to decrease it.
- nsxwolf 5y agoWhy would anyone try to increase voter participation in general unless they knew it would increase the votes for their side?
- WesternWind 5y ago
- tshaddox 5y agoThe hope would be that there is a strong institutional desire for peaceful transitions of power after open elections, and institutional opposition to anyone advocating otherwise. Historically some governments have had such institutions to various extents. It’s kinda the same answer to the question “why wouldn’t each side use unrestrained organized violence to attempt to hold and increase their power?”
- max49 5y ago>one of those parties advocates policies to increase voter participation The argument could be made that they are also intentionally making it easier to cheat during the election. These complex issues are never black and white.
- tshaddox 5y agoThat argument could be made, of course, but (like all arguments) only by presenting evidence and reasons to believe that one side’s proposals result in (or would result in) election fraud.
- max49 5y agoWhy would only one side be forced to provide such evidence? The fact that almost every modern country on earth is requiring it makes me think that the burden of proof would be stronger on the side of people who think ID requirement is racist.