Yesterday in Georgia, President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris gave speeches about voting rights. Prior to the talk, the president declared that he is “going in to the belly of the beast” to address what he says is a “threat to democracy” and promote a choice between “democracy and autocracy.” Powerful words, indeed.
No one can dispute that elections are the essential cornerstone of democracy and even more so in our constitutional republic.
For representative government to function, citizens must engage in the political and electoral process. For citizens to participate with their votes, there must be strong assurances that all eligible people have a chance to cast their ballots, that their ballot will be accurately tabulated, and that all candidates and political parties will accept the results of the tabulation.
Today these simple guidelines -- votes by eligible citizens and only eligible citizens, ample opportunity to cast the ballot, and clean tabulations of the will of the voter so that the populace, candidates and political parties have confidence in the outcome – are reported to be beyond the grasp of our political machinery.
In recent Georgia elections, both Democratic and Republican candidates have been unwilling to accept the results. Despite thorough investigation by officials affiliated with both major parties, the election results have proven to be accurate. Yet today losing candidates and a subset of their followers still insist that they won.
Enter the legislative fray. At the state level, Georgia Senate Bill 202 is offered as election integrity. SB202 contains provisions for early voting, absentee voting, voter identification, and conduct around polling places and tabulation centers. At the Federal Level, provisions to greatly expand the time frame for delivering ballots, authorizing third parties to gather ballots, and weaker voter identification are offered as protections for democracy.
The president misrepresented the contents of GA SB202 and missed the opportunity to present what is in the Freedom to Vote and John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act. Let me wryly fill in the blanks with this summarization: A president that we didn’t like lost the 2020 election; then that president falsely claimed there was massive election fraud; then several hundred of that president’s ardent supporters invaded the Capitol; therefore no one should be required to present identification to vote from now on. Yea, it makes that much sense.
Now is the time for serious and sober-minded elected representatives and a competent press corps. Absent resolution of voting rules, there will be little confidence in the outcome of the 2022 mid-term elections and could portend a disastrous 2024 presidential contest. Then what? A repeat of the riots following the 2016 and 2020 elections and an assault on the Capitol ala 2020? Should such an outcome, or the rampant turmoil witnessed in America’s cities be something the president should be working to avoid? If so, why take a page from the Trump playbook and use the bully pulpit to fire up the base?
For the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that both Democrats and Republicans want results of elections to be accepted, losers to concede gracefully, power to transfer peacefully, and the Capitol secure and serene without thousands of armed guards. Let me rephrase that. Let’s stipulate that most Democratic, Republican, Independent and other party voters want the results of elections to be accepted, losers to concede gracefully, power to transfer peacefully and the Capitol secure and serene without thousands of armed guards.
Instead of forging an agreeable solution, both major parties are relying on fear tactics to stimulate support for their brand of election fairness, access and integrity. Nah, giving that too much gravitas. Let me rephrase that. Instead of forging an agreeable solution, both major parties are relying on fear tactics to sow distrust and disdain for the other.
Hand-in-hand with the dysfunctional major political parties is the popular media. For this hyper-critical issue, it would be nice if there was an actual press corps asking simple questions like “what’s in the bill” and “describe how its supposed to work?” Sadly, it is much easier to just flog the partisan divide by repeating the hate-the-other speech.
So where could we go from here? First, in terms of representation, Michigan has joined 13 other states in employing a nonpartisan public commission to establish voting districts. Along with 4 other states who employ a hybrid of independent commission and state legislature control of voting districts, this is headed in the right direction against gerrymandering. There are also 13 states with 2 or fewer US House of Representative districts, which makes gerrymandering as a practical barrier, moot. More information here: https://www.ncsl.org/research/redistricting/redistricting-systems-a-50-state-overview.aspx
Next, let’s take a page from Bernie Sanders’ playbook. Offer a series of straightforward legislation for up-or-down votes. For example, requirements and limitations for voter identification. In an era of ID for everything, including proving that your vaccine card belongs to you, it should be no surprise that requiring ID for voting enjoys equal popular support with slapping billionaires with higher taxes.
Another single-reform legislations may set rules for early and absentee voting, and treatment of provisional ballots. A national help line and web site could be another needed reform. And if our taxes must be postmarked by a certain date, doesn’t it make sense that our ballots should be too? It is easy to imagine Senator Sanders making a case for each.
Republicans may not like the proposed reforms because of Federal law becoming a bigger part of local elections. Logically, state and local election laws and procedures would soon mirror Federal requirements. However, it would be difficult to vote against popular measures like voter ID, no-excuse absentee voting, and opportunities for early voting.
Democrats may not like the proposed reforms because of opposition to voter ID, and desires to have longer voting periods, a holiday for voting day, and untrackable collection of ballots by third parties. However, it would be difficult to vote against the popular provisions on an issue-by-issue basis.
Both major parties, and all the other political parties could and most likely would then work voter registration and turnout within the mutually agreeable rule set.
Imagine then, the speech from the president. Instead of inflammatory partisan rhetoric, misrepresenting state laws and refusal to articulate what is in legislation, it would sound something like this:
“Voting is a responsibility. Please get acquainted with the procedures for registration, and how to cast your ballots. We need to hear from everyone via the ballot box.”
President Biden could even harken back to his first Senatorial run, where he asked would-be voters to consider him and if they didn’t like what he stood for to “vote for the other guy.” Imagine if this president seized the opportunity to be the unity president most voters want with this, “We are confident that upon examination, you will choose me and my party. But please get informed, get registered and cast your ballots.”
ANOTHER THREAD FROM FACEBOOK, FROM COMMENTER LINDA: Curious there is no mention of the former president and administrations Big Lie with attempts at overturning the election or the forged documents from 7 states we are hearing about. These newest laws are directly due to election integrity lies; period. If you are going to criticize current president on voting deceit so to speak; seems to me more should be said about where all this mistrust began. Too much is not said. Voter suppression and subversion are very real and this comes from many scholars and think tanks not just talking heads or media bias. The biggest threat is not voter suppression so much as it is voter subversion which is not discussed. Plenty of credible information out there. The problem does not rest entirely with main stream media. The biggest problem is the sheer laziness and ignorance of voters who rely on one source rather than responsibly sourcing their information. Critical reasoning is a rare commodity.
Bringing this over from Facebook - a comment from Thomas Hicks:
Rich, this is very insightful. I concur with most of your points, but offer a brief dissent regarding the media. There are and have been a select few venerable agencies that haven't succumbed to the "us" vs. "them' mentality in their style of reporting. Sadly, because of their stances they are the same agencies that don't garner very much attention.
America has sadly opted for quantity over quality and opts to consume news from the same agencies that tout themselves as "America's number one". It's what I tend to refer to as the "follow the crowd" mentality.
Among the venerable agencies whose models don't correspond with the aforementioned "us" vs. "them" model are Reuters, The Associated Press and P.B.S. I'll go one further and add N.P.R. as a fan who also once worked at the Atlanta affiliate. As much as it may strain credulity, this southern black man actually loves the B.B.C.
I'm not sure what it will take for the news consuming public in the U.S. to start seeking out quality and factual reporting vs. the model it's currently glued to, but I can only hope that this pendulum has swung as far to one side as it can.
I would respectfully disagree with a couple points. NPR has given up their role as impartial. Recall they were part of the lie that hospitals were overrun with ivermectin overdoses. AP may have been too. They have embraced the method of endorsing a story too good to check out
Thomas: I'm up really late on a school night having just finished watching the Cardinals vs. Chargers so I'm going to hate myself in the morning. 🙂 I'll need to keep myself honest and research the reporting from NPR regarding ivermectin.
In defense of NPR in their quest to present all things factual, I was pleased last week that Steve Inskeep held his own against more false peddling of the BIG LIE during his segment with 45. I'll be happy to keep following this thread on Substack.
Fortunately for me at this point Reuters seems to have come out unscathed......thus far.
THOMAS: Rich, I'm even more weary of the idiotic things being said by Marjorie Taylor Greene, and the fact that those idiotic statements are being given coverage by media intent on throwing red meat to their audiences....
THOMAS: one final thought before turning in, you noted NPR and possibly the A.P. having lost its credibility as being impartial and cited a specific example regarding reporting on ivermectin. Can or should the credulity and/or credibility of respected agencies be questioned based on reporting regarding a singular topic?
One foul wouldn’t determine a verdict. Repeated offenses without mea culpas is another thing. The red meat is inflaming you with whatever some fringe knucklehead is saying. Often without context, carefully edited, and complete with an inflammatory headline.
Those business models are taking advantage of conscientious people like you. You want to trust them, but they keep showing true colors. Consider why feeding you Marjorie Green comments but not calmly saying actual contents of voting bills?. Which would be more valuable to you and to a free society in general?
At one time in recent past you were extolling reportage of Rachel Maddow. You wanted to trust her. Close observers knew then what everyone knows now - she is a fraud and a huckster to get eyeballs and sell ads.
Great discussion. Unfortunately, I suspect in today's polar environment, a bit too idealistic. I wish it weren't, and too bad the politicians can't think like you and become the grate unifiers. Also, what about State's Rights? Aren't they being trampled on here? People need to get back to the founding principles of this country - the founders understood what this would mean to the country - why can't people understand that today?! Keep up the great work, Rich!
Thank you much. I concur that the environment is polar. However, the more people who reject the partisan polarization and the corporate media echo chamber, the sooner we shall see a change for the better. Appreciate your support of The Common Bridge.
ANOTHER THREAD FROM FACEBOOK, FROM COMMENTER LINDA: Curious there is no mention of the former president and administrations Big Lie with attempts at overturning the election or the forged documents from 7 states we are hearing about. These newest laws are directly due to election integrity lies; period. If you are going to criticize current president on voting deceit so to speak; seems to me more should be said about where all this mistrust began. Too much is not said. Voter suppression and subversion are very real and this comes from many scholars and think tanks not just talking heads or media bias. The biggest threat is not voter suppression so much as it is voter subversion which is not discussed. Plenty of credible information out there. The problem does not rest entirely with main stream media. The biggest problem is the sheer laziness and ignorance of voters who rely on one source rather than responsibly sourcing their information. Critical reasoning is a rare commodity.
What's in the bills? I've read them. Have you?
The whataboutism about a failed and unqualified former president are distractions.
If you have actual citations instead of "everybody says", you will find a welcome audience on Substack.
Bringing this over from Facebook - a comment from Thomas Hicks:
Rich, this is very insightful. I concur with most of your points, but offer a brief dissent regarding the media. There are and have been a select few venerable agencies that haven't succumbed to the "us" vs. "them' mentality in their style of reporting. Sadly, because of their stances they are the same agencies that don't garner very much attention.
America has sadly opted for quantity over quality and opts to consume news from the same agencies that tout themselves as "America's number one". It's what I tend to refer to as the "follow the crowd" mentality.
Among the venerable agencies whose models don't correspond with the aforementioned "us" vs. "them" model are Reuters, The Associated Press and P.B.S. I'll go one further and add N.P.R. as a fan who also once worked at the Atlanta affiliate. As much as it may strain credulity, this southern black man actually loves the B.B.C.
I'm not sure what it will take for the news consuming public in the U.S. to start seeking out quality and factual reporting vs. the model it's currently glued to, but I can only hope that this pendulum has swung as far to one side as it can.
I would respectfully disagree with a couple points. NPR has given up their role as impartial. Recall they were part of the lie that hospitals were overrun with ivermectin overdoses. AP may have been too. They have embraced the method of endorsing a story too good to check out
Thomas: I'm up really late on a school night having just finished watching the Cardinals vs. Chargers so I'm going to hate myself in the morning. 🙂 I'll need to keep myself honest and research the reporting from NPR regarding ivermectin.
In defense of NPR in their quest to present all things factual, I was pleased last week that Steve Inskeep held his own against more false peddling of the BIG LIE during his segment with 45. I'll be happy to keep following this thread on Substack.
Fortunately for me at this point Reuters seems to have come out unscathed......thus far.
Rich: And if AP or NPR ever did a straight news story on the contents of voting bills, I’d love to see it.
As a Georgia man you must be getting weary of the idiotic things said about your state.
Hope to see you commenting on Substack soon. Some great reporting going on there.
THOMAS: Rich, I'm even more weary of the idiotic things being said by Marjorie Taylor Greene, and the fact that those idiotic statements are being given coverage by media intent on throwing red meat to their audiences....
THOMAS: one final thought before turning in, you noted NPR and possibly the A.P. having lost its credibility as being impartial and cited a specific example regarding reporting on ivermectin. Can or should the credulity and/or credibility of respected agencies be questioned based on reporting regarding a singular topic?
One foul wouldn’t determine a verdict. Repeated offenses without mea culpas is another thing. The red meat is inflaming you with whatever some fringe knucklehead is saying. Often without context, carefully edited, and complete with an inflammatory headline.
Those business models are taking advantage of conscientious people like you. You want to trust them, but they keep showing true colors. Consider why feeding you Marjorie Green comments but not calmly saying actual contents of voting bills?. Which would be more valuable to you and to a free society in general?
At one time in recent past you were extolling reportage of Rachel Maddow. You wanted to trust her. Close observers knew then what everyone knows now - she is a fraud and a huckster to get eyeballs and sell ads.
Great discussion. Unfortunately, I suspect in today's polar environment, a bit too idealistic. I wish it weren't, and too bad the politicians can't think like you and become the grate unifiers. Also, what about State's Rights? Aren't they being trampled on here? People need to get back to the founding principles of this country - the founders understood what this would mean to the country - why can't people understand that today?! Keep up the great work, Rich!
Thank you much. I concur that the environment is polar. However, the more people who reject the partisan polarization and the corporate media echo chamber, the sooner we shall see a change for the better. Appreciate your support of The Common Bridge.