[EL] Public Opinion on Voter Fraud

[Stebenne, David]

I think one qualification to this analysis is in order here.  Opening the party primaries to independents can work a very real change if there are broadly appealing and more centrist candidates who bring out independents in large numbers.  The most famous example in modern American political history was Dwight Eisenhower in 1952.  Total turnout in the GOP presidential primaries that year was almost exactly triple what it had been four years earlier.  In some cases, the increase consisted of people registering as Republicans (in states were the primaries were closed); in others, of independents coming out in large numbers to vote in the GOP presidential primaries.  And so opening the primaries can change things; but that step alone isn't sufficient to do so.





David Stebenne

Professor of History and Law

Ohio State University

________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Richard Winger [richardwinger at yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 2:43 PM
To: Lori Minnite; law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Public Opinion on Voter Fraud

The USA Today story is flawed for several reasons.  I agree with Lori.  Also the reporter seemed unaware that 5 political science studies released this year find that inviting independent voters to vote in partisan primaries has no effect on whether major party nominees are more or less extreme.  Most Tea Party members of the US House are from states with open primaries.  The 24 Republicans in the US House who were identified by the Washington Post as willing to re-open the government with no concessions from Democrats are disproportionately from states with closed or semi-closed primaries.


Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147

________________________________
From: Lori Minnite <lminnite at gmail.com>
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:21 AM
Subject: [EL] Public Opinion on Voter Fraud

I fail to see the relationship between attitudes toward voter fraud and whether voting should be "easier" or "harder" as relevant to electoral policy changes "aimed at easing hyper-partisanship," as stated in the USA Today story below.  I just don't get the connection between voter fraud and the shutdown/showdown in Washington, and I wonder if anyone on this list has any insight.  The public discourse on voter fraud is nothing if not "hyper-partisan," and framing 'more access' as a trade-off of 'electoral integrity' is misleading; doing so has only generated more partisan rhetoric, propaganda and conflict.  So the poll is guilty of contributing to the problem it is aimed at easing.  The facts - that voters are not a threat to electoral integrity and elections are not imperiled by a criminal class of voters lurking in the wings - simply don't seem to matter much.  I say this because these facts are ignored by journalists, pollsters and other producers of media when they frame the issue this way.  That self-identified Democrats and Republicans come out differently says little to me except that all the coded language and propaganda aimed at confusing people about voting rights is working.

Lori Minnite
“Poll: Americans support fine-tuning election policy”<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55989>
Posted on October 14, 2013 8:10 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=55989> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
USA Today<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/14/americans-election-policy-usa-today-bipartisan-policy-center-poll/2983159/>:
A nationwide USA TODAY/Bipartisan Policy Center poll finds a majority of Americans support a range of proposals aimed at easing hyper-partisanship and building confidence in elections. Some command the sort of broad bipartisan backing rare in national politics.
Allow independents to vote in primaries? Yes. Require photo IDs to curb voter fraud? Definitely. Find an alternative to having legislatures draw congressional districts? Maybe. Vote over the Internet? Well, no.
And there’s this, which supports what I’ve been seeing for the last few years:
Republicans and Democrats have sharply different priorities when it comes to elections. By 54%-43%, a majority of Republicans say it’s more important to make sure no one commits voter fraud and harms the rights of legitimate voters. By 78%-20%, Democrats say it’s more important to make sure every individual who has the right to vote is allowed to exercise that right.


_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131016/03808894/attachment.html>