My thanks to today\’s New York Times for providing a wonderful demonstration of obtuseness.
Too bad it wasn\’t intended to be one…but what can you do; this is the New York Times.
Its lead editorials is titled “The Worst Voter Turnout In 72 Years”. That stands out as being very important – in no small part because it is among the only points that make sense to me.
I, of course, urge you to use this link and read every word. But, for the moment, here are the key parts…in rust, with my comments in blue:
Theabysmally low turnout in last week\’s midterm elections – thelowest in more than seven decades – was bad for Democrats, but itwas even worse for democracy. In 43 states, less than half theeligible population bothered to vote, and no state broke 60 percent. Actually, though I agree the totals areabysmal, the low participation rate is not worse for democracy, it isdemocracy. People are free to vote or not vote. The issue, therefore is whythey did not do so.
Inthe three largest states – California, Texas and New York – lessthan a third of the eligible population voted. New York\’s turnoutwas a shameful 28.8 percent, the fourth-lowest in the country,despite three statewide races (including the governor) and 27 Houseraces. Uh…how many of those state races werein doubt? None of them. Maybe that has something to do with the lowturnout.
Overall, the national turnoutwas 36.3 percent; only the 1942 federal election had a lowerparticipation rate at 33.9 percent. The reasons are apathy, anger andfrustration at the relentlessly negative tone of the campaigns. On this one, I mostly agree – but, although those are three important reasons, they aren\’t the only ones.
Republicansran a single-theme campaign of pure opposition to President Obama,and Democrats were too afraid of the backlash to put forward plans torevive the economy or to point out significant achievements of thelast six years. Neither party gave voters an affirmative reason toshow up at the polls. Whoops. Now we knowit\’s a New York Times editorial. Note to the Times: if people werehappy with Mr. Obama\’s performance, Republicans would not have beenrunning against it. And if Democrats were happy with Mr. Obama\’sperformance, they would have been thrilled that Republicans wererunning against it. But since Mr. Obama\’s performance was godawful,Democrats didn\’t run on it,they ran from it. The economy is not revived. Unemployment is still too high. The job participation rate is at a 36 year low. The “new jobs” touted by Obama & Co. are vastly part-time rather than full-time. And, according to virtually every major poll for years,Obama\’s signature “achievement”, ObamaCare, is opposed by mostpeople. Time to wake up and see things as they are, guys.
Theoverall vote total dropped by 42 percent compared with 2012, and thedecline was particularly acute among younger voters, who made up 13percent of this year\’s electorate compared with 19 percent twoyears ago. The turnout among young and minority voters was slightlyhigher than it was in the 2010 midterms, perhaps reflecting neworganizing efforts, but the number remained far too low. (Republicanshave continued their effort to suppress the turnout of young, poorand minority voters, although it was hard to make a definitive linkbetween those laws and Democratic losses this year.) Yawn. What was the “suppression”? Expecting people to produce a validID so they could vote; one that is easily available and free in most states? A question for you: are these people “suppressed” for all the other things theyneed a valid ID to do – including getting into the New York Times\’ own offices? This may be the single most tired, BS-laden claim of them all.
Therewas one useful lesson: When voting is made easier, more people vote.Andwhat does that mean? Voting in most states is already easy. So whodo you rope in by making it even “easier”? People who reallycouldn\’t give a damn whether they vote or not? These tend to be theleast knowledgeable, least engaged voters. You may miss them. But Idon\’t.
Earlyvoting – which tends to be more popular among Democratic votersthan mail balloting – also did well this year, despite Republicanefforts to curb it.Curb it? An unsuspecting reader (one who takes New York Times editorials seriously) might think Republicans were tryingto get rid of early voting. But that, of course is not true. Illustratively, in Ohio, it was “curbed” by shortening the earlyvoting period from five weeks to four. If you can\’t find a way toearly-vote in four weeks, I\’d just as soon you didn\’t vote at all. In North Carolina, early voting increasedby 35 percent from 2010, even though Republican legislators cutthe number of early-voting days to 10 from 17. Ooooohhhh,only a week and a half to get to the polls? What a horrific burden. Can the Times\’ editorial writers possibly not realize how ridiculous thismakes them look.
Showingup at the polls is the best way to counter the oversized influence ofwealthy special interests, who dominate politics as never before.Like Tom Steyer? George Soros? The Hollywoodcrowd? The unions, using dues of countless members who disagree withwho their leadership is support? But to encourageparticipation, politicians need to stop suppressing the vote, makethe process of voting as easy as possible, and run campaigns thatstand for something. The vote is notsuppressed, it is very easy to vote….and running for or against aPresident\’s record in office is 100% meaningful. You were saying?
