Voter Suppression: Who Is Worse?
In a typical he-said she-said story, the Wall Street Journal decided to run a story about the trend in these last days towards voter suppression by both sides of the aisle. The funny part is that what they attribute to Democrats doesn't quite count as suppression so much as fair-game nastiness.
The article points to the "Republicans' well-advertised plans to vigorously check the registrations of those who show up to vote." In "Democratic" eyes this is designed to convince voters that voting is a hassle.
They then describe efforts by the Democrats to suppress the vote by "doubts about Mr. Bush's character and his fealty to social conservatives."
This doesn't even pass a basic once-over test and is a clear effort by a journalist at base "balance."
For effect, let's compare the WSJ treatment to The New York Times story that broke the Republican Keep-Out-The-Vote effort.
This article refers to statements by Republican officials that the goal of their campaign to place recruits in polling places is to counter the Democratic effort to register and turn out new voters. In Ohio, Republicans have enlisted 3,600 poll monitors, many in heavily Democratic neighborhoods in Cleveland, Dayton and other cities. Each will be paid $100 according to the Times.
Republicans have already submitted a list of 35,000 registered voters whose mailing address information they find questionable.
That is worse than merely discouraging voters from showing up by presenting them with information, true or false.
Instead of simply telling a story about how both sides are doing something, The New York Times describes the FACT that Democratic poll watchers are being trained to help people be able to vote and Republicans are being taught to do the opposite.
Whatever we think about the arcana of voting registration regulation, what with the Ohio requirement for 80-pound paper stock, it is incredibly disturbing that one party feels it wins when people vote and the other when they don't.
Who is this guy?
Leave a comment