As we all know, the early voting in this election has been off the charts. By the end of today, in all likelihood, 40% of all the votes that will be cast in this election will already be in. There have been endless stories on television about long lines, people waiting as much as 10 hours to cast their votes. And, of course, the burden of this extended wait time falls most heavily on minority voters.
But in all the commentary, I think something is being missed that is significant and rather cheering. Standing in line to vote has become a
thing, a social event, something to do. There have been delightful stories of
people bringing chairs to sit on and umbrellas to sit under, of good Samaritans
handing out bottles of water and snacks, of musicians playing for the folks in
line. I even saw a story about a group of people on line who started to do the
wave as though they were at a baseball game.
When you think about it, standing in line for long periods
of time is not in itself more difficult or more burdensome than waiting to get
into a rock concert or standing by the side of the road to see a politician
drive by or even jamming into a stadium to watch a football game being played
way down on the field dozens of yards from where one is sitting.
I am reminded of the scenes at the first genuinely free
election held in South Africa when Africans, some of them very old, waited all
day long in long lines to cast the first vote in their lives.
Once the cultural shift takes place so that waiting in line
to vote ceases to be a burden or pain in the neck and becomes an outing, an
event, a badge of honor, then all of the voter intimidation in the world will
not stop people from getting their votes registered. I think we may be seeing
the first suggestions of a tsunami. God willing…
8 comments:
Prof. Wolff,
What you write is encouraging and welcome sign for optimism.
At the risk of being a fly in the ointment, however, here’s a sobering thought: But for the pandemic, Il Duce would probably be re-elected, by people more concerned about their pocket books than about human rights and human decency. It has taken a plague to get rid of a plague, and that does not speak well of our society, regardless the outcome.
I know of people who went to vote thinking that if the lines were very long they'd come back another day. Instead, when they actually saw the long lines they stayed. And here's a number from yesterday-ish: among voters 18-29 in NC 205,000 have voted compared to 25,000 in 2016. Similarly in Florida and Michigan.
MS, That is not a fly in the ointment, that is simply a fact of life in contemporary America. If you want to be depressed, just reflect on the fact that even if Trump loses in a landslide he will probably get as much as 45% of the vote and assuming that a total of 150 million people vote, as now seems likely, that means that 67 million or more people will vote for Trump. Does anybody really want to live in a country where there are 67 million Trump supporters? I am afraid that is the reality we are living with. Our job is to try to make things better, recognizing the constraints we face.
Agreed.
In a comment to a previous post relating to my encomium to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, the commenter (I think it was either LFC or Philosophical Waiter, I cannot recall which), pointed out that in Buck v. Bell, Justice Holmes, writing for the majority, sustained the constitutionality of a Virginia decision to forcefully sterilize a woman diagnosed as feeble minded. J. Holmes wrote: “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. ... Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” If Justice Holmes were alive today, perhaps he would modify his target. (Note also his approval of forced vaccination. What would he say about people who, in the name of liberty, refuse to wear face masks?)
MS,
I believe your assumption that absent the pandemic, Trump would have been re-elected is wrong. There is a significant body of evidence to the contrary. That evidence is in the 2018 vote - its results, its participants and a broader historical context. The context lies in the course of the Republican party since the Gingrich era. It has moved steadily to the far right - from the dog-whistle racism of Reagan to the blatant white supremacist position of Trump.
The results of the 2018 election were, as you know, a huge repudiation of party of Trump. The loss of 41 seats is pretty big, especially as it lead to a Democratic majority in the House. It put the Republicans on notice that a big change was in the offing. Turnout was almost as large as a presidential election year. Blacks turnout was at Obama levels, Hispanic turnout increased, as did Asian American. There was a shift in educated suburban women voters to the Democrats (6 points plus or minus) and perhaps most importantly, millennials turned out in force for the first time.
These shifts were reflected in increasing levels of democratic voter identification. Recent Pew Research data show party identification percent as follows: D - 31%, lean D - 17%, no lean - 7%, lean R - 13%, and R - 26%. Note that the 7% who don’t lean are largely not politically engaged and at best about 2% may vote. Voters have been shifting to the left for the last 8 years. Two examples: Romney won Arizona by 9 points, Trump by 3,5, and BIden is ahead by 3. That’s a 12 point shift in eight years. Katie Porter won in a district that had been solidly R for decades. Hers was one of 7 seats in California where republican incumbents were ousted.
Democratic support from women voters has increased significantly: 56% D, 37% R, an increase of 4% since 2015. Currently 58% of college educated voters identify as democratic, up from a 47/47 split in 2010. The best news is Millennial voters, 59% identify or lean democratic. Women Millennials identify/lean Democratic at the awesome level of 70%.
I had a bet with a friend that the Dems would pick up 30+ seats in 2018. I underestimated, but when one reviewed the results of republicans who held their seats, there were only a relative hand-full that that saw their vote total increase. The majority saw their vote total decline. That would normally mean that these members would adapt their political stance to reflect an awareness of the changing electorate in their district. That hasn’t happened because the R’s are so ideologically rigid. The R’s will lose more seats in the house and lose the Senate as well.
In sum, these kinds of shifts lead to what political scientists call political party realignments. These changes were in the cards. The pandemic is icing on the cake, or maybe a rich chocolate ganache over a flourless chocolate cake. Culinary metaphors aside, I believe Trump would have lost baring divine intervention.
Christopher,
You may be correct, and before the pandemic hit I was confident that Il Duce would lose despite improvements in he economy for which he took credit. But as I spoke to friends in other states and expressed my confidence that Il Duce would definitely lose (and this after the 2018 election), I got push back telling me I was underestimating his appeal. One other consideration is that the economy and stock market did improve after the 2018 election. Even today, listening to voters in Florida, Georgia, Texas who keep expressing support for Il Duce because what they claim he did for the economy, I am not sure that without the pandemic he would have lost. And I do not want to jinx the outcome by now assuming that because of the pandemic he will lose.
I brought up Buck v Bell. I don't have time to go into the matter but suffice it to say that I don't share your (MS's) unqualified enthusiasm for Holmes.
LFC,
Actually, my enthusiasm for Justice Holmes is not unqualified. But I do recognize that even great men have flaws and can have lapses, despite their overall commendable character. Holmes’ decision in Buck v. Bell is arguably such a lapse. But he does have a point, does he not – if, for example, a vaccine for the corona virus is found, but more than 50% of the population refuse to take it, should the government, in the public interest, mandate that it be taken? And regarding flaws, Justice Hugo Black, one of the staunchest defenders of the 1st Amendment, wrote the majority opinion in Korematsu v. United States, sustaining the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans during WWII.
Post a Comment