Thanks much for posting this, Monk. This is something I'd been meaning to follow up on and failing to actually follow up on. Brian Lehrer on WNYC had two guests on (yesterday I think) debating this issue (and getting somewhat heated). I didn't catch the whole conversation, but I'm pretty sure nothing as clear as this was offered as an explanation for what's going on. It seems like the kind of issue that gets really muddled really easily, and the muddle tends to favor oppponents of large-scale registration efforts rather than advocates for them (because it's really easy for them to deliver 1-line accusations that require more than one line to rebut).

This is slightly off topic, but I'll add it anyways.

True to my provocateur M.O., can I raise the question of whether we really want more Americans voting?

On the one hand, this seems to be the fulfillment of the American democratic system. If more and more and perhaps even every American votes, then we can have some additional degree of faith that the policies of our government reflect the will of the People.

But the question remains: do we want policies that reflect the will of the people? I'm not sure that I do. The majority of Americans oppose gay marriage. The majority of Americans don't know shit about foreign policy (and someone will likely find the statistic, but how many actually have a passport?). The majority of Americans are kinda scary from a policy standpoint.

So what makes us think that greater voter turnout is such a good thing--a good thing from a policy perspective?

Wikipedia says 20% of Americans hold passports (citing USA Today, unfortunately).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_documents_in_the_United_States

From a strictly partisan perspecitve it's a good thing in that the majority of the unenfranchised fit the demographics of those who vote democrat (I say with absolutely no actual statistics).

But from a policy perspective, well, this is the case of democracy being the worst system of government except for every other system. The will of the majority is certainly very scary, but this is why we are a representative democracy, and in my opinion efforts to make us more direct are harmful.

For example, we have 12 ballot initiatives to vote on in CA (more if you count city and county measures) and something like 8 or 9 of these deal with bond issuance. I should have no say in whether or not California takes out a bond -- I am not equipped to understand the law or its ramifications.

So the hope is that the congress and the president can represent the will of the people but without mob mentality. The House is supposed to have the most mob mentality, as it's the closest thing to direct democracy we have. The Senate should be and is more reserved. In fact, I wonder if it wouldn't be so bad to go back to the old way of choosing senators (elected by state assemblies) as a way of further diluting the peoples' will.

At any rate, I think the worst solution of all is a broken system, and to the degree that there is lopsided disenfranchisement, that is an aspect that needs to be fixed.

From a political theory perspective, Jon, you're absolutely correct. From the partisan perspective, I'm not sure it is a Democratic slam dunk. While we might expect the majority of unregistered citizens to be Dems, I would also think that poor white Appalachin voters would be Democrats, but alas. Fact is, however, that the most recent registrations have favored the Democrats because the Democrats have been the ones pushing registration drives.

But mainly, I'm not yet sold on your last statement. It seems to me that the only cure for lopsided disenfranchisement is complete enfranchisement (or, really what we are talking about is turnout). And while the House would certainly be more directly influenced by mob voice, the Senate is not so far removed. Six year terms can cool popular tempers, and a mob rule is harder to maintain over a larger geographic constituency. But a powerful and sustained mob movement can overwhelm these safeguards.

I want to suggest, without conviction, that the representative system that we have works only insofar as we don't have complete enfranchisement and turnout of the people. The strength of the safeguards for the Senate in particular seems inversely proportional to the strength of the mob movement.

Regardless, my original point was more a meditation on what the mob actually would want. I suspect that the voter registration push is motivated not by a desire for total enfranchisement, but for specific policy outcomes. I'm just not sure that those policy outcomes follow from greater registration and turnout.

do you mean, by your suggestion, that it is a benefit of the system that not all people vote? That might be true if it was only the case that all who wanted to vote voted, but I don't think that's the case. I can't see any benefit in specifically denying a subgroup the right to vote, and certainly I can't see any benefit to doing it de facto and not de jure.

The safeguards in the senate, that 60 votes are needed to invoke cloture, and that only 1/3 of the senate can be voted out at any one time, are independent of the percentage voting. I don't see where you get the inverse proportional strength.

I should clarify that by disenfranchisement I mean denying people *who want* to vote that right, and, yes, I do think we should strive for total enfranchisement via that definition. I'm not talking at all about mandatory voting and never meant to imply I was.

We are in agreement that everyone who wants to vote should have the right to vote--and that there should be no barriers to exercising that right. And no, I don't think mandatory voting is a good idea, either.

Yes, I was suggesting that there is a benefit derived from the fact that not all people vote. I was also hypothesizing that should everyone actually vote, the policies might that come about, even though filtered through a representative system, may not be desirable.

My inverse proportionality argument was incorrect. I merely wanted to say that even the safeguards that are in place would not stop a strong and sustained mob movement.

I do think the issue is lopsided enfranchisement. But I would also agree that using the initiative system for budgetary decisions is sort of ridiculous. Things like medical marijuana are the perfect topic for initiatives -- something that most people support but representatives stay away from anyway.

But universal registration cannot be the only end goal. Things like the Change Congress movement, voting mechanism reform, election reform, and government transparency would all be improvements over what we currently have.

There was one point from Snarf I want to respond to directly: "I want to suggest, without conviction, that the representative system that we have works only insofar as we don't have complete enfranchisement and turnout of the people."

The incorrect assumption in this statement is that the current system works.

My comment was in reference to the functioning of representative government--in specific reference to its protection of public policy from/ability to mitigate the deleterious influences of mob rule. This wasn't a comment about the desirability of the system outside of this specific topic of conversation, Monk.

Initiative seems strange on budgetary matters, yes. Better for med marijuana. But bad for gay marriage. Maybe it would be better for gay marriage after marijuana decriminalization.

The incorrect assumption in this statement is that the current system works.

If the goal of the system is to ensure slow, incremental change, then the system tends to work fairly well. What is your definition of the system working?

The Iraq War is not a slow incremental change.

The drug war is not a slow incremental change.

The IP war is not a slow incremental change.

Tax loopholes and reckless deregulation are not a slow incremental change.

The FISA bill was not a slow incremental change.

Our torture policies are not slow incremental changes.

If you were one of the 40 million Americans w/o health care, do you have your fingers crossed for slow incremental change?

And so on.

I get what you're saying, but it's not as if we're constantly staving off revolution.

I agree, Monk. But I wonder: Does (or did) the mob favor these policies, such that greater voter turnout would make a difference?

Yes. Al Gore would have very likely won a steal-proof victory in 2000 with greater voter turnout. Things that probably would not have happened with Al Gore as president:

The Iraq War
Torture
The IP war (to this degree)

and health care would've been a major issue. Plus, we would be responding quicker to the environmental crisis, something where slow incremental change may lead to global disaster.

I'm not sure that Gore would have been victorious. Why do you think so?

Republican turnout was 7% higher in 2000: http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/9/13/12835/0345

That would have been enough to give Gore Florida (unstealable), New Hampshire, Nevada, Missouri, and Tennessee.

Slow, incremental change is not always desirable. Sometimes quick, decisive action is needed, like a decision to go to war with germany, which was delayed way too long by the Senate. But in general slow, incremental change is more preferable, and the balance of power has shifted too much to the executive branch.

Can you discuss the IP war more? Do you mean like DMCA and stuff? Because that was sort of slow and decisive, in that it's been fought for for a long time by media companies. They're just winning now, is all.

Snarf, putting aside that the mob favors medical marijuana but not gay marriage, and we want both of those (i assume), is there a reason why one would be appropriate for ballot initiatives and the other not? If anything I could see an argument for having gay marriage on and not medical marijuana, since theoretically an unbiased FDA should rule on the legitimate use of drugs.

The Iraq/Afghanistan War is the only one that I agree with you on.

The drug war, in particular, has been going on for nearly a hundred years and is very much incremental. Every change you see now is a small one. Even the legalization movements, as you well know, aren't asking for true legalization, just "decriminalization" of one use of one type of drug. It's minor, and it's incremental.

If you want radical change from the status quo, the American system will always appear broken.

ALMOST always.

In general, IP law has not responded in a timely fashion to the great changes happening recently with how works are created. The Orphaned Works law is a good example. Read any Lessig book on the topic, and you will find many more.

The modern drug war was started by Richard Nixon, even though marijuana prohibition started in 1937. It was ramped up heavily by the Reagan and Clinton administrations. I don't see spending no money on the issue to spending billions of dollars and having military missions in South America within a decade or two to be slow change.

Monk, in reference to your response a little while ago:

Are you arguing that Gore would have won if more Democrats voted for him? If so, you've made an obvious point. My question was about why you thought (if indeed you thought) that increasing voter turnout overall would have given victory to Gore. Targeted partisan GOTV campaigns don't seem to be the issue.

I think CM is saying that if more people who wanted to vote but were not allowed to vote voted, these people would have favored Gore. This is less a matter of convincing indifferent people to vote and more a matter of helping people register when they didn't know they could, fighting Jim Crow situations that still exist, etc. The fact that Democrats seem to be advocating for increased registration and Republicans seem to be advocating for greater scrutiny of voter fraud indicates both sides believe that greater turnout leads to Democratic victories.

Still no absentee ballot from Somerville...they actually sent it to my previous address...as in the one I said I'd be absent from. I'm too sad to be mad right now...but I'll be following up on this one. I feel disenchanted, disenfranchised and unconsoled by the fact that I voted in an (illegal) federal election in Canada.

Why was the Canadian election illegal?

Where are you traveling?

Harper himself had put a fixed election date into law and then when he saw the opportunity to get a "majority government" he ignored it and called an election before worsening economic situations turn unfavourably for his party. Illegal is a strong word, but in essence it was against his own bill. Anyway, Harper didn't get the majority, but did get a stronger minority government, gaining several seats.

New York.