2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Supreme Court, the Voting Rights Act and unintended cosequences:
It seems to be human nature that when someone tells us we can't have something or there might not be enough for everyone, we make sure we get ours. I saw this play out a while back - more people got the flu vaccine the year everyone was talking about a shortage than the next year, when there was plenty for everyone.
So - if people think someone is working to keep them from voting (which is the actual case!), wil more people make the effort to go out and vote? Will more attention be paid to ensure that people are allowed to vote?
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)the fact still remains that states are now free to block 1) students, 2) the elderly and 3) minority groups, all of whom are going to be overwhelmed by the new challenges to getting the 'approved' voter I.D. needed in order to actually cast their ballots. Whether due to increased cost, increased distances or just increased hassle many Americans will in the final analysis just opt out of voting. Which is exactly what the Rethugs want and are planning on.
Igel
(35,197 posts)At least in some areas or for some groups.
Not a long-term kind of thing. Doesn't necessarily change habits.
It's not a popular view, because everybody wants to believe that the boost among some demographics means a permanent change in voting patterns that benefits (D). If the change isn't permanent, then it squashes aspiration to being a permanent electoral majority in the short term.
Of course, there's always the outrage factor. If voting levels return to where they had been historically after something billed as "voter intimidation" is put in place, then rather seeing it as a return to the status quo because that's how people act it will be attributable to an outside malevolence, an oppressive foe that must be vanquished and extirpated by the forces of good and wisdom. And there's nothing like a dose of eog-boosting militaristic-sounding pseudo-jingoism to get the blood pumping.