4 ms·
Increasing access to voting isn't a form of voting manipulation, because the whole point of voting is to provide voting opportunities to every person who is eli
by king_jester 14y ago
Increasing access to voting isn't a form of voting manipulation, because the whole point of voting is to provide voting opportunities to every person who is eligible to vote.
- btilly 14y agoDemocrats are trying to change the voting rules because they believe that doing so will make the vote come out the way that they want it to. If you don't call this voting manipulation, what do you call it? I agree that it is nicer than trying to disenfranchise people, but the intent is the same. And I believe that the people pushing the rule would be doing the opposite if that's what their poll data suggested would be effective. As evidence see the story I linked to above of somebody trying to disenfranchise Florida Republicans by calling them up and telling them that they were ineligible to vote.
- blindhippo 14y agoNews flash: every candidate in every election attempts to manipulate the way people vote. It's kinda basic to the entire process. However: Increasing voter access is NOT ANTI-DEMOCRATIC. Restricting voter access IS ANTI-DEMOCRATIC. Which one are you accusing the Democrats of pursuing? Thus is the crux of this entire thread.
- mnicole 14y agoIt's hardly manipulative when it gives the opposition just as equal an opportunity to garner votes they wouldn't have otherwise attained as well.
- scott_s 14y agoIt's no more "voting manipulation" than get-out-the-vote campaigns, sending out advertisements, or political campaigns in general.
- prakashk 14y agoI don't think this is anywhere close to being as nefarious as voter suppression attempts. If the increase in early voting schedules (even assuming that there is an intent to manipulate on the part of one side) are favoring one side, it is easily neutralized by the other side by participating in the early voting with equal, if not more, enthusiasm. On the other hand, the victims of voter suppression tactics have no easy recourse to counter these attempts.
- jbooth 14y agoGive me a break, 'the intent is the same'. Trying to disenfranchise people is wrong and should be outside the bounds of political activity, it's not 'the same' as trying to get your people to vote. If they were taking up weapons and shooting up precincts likely to vote for the other guy, would 'the intent be the same'? I mean, they're just trying to win the election.
- king_jester 14y agoI agree that elected officials and candidates are always looking to influence voters minds and the process itself to win. However, pursing better access to voting isn't unethical, even if people pursing those policies and systems themselves are attempting to use that access to bolster their own support. In fact, I would say that pursuing actions with positive externalities and outcomes that bolster your position is what we want politicians to do: being so successful at fixing and addressing our problems as a society that we want them in office again and again. Granted, I don't think that the US gov't is an example of a system in which we are achieving wild successes and are therefore wanting to keep certain people in office :-)