Want to reduce the number of voters?
Much of the debate about voting law changes, supported by many Republicans and generally opposed by Democrats, simply asks questions and has more people vote for it, which is good for Ceteris Paribus. Insist on. Why do we have to believe it? Why shouldn’t we believe in opposition? Does reducing the number of voters improve the services of the Republic? Many Americans, devout egalitarians, recoil from the notion of better voters as a rhetorical issue, even if they accept the qualifications in fact. In my view, complete deprivation of a serious offense has always been an intelligent default position and has been deprived of re-rights on a case-by-case basis. Under such practices, some people who should be considered rehabilitation can be unfairly excluded. However, all eligibility requirements run the risk of excluding potential voters, or those who are better than voters. There are many very smart and responsible 16-year-olds who make better voters than their dim and irresponsible older siblings and parents. This does not mean that a 16-year-old voter is needed — it tends to raise the voting age to 30 — which, by its very nature, does not take into account specific individual differences in categorical decision making. To do. Similarly, requesting a government-issued photo ID in a poll seems clearly correct, even if voters otherwise stop voting. In any case, I don’t think it’s good to have more voters, but even so, it’s not the only good thing, and there’s only one good one that competes with other products. One is that book eligibility rules are enforced to ensure that elections are regulated honestly and reliably. Just as you have the ability to see who is eligible to enter or drive a car, you can vote to verify your eligibility rigorously and easily, if needed. Of course, that would put some strain on voters. so what? People, including the poor and struggling, expect to pay taxes — why shouldn’t they also expect their driver’s license to be up to date? If voting is really a sacred duty that we are always told, shouldn’t we take it as seriously as submitting at least 1040EZ? Making it easier to vote will increase the number of voters, and if you don’t need a doctor’s license, you will have more doctors. Unqualified doctors believe it is a public threat, but the fact that unqualified voters behave as if they were the stars of the wonderful constellation of democracy, despite our public pie It shows how little real respect we actually have for voting. As with everything, voting has trade-offs. Democrats prefer to minimize their attention to fraudulent and fraudulent voting, but even the slightest fraudulent or inappropriate voting should be stopped and should be prevented if possible. .. It — spares me the story of your sobbing — should be prosecuted most of the time. It is also true that many things that help prevent and prevent fraudulent voting tend to make voting somewhat difficult for at least some of the population. Republicans generally think that trade-offs are worth it, but Democrats generally don’t. Is motivated reasoning working there? of course. But the mere existence of political self-interest does not tell us whether policy is good or bad. One argument for encouraging more turnout is that if more voters go to vote, the results more closely reflect what the average American voter wants. That sounds great. .. .. If you haven’t met the average American voter. Voters, both personally and in the majority, tend to be as wrong as they are right about themselves, often voting for low motives such as prejudice and maliciousness, and can be content ignorant. Often. This is one of the reasons why the country’s original constitutional structure gave voters a narrow range of voice in most respects and completely removed some things such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion from the voters’ table. It is one. It’s easy to think of the decisive moments in American history when giving that path to the majority would have had terrifying consequences. Had there been a fair and open referendum on slavery on December 6, 1865, slavery would have been a landslide victory. If you vote on the abolition of the death penalty today, the death penalty will be maintained. If the issue is the quality of policy outcomes, both major camps have reasons to fear a true majority vote. Conservatives should at least keep in mind the fact that if policies truly represent the preference of the average American, they will have less financial freedom and less rights to the Second Amendment. Progressivists say that if the policy actually represents the average American preference, the right to abortion will be limited and tax increases will not fly, but because work requirements have reduced rolls, border patrols You should think that you will spend a lot of money and not spend much on welfare. Public opinion does not collapse along the lines of a neat ideology. The actual case (not generally mentioned) to encourage more people to vote is the metaphysical case. High turnout in elections makes the government somehow more legal in a vague moral sense. But legitimacy is not popular, and popularity is not consensus. The overall concept of representative government is premised on reducing, rather than increasing, the number of decision makers required by the actual business of governance. Representatives are those who act in the interests of others and are different from carrying out the stated demands of a group proved by a majority vote. Legitimacy includes, among other things, the government’s liability to non-voters, such as children, mentally ill people, imprisoned felony, and non-citizen permanent residents. Their interests are also important, but we do not extend their votes to them. Therefore, we need a more sophisticated concept of legitimacy than a one-man-one-vote majority vote. Voting is only about registering an individual’s personal preferences, but democratic citizenship imposes broader obligations and obligations. If we cannot fulfill that broader responsibility, the result will be dysfunctional. It’s no coincidence that borrowing children who can’t vote to pay the benefits that are important to the most active and credible voters. It comes from you voting a lot, but with relatively little responsible citizenship. Voting is especially painkillers. It calms people with the illusion that they have more control over their lives and their public affairs than they really are. Beyond naked political self-interest, it is probably the sedative effect of voting that makes increased participation attractive to some politicians. The sedative effect is the reason why the Philadelphia City Council did not drown on the Schuylkill River and why the forces in California were not expelled to North Waziristan. When people vote, they feel they have their say, and they’re happy with it for some mysterious reason. Other areas of life do not accept it. If Amazon fails to deliver the package, we expect Amazon to actually do something. Receive your order or get a refund. Just yelling at a customer service representative and having a say is not enough. We expect the deliverables to be delivered. It’s good to say, but it’s not enough. That’s true almost everywhere, but not in politics. Therefore, the implicit slogan of all incumbent campaigns: “You had your say, close hell now.” Progressivists and populists are lobbyists, special interests, “swamps”, I like to blame insiders, “foundations”, vested interests, gloomy corporate giants, and miscellaneous boogiemen in our current slogan, but in reality voters have caught us in this turmoil. .. Maybe the answer isn’t more voters.