#114: The New Republic: Better That Ten Democrats Vote Illegally Than Than One Republican Vote Legally

April 4, 2014

Democrats have been fighting for some time with their usual frothing-at-the-mouth ferocity against any kind of voter identification requirement. Conservatives, well aware that the absence of such a requirement enfranchises many voters who could not otherwise vote, e.g. the dead, the criminal, the underage, the fictitious, and those not citizens. Needless to say, these worthies tend to favor Democrats in their voting behavior. Yes, hard as it is to believe, even the dead and the fictitious are passionate Democrats, sometimes voting numerous times for the same Democrat candidate.

Well, we know the actual reason Democrats fight so hard against voter IDs, but what is their public rationale? It is that they believe these requirements are intended to reduce legal voter participation among minority groups. That is, they are concerned, they say, to make sure that every person entitled to vote can vote and have their voice heard in decision making. This is a fair objective, but is it true that the absence of voter ID requirements will serve it? Hmmm … doesn’t seem so on reflection.

If the absence of voter ID requirements allows for illegal votes to be cast, that has the effect of neutralizing every legal vote cast the other way than the illegal one. Thus, if legal Jones votes Democrat and, say, illegal Smith votes Republican, this is the same as Jones having been prevented from voting. Surely the Democrats wouldn’t want this to happen; after all, their avowed intent is assuring that every legal voter’s voice is heard. Democrats, of course, pooh-pooh the existence of voter fraud, but there is considerable evidence that its non-existence is greatly exaggerated, see, for example, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/03/hundreds-cases-potential-voter-fraud-uncovered-in-north-carolina/ . The Democrat passion for voting rights seems intriguingly concentrated on the voting of persons not entitled to vote whom they expect to vote for them. Quelle surprise!

The principle, if there is one, underlying the Democrat argument against voter IDs seems to be a version of the famous Blackstone legal principle: “the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.” Similarly, the Democrats argue that it is better that ten illegal votes be cast than that a single legal voter be disenfranchised. The Blackstone principle is notoriously difficult to defend, but this voting version is transparently stupid, since, if taken seriously, the value and purpose of every voter’s ballot, including that of the voter the Democrat claims to represent, is neutralized. But, of course, the rhetoric about individual voter voices being heard is utterly disingenuous, the only actual beneficiary of this dishonest Democrat campaign is the Democrat party itself, something quite consistent with its lying populist history.