America has changed over time. There were some strange forces that held us together, and kept power from being concentrated.
Those forces have faded. Resources can be concentrated more easily, and the political parties have less in common. (For that story, read the prior three posts.)
As should be expected, each party has made strategic choices in response to those changes, and each choice influences the choices that come later.
Both parties have contributed to American greatness. Both parties have great ideas to offer. Both parties have some bad actors. Both parties “play the game”.
But one party made a choice that sent it down a more undemocratic path. It's not because people are bad or crazy. But each choice leads to the choices that come later.
Let’s look at five [5] examples of undemocratic practices. Before I begin, let me be clear. I'm not confusing democracy with our democratic republic. I understand we’re not an absolute democracy. When I say “undemocratic”, I mean the theft of political power from citizens.
The Civil Rights movement ended explicit Jim Crow policy, and it created an irresistible political opening. Someone was going to step into that void--it was inevitable.
Someone did step into that void. They signaled their opposition to black equality by aligning themselves with Southern Heritage, state’s rights, law and order, and any other issue that made clear who whites should vote for.
It is called the Southern Strategy, and it is undemocratic. Embracing legitimate issues is not undemocratic. But when racism is leveraged for political advantage, then the strategy is undemocratic.
In a 1981 interview, longtime political strategist Lee Atwater explained:
You start out in 1954 by saying “[N-word], [N-word], [N-word].” By 1968 you can’t say [N-word]” --that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights…
We know the other aspects of the Southern Strategy, like ‘law and order’ and the glorification of the Confederacy. Atwater used this strategy to win elections in the 1980’s. Who would have dreamed that forty years later, we’d still be hearing about ‘law and order’ and the greatness of Confederate statues?
The restriction of voting rights was a crucial part of Jim Crow strategy. One party chose to hold on to the legacy of Jim Crow. That choice led the party to embrace the strategy of voter suppression. The earlier choice led naturally to the current choice.
The Founding Fathers made a terrible error by failing to explicitly state that the vote cannot be denied to citizens. They were short-sighted and selfish. They had no intention of sharing the vote with women, minorities, or those who did not own land.
The Fifteenth Amendment ensures people cannot be denied the right to vote due to their race. But because the Constitution does not explicitly say citizens cannot be denied the right to vote for any reason, loopholes are exploited to prevent citizens from voting.
The most effective assault on access to voting is the hidden assault. The hidden assault on access to voting is not the effort to make it difficult to vote, but the failure to make it easier to vote.
National elections should be more than one day. The last day of national elections should be a weekend or national holiday. Polling locations should be available based on population density. They should be staffed by any available government workers, and if necessary, by the National Guard. Aren't they supposed to call in the National Guard when freedom is threatened?
Registration to vote should be automatic not only with driver’s license renewal, but also anytime someone files a tax return, pays property taxes, gets Medicaid, files for unemployment, or files for Medicare benefits. People should always be able to register to vote at the ballot box, and should have 48 hours after voting to supply proper documentation if any is needed.
If you fail to pay your taxes, the government will do what it takes to identify you. The government should do what it takes to identify you when it's election time.
If you believe that people are the source of power for the government, then it is the government’s responsibility to make voting work for the citizen--not the other way around.
Gerrymandering is also an undemocratic means of achieving political victory.
While both parties have engaged in gerrymandering, one party has weaponized the practice so blatantly as to result in a challenge before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court recently ruled, along party lines, that partisan gerrymandering with the intended goal of providing unfair advantage to a political party is just fine.
That’s three undemocratic methods. Next time, I’ll review two more.
<end>
<Notes>
Previous post on ‘the original gerrymander’: https://matthewcomments.blogspot.com/2018/04/unrepresentative.html
The following is an excerpt from Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, 8/12/2020, at about 23 minutes [https://fivethirtyeight.com/videos/model-talk-how-the-2020-presidential-forecast-works/]
Overall, look, there is a reason that Republicans spend a lot of time trying to make it harder for people to vote, which is that Republicans benefit when fewer people, especially people who are poorer, who are minorities, they benefit when those people have a tougher time voting, right? It’s very plain. And Democrats spend a lot of time fighting back against that.
And so, if any academics are saying that overall, it’s totally neutral, then number one, I don’t think that’s what the data actually shows, and
Number two your saying that, all these apparatus that exist for both parties to spend huge amounts of legal fees and time and energy, on, in the GOP’s case making it harder for people to vote and in the Democrats [case] making it easier, you’re saying all these people are idiots for doing that… ?
The narrow claim about mail voting, I haven’t looked at that, I have reason to believe the academics are right about that. [referring to academic research suggesting vote-by-mail does not give an advantage to either party.]
But no, look, news flash, the Republicans don’t want black people to vote, basically. That’s kind of one of the things you have to conclude about the American political system. I’m glad that we’re finally incorporating some of that logic into our model because empirically it shows up pretty strongly.
Article: Explanation of gerrymandering
Article: Five Ways Trump And GOP Officials Are Undermining The Election Process
***I was very tempted to include a few paragraphs about game theory. It would have been too much for the post--this one is already long. But game theory, and in particular the idea of "first mover advantage", does explain why both parties did not equally step into the void left by the defeat of Jim Crow policies. Both parties may have tried to take advantage of that void. But when one party took the Southern Strategy route, the other party's more rational option was to take a contrasting strategy, rather than competing for the same slices of the pie.
***I understand that the Voting Rights Act complicates complete elimination of gerrymandered districts in some cases, and that in some cases reforming districts to be less gerrymandered could reduce minority representation. Ultimately, I think a reduction of gerrymandering would benefit the long-term prospects for democratic representation with or without Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Comments