Reply #56: Here are some things I think we all agree on, and then one where we don't:

[eomer]

What we agree on (I think):

• There is a constitutionally protected right of the citizens to elect their Representatives, Senators, and, conditionally, Presidential Electors and such right may not be abridged except due to participation in rebellion or crime.
  
• The right to have one's vote counted is inherent in the right to vote.
  
• We would be justified in seeking to have our right to vote honored and in pursuing that end in the courts, by trying to enact laws, by taking to the streets, by agitating for it in a forum such as this, and by other means. There is no conflict between these parallel efforts and no reason we shouldn't apply any and all means at once.

What we don't agree on:

Where we apparently part ways is on the question of tactics, specifically on the question of whether incremental improvements will help us get to the ultimate goal or rather will take steam out of the efforts and cause us to fall somewhere short of a full realization.

There are obvious examples where an incremental approach has been followed. Clearly the rights of women and of racial minorities have been established gradually through a series of changes that took generations to accomplish. These examples, though, could probably be claimed as supporting either side of the debate. Women's and minority rights have been vastly improved but are still (I say) short of perfected.