Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hedgehog

(36,286 posts)
Fri Jun 28, 2013, 11:32 AM Jun 2013

The 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?

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Supreme Court, the Voting Rights Act and unintended cosequences: (Original Post) hedgehog Jun 2013 OP
Doubtful. While there may be momentary outrage COLGATE4 Jun 2013 #1
I suspect precisely that happened in 2012. Igel Jun 2013 #2

COLGATE4

(14,732 posts)
1. Doubtful. While there may be momentary outrage
Fri Jun 28, 2013, 11:57 AM
Jun 2013

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)
2. I suspect precisely that happened in 2012.
Fri Jun 28, 2013, 02:52 PM
Jun 2013

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.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»The Supreme Court, the Vo...