Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Butch's avatar

As long as there is democracy, and as long as there ever was, suppressing votes has been a practiced (and sound) strategy. Just trying to make a person feel less enthusiastic about voting is something every politician does (we focus on physical manifestations while always ignoring the psychological ones we call "campaigning"). How far it should go is another question.

Campaigns are too long. They are full of negative information - much of it false - about the other candidate, trying to convince people whom the campaigner knows won't vote for them to at least stay home. Is there any campaign without a strategy to suppress the other side's vote? I doubt it, at least in closer districts.

Physical impediments are easy to point out - union goons and Klan members by a ballot box are, of course, wrong. Police? I think so. Political party members? Too much for me. All intimidation or overly-stringent requirements (time or ID) ruin democracy to some degree. But maybe we should start talking about campaigning. Not just getting corporate money out of it, but getting rid of campaigns altogether (or nearly).

I don't have a solution off-hand, and just thinking about this cost me too much time at work. But I want us all to start thinking about "campaigning" (beyond corporate influence) as a threat to democracy.

Susan N Danielson's avatar

Currently, the big voter suppression tactic is the SAVE act. I agree with Butch that the campaigns are too long. We are contantly bombarded through all kinds of media to contribute to candidates that we don't even know. Politics has become invasive. We need to work on the business of living and helping all people to live better. I know that involves participation in the political sphere, but right now we are being buried by it.

1 more comment...

No posts

Ready for more?