Early Voting and Other Anti-Conservative Gambits
–Richard E. Vatz
Leftwing Democrats across the country are in the business of winning elections, rather than governing well. Let me take this opportunity to reflect on some of their cunning strategies, many of which have manifested great success:
1. Regarding the issue of early voting, please find herein a few unmitigated disparaging observations, all in service of the point that I can find no persuasive argument supporting it. Voting a week and one-half before election day deprives voters of critical information in the often dispositive period in the run-up to election day. My good Red Maryland colleague Greg Kline indicates he would have voted differently had he voted on election day in the Delegate Steve Schuh/ Laura Neuman contest for Anne Arundel County Executive. This example is illustrative of the problem of insufficient information often evident for early voters, not a reflection on the candidates. I am more supportive of Schuh, per Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich and Kendel Ehrlich’s endorsement, but I wish Greg had waited. There are innumerable campaigns which reveal their character in the final days or day. One election day is sufficient. Evidence regarding the lack of increase of voters due to early voting is increasing, but we just don’t know for sure. We do know that early voters often lack significant information.
2. Early voting is just another effort to expand the electorate to low intensity voters. This does not mean that everyone who votes early is low intensity by any means, but that is the intention. In addition, Democrats were the major supporters of lowering the voting age to 18. Non-military and non-working 18 year-olds are less likely to have any investment in economic reality and are more likely to be liberal, e.g., voting forgeneral values of dependency and redistribution of wealth, but against rigid law enforcement and severe punishment of criminals, including capital punishment.
3. Democrats want to eliminate voter identification laws. Again, another effort to make it easier to enhance the number of votes on the left. Add to that the supporting of illegal immigrants to vote or simply the lack of interest in quelling such voting is another effort to maximize the number of votes on the left.
4. The efforts to increase citizens’ dependency all have the outcome of increasing votes by a population which wants more and more from the government. Efforts to “soak-the-rich,” prototypical of liberal politicians, represent more efforts to maximize liberal Democratic voter support.
5. The anti-business (I really like Laura Neuman’s strong and emphasized support of small business) motif of Democratic politicians is deplorable, but of course there are more economically liberal votes in workers than in those who provide jobs in Maryland. People always wonder why the great preponderance of professors are liberal (but, incidentally, eminently good and decent folks). Most professors work in public (i.e. government-supported) institutions and those who work in private institutions are financially supported by the public as well (save great private schools like Hillsdale College, where, full disclosure requires me to tell you, your loyal correspondent has spoken).
The shameless, oft-demagogic appeal to numbers of voters rather than voters’ interests by liberal Democrats is what has led to the country’s unemployment problems and the increased support for “progressive” Democratic politicians. This may be changing, but unless Republicans get larger turnout at general elections and stop letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, the economic socializing of America will continue.
Professor Vatz teaches political persuasion at Towson University