DOJ says NC town can't have non-partisan elections because black people...

[jfoobar]

...apparently wouldn't know who to vote for without a "Democrat" on the ballot.

Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/20/justice-dept-blocks-ncs-nonpartisan-vote/


Justice concludes black voters need Democratic Party
U.S. blocks N.C. city's nonpartisan vote

By Ben Conery
KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.

Several federal and local politicians would like the city to challenge the decision in court. They say voter apathy is the largest barrier to black voters' election of candidates they prefer and that the Justice Department has gone too far in trying to influence election results here.

Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department's decision "racial as well as partisan."

"On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election," he said. "That is un-American."

The decision, made by the same Justice official who ordered the dismissal of a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, has irritated other locals as well. They bristle at federal interference in this city of nearly 23,000 people, two-thirds of whom are black.

In interviews in sleepy downtown Kinston - a place best known as a road sign on the way to the Carolina beaches - residents said partisan voting is largely unimportant because people are personally acquainted with their elected officials and are familiar with their views.

"To begin with, 'nonpartisan elections' is a misconceived and deceiving statement because even though no party affiliation shows up on a ballot form, candidates still adhere to certain ideologies and people understand that, and are going to identify with who they feel has their best interest at heart," said William Cooke, president of the Kinston/Lenoir County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Mr. Cooke said his group does not take a position on this issue and would not disclose his personal stance, but expressed skepticism about the Justice Department's involvement.

(click link to read entire article, but some more interesting sections quoted below)

----------------------

Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar denied that the decision was intended to help the Democratic Party. He said the ruling was based on "what the facts are in a particular jurisdiction" and how it affects blacks' ability to elect the candidates they favor.

"The determination of who is a 'candidate of choice' for any group of voters in a given jurisdiction is based on an analysis of the electoral behavior of those voters within a particular jurisdiction," he said.

Critics on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights are not so sure. "The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism," said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates."

----------------------

"Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office," Loretta King, who at the time was the acting head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, wrote in a letter to the city.

Ms. King wrote that voters in Kinston vote more along racial than party lines and without the potential for voting a straight Democratic ticket, "the limited remaining support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more."

Ms. King is the same official who put a stop to the New Black Panther Party case. In that case, the Justice Department filed a civil complaint in Philadelphia after two members of the black revolutionary group dressed in quasi-military garb stood outside a polling place on election last year and purportedly intimidated voters with racial insults, slurs and a nightstick.

After a judge ordered a default judgments against the Panthers, who refused to answer the charges or appear in court, the Justice Department dropped the charges against all but one of the defendants, saying "the facts and the law did not support pursuing" them.

----------------------

Black voters account for 9,702 of the city's 15,402 registered voters but typically don't vote at the rates whites do.

As a result of the low turnout, Ms. King wrote, "black voters have had limited success in electing candidates of choice during recent municipal elections."

----------------------

Mrs. Thernstrom of the civil rights commission blasted the department's interpretation of the law.

"The Voting Rights Act is not supposed to be compensating for failure of voters to show up on Election Day," she said. "The Voting Rights Act doesn't guarantee an opportunity to elect a 'candidate of choice.' ... My 'candidate of choice' loses all the time in an election."

So how is this decision not astoundingly and nefariously racist (not to mention incredibly insulting to African-Americans) on the part of the DOJ Civil Rights division?

[mhg83]

So how is this decision not astoundingly and nefariously racist (not to mention incredibly insulting to African-Americans) on the part of the DOJ Civil Rights division?

Because black people cant be racist /end thread -wink-

Seriously that is really fucked up. This administration is quickly turning into a dictatorship.

[nemein]

This administration is quickly turning into a dictatorship.

Well.... he did promise change ;)

[kvrdave]

I said in another thread that the Democrats needed racism to remain viable. I think this helps drive the point home.

[Nugent]

Why not just put a black dot beside the African American candidates name on the ballot so they would know who the black people are?

Maybe a little cartoon devil beside all the white candidates names.

[Hank Ringworm]

Most blatantly racist story I've heard in a while. Can't believe the town/state isn't fighting back. I guess Federalism really is dead.

[kvrdave]

A town of 23,000 isn't going to fight this. The don't have the resources. Their attorney is probably below average, and the cost of fighting is probably huge compared to their yearly budget. So do you fire 5 policemen, or do you drop it?

[JasonF]

This is what the DOJ actually said:

James P. Cauley III, Esq.
Rose Rand Wallace
P.O. Drawer 2367
Wilson, North Carolina 27894-2367

Dear Mr. Cauley:

This refers to the change to nonpartisan elections, with a plurality-vote requirement, for the City of Kinston in Lenoir County, North Carolina, submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973c. We received your response to our June 10, 2009, request for additional information on June 16, 2009; additional information was received on August 4, 2009.

We have carefully considered the information you have provided, as well as information from other interested parties. Under Section 5, the Attorney General must determine whether the submitting authority has met its burden of showing that the proposed change "neither has the purpose nor will have the effect" of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color or membership in a language minority group. As discussed further below, I cannot conclude that the city has sustained its burden of showing that the proposed changes do not have a retrogressive effect. Therefore, based on the information available to us, I object to the voting changes on behalf of the Attorney General.

According to the 2000 Census, the City of Kinston has a total population of 23,688 people, of whom 14,837 (62.6%) are African-American. The total voting age population is 17,906, of whom 10,525 (58.8%) are African-American. The American Community Survey for 2005-2007 estimates the total population to be 22,649, of whom 14,967 (66.6%) are African-American. As of October 31, 2008, the city has 14,799 registered voters, of whom 9,556 (64.6%) are African-American.

Although black persons comprise a majority of the city's registered voters, in three of the past four general municipal elections, African Americans comprised a minority of the electorate on election day; in the fourth , they may have been a slight majority. For that reason, they are viewed as a minority for analytical purposes. Minority turnout is relevant to determining whether a change under Section 5 is retrogressive. Hale County v. United States, 496 F.Supp 1206 (D.D.C.).

Black voters have had limited success in electing candidates of choice during recent municipal elections. The success that they have achieved has resulted from cohesive support for candidates during the Democratic primary (where black voters represent a larger percentage of the electorate), combined with crossover voting by whites in the general election. It is the partisan makeup of the general electorate that results in enough white cross-over to allow the black community to elect a candidate of choice.

This small, but critical, amount of white crossover votes results from the party affiliation of black-preferred candidates, most if not all of whom have been black. Numerous elected municipal and county officials confirm the results of our statistical analyses that a majority of white Democrats support white Republicans over black Democrats in Kinston city elections. At the same time, they also acknowledged that a small group of white Democrats maintain strong party allegiance and will continue to vote along party lines, regardless of the race of the candidate. Many of these white crossover voters are simply using straight-ticket voting. As a result, while the racial identity of the candidate greatly diminishes the supportive effect of the partisan cue, it does not totally eliminate it.

It follows, therefore, that the elimination of party affiliation on the ballot will likely reduce the ability of blacks to elect candidates of choice. Black candidates will likely lose a significant amount of crossover votes due to the high degree of racial polarization present in city elections. Without party loyalty available to counter-balance the consistent trend of racial bloc voting, blacks will face greater difficulty winning general elections. Our analysis of election returns indicates that cross-over voting is greater in partisan general elections than in the closed primaries. Thus, statistical analysis supports the conclusion that given a change to a non-partisan elections, black preferred candidates will receive fewer white cross-over votes.

The change to nonpartisan elections would also likely eliminate the party’s campaign support and other assistance that is provided to black candidates because it eliminates the party"s role in the election. The party provides forums for black candidates to meet with voters who may otherwise be unreachable without the party's assistance. In addition, the party provides campaign funds to candidates, without which minority candidates may lag behind their white counterparts in campaign spending.

Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office. In Kinston elections, voters base their choice more on the race of a candidate rather than his or her political affiliation, and without either the appeal to party loyalty or the ability to vote a straight ticket, the limited remaining support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more. And given that the city's electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic, while the motivating factor for this change may be partisan, the effect will be strictly racial.

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the submitting authority has the burden of showing that a submitted change has neither a discriminatory purpose nor a discriminatory effect. Georgia v. United States, 411 U.S. 526 (1973); Procedures for the Administration of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 28 C.F.R. 51.52. In light of the considerations discussed above, I cannot conclude that your burden has been sustained in this instance. Therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must object to the change to nonpartisan elections, with a plurality vote requirement.

Under Section 5 you have the right to seek a declaratory judgment from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia that the proposed change neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. 28 C.F.R. 51.44. In addition, you may request that the Attorney General reconsider the objection. 28 C.F.R. 51.45. However, unless and until the objection is withdrawn or a judgment from the District of Columbia court is obtained, the change to nonpartisan elections, with a plurality vote requirement, continues to be legally unenforceable. Clark v. Roemer, 500 U.S. 646 (1991); 28 C.F.R. 51.10.

To enable us to meet our responsibility to enforce the Voting Rights Act, please inform us of the action the city plans to take concerning this matter. If you have any questions, please call Mr. J. Eric Rich (202-305-0107), an attorney in the Voting Section.

Sincerely,

/s/
Loretta King
Acting Assistant Attorney General

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec_5/ltr/l_081709.php

[Hank Ringworm]

Translation: The black voters won't know who to vote for unless DEMOCRAT is very clear beside the name.

Complete bullshit.

EDITED TO ADD: Post-racialism, my ass.

[OldDude]

Just put "Democrat" beside EVERYBODY'S name. That should increase black turnout.

[Red Dog]

That letter is deplorable. But the bigger problem is with the Voting Rights Act. I wonder if this was, say, a Massachusetts town, instead of a North Carolina town, doing this, the same action would have been taken.

In Kinston elections, voters base their choice more on the race of a candidate rather than his or her political affiliation

That's great - then all blacks have to do is turn out to the polls and vote since they make up almost 2/3 of the electorate. Ooooops. -rolleyes-

[mosquitobite]

This is what the DOJ actually said:

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/sec_5/ltr/l_081709.php

I really hope you are not ok with this response. Please tell me that you see this as nothing more than affirmative action and racism for political office. I mean, really? We're not supposed to expect the voters to actually KNOW THE NAME of the person they want to vote for? P.A.T.H.E.T.I.C!

[starman9000]

This is pathetic.

I love how it's considered unfair that they generally don't have as high of a turnout. Why even have elections, it's clear someone has decided who the people really want.

[JasonF]

Translation: The black voters won't know who to vote for unless DEMOCRAT is very clear beside the name.

The DOJ's actual rationale is that the white voters won't hold their nose and vote for a black candidate unless he's a Democrat.

Of course, you could point out -- quite correctly -- that this town has more black voters than white voters, so if the black community could get its act together and increase turnout, it wouldn't matter who the white voters vote for.

[JasonF]

I really hope you are not ok with this response. Please tell me that you see this as nothing more than affirmative action and racism for political office. I mean, really? We're not supposed to expect the voters to actually KNOW THE NAME of the person they want to vote for? P.A.T.H.E.T.I.C!

I'm not OK with it, but nor am I OK with the idea that we can just pretend that it's perfectly OK that white people won't vote for a black candidate unless their party loyalty overcomes their racial prejudices. I don't know what the best solution is.

I just thought that if people wanted to post rants about this situation, they might as well be well-informed rants.

[nemein]

So it's assumed people will know the race but not the party when they go in to vote? Or are they using the picture ballot touch panel sort of thing. Personally I think all ballots nationwide should just be the name, no picture/race indication, no party affiliation and if you don't know who to vote for by doing some basic research chances are YOU SHOULDN'T BE VOTING.

[nemein]

I just thought that if people wanted to post rants about this situation, they might as well be well-informed rants.

I'd prefer voters be well-informed before voting myself ;)

[JasonF]

So it's assumed people will know the race but not the party when they go in to vote? Or are they using the picture ballot touch panel sort of thing. Personally I think all ballots nationwide should just be the name, no picture/race indication, no party affiliation and if you don't know who to vote for by doing some basic research chances are YOU SHOULDN'T BE VOTING.

Party affiliation -- particularly in larger elections -- conveys important information about a candidate and serves as a useful proxy. In many cases, it's more efficient (in terms of use of the voters' time) to vote along party lines than to invest significant amounts of time in investigating the specific candidates' positions.

[Red Dog]

Party affiliation -- particularly in larger elections -- conveys important information about a candidate and serves as a useful proxy. In many cases, it's more efficient (in terms of use of the voters' time) to vote along party lines than to invest significant amounts of time in investigating the specific candidates' positions.

By all means, lets resort to the lowest common denominator and call it 'efficiency.' We don't want to have people spend a few minutes researching something.

It would be far better if party affiliations were removed from ballots to force people to actually do a little research instead of simply picking a candidate based on the letter after their name. Granted, 98% of the arguments in this forum are simply based on who is the 'home team,' and this forum has a higher percentage of people with some kind of clue than the real world.

[Venusian]

Black voters have had limited success in electing candidates of choice during recent municipal elections.

What does that mean? They didn't elect black candidates? Maybe some black people don't care about the race of the candidate

[Venusian]

That letter is deplorable. But the bigger problem is with the Voting Rights Act.
-

:up:

I've been saying that for a while

[nemein]

Party affiliation -- particularly in larger elections -- conveys important information about a candidate and serves as a useful proxy. In many cases, it's more efficient (in terms of use of the voters' time) to vote along party lines than to invest significant amounts of time in investigating the specific candidates' positions.

In other words it continues perpetuating a two party system that has led us to the highly partisan situation we currently find ourselves in where frequently both sides just level mindless/baseless arguments back and forth at each other based on nothing more than a R or D after the person's name -ohbfrank-

Who's talking about significant amounts of time? Usually there's just a couple of key issues people base their vote on (aside from the R or D) and there are usually plenty of websites and news papers that run comparisons of the candidates by the time it comes to the election. You'd think people would be willing to take at least 5 mins to figure out who to vote for before making a decision on something that has such a huge impact on them.

[nemein]

What does that mean? They didn't elect black candidates? Maybe some black people don't care about the race of the candidate

Actually the whole letter/situation smacks of the presumption that blacks are expected to vote lock step for Dems -ohbfrank-

[Red Dog]

Who's talking about significant amounts of time? Usually there's just a couple of key issues people base their vote on (aside from the R or D) and there are usually plenty of websites and news papers that run comparisons of the candidates by the time it comes to the election. You'd think people would be willing to take at least 5 mins to figure out who to vote for before making a decision on something that has such a huge impact on them.

Seriously. I would like to know what constitutes a 'signficant amount of time.' I spent about 20 minutes researching total on how to vote for the upcoming Virginia races and that includes the little races (not that it really matters for me - I live in liberalville). With the internet, it's never been easier.

[Red Dog]

Actually the whole letter/situation smacks of the presumption that blacks are expected to vote lock step for Dems -ohbfrank-

It's worse than that. The presumption is that blacks are incapable of finding out who is the black candidate and that the letter after the name is necessary to advertise the black candidate or the Clintonian black-friendly candidate.

[JasonF]

By all means, lets resort to the lowest common denominator and call it 'efficiency.' We don't want to have people spend a few minutes researching something.

It would be far better if party affiliations were removed from ballots to force people to actually do a little research instead of simply picking a candidate based on the letter after their name. Granted, 98% of the arguments in this forum are simply based on who is the 'home team,' and this forum has a higher percentage of people with some kind of clue than the real world.

Surely you've read at least some of Ilya Somin's many posts on rational voter ignorance at Volokh?

If John Q. Voter knows he agrees with the Republicans on 90% of the issues and disagrees with the Democrats on 90% of the issues, why should he spend a lot of time researching the candidates' positions on 20 different issues when a little research will tell him that Candidate A is a Republican and Candidate B is a Democrat?

[Venusian]

It's worse than that. The presumption is that blacks are incapable of finding out who is the black candidate and that the letter after the name is necessary to advertise the black candidate or the Clintonian black-friendly candidate.

Why is the DOJ trying to make sure black candidates get elected? Is that their job? Shouldn't the VRA only make sure they can get elected and not that they do?

[Venusian]

Surely you've read at least some of Ilya Somin's many posts on rational voter ignorance at Volokh?

If John Q. Voter knows he agrees with the Republicans on 90% of the issues and disagrees with the Democrats on 90% of the issues, why should he spend a lot of time researching the candidates' positions on 20 different issues when a little research will tell him that Candidate A is a Republican and Candidate B is a Democrat?

because every republican doesn't agree on 90% of issues.

[JasonF]

Actually the whole letter/situation smacks of the presumption that blacks are expected to vote lock step for Dems -ohbfrank-

I think it actually assumes that black voters will vote lock-step for black candidates, while white voters will vote lock-step for white candidates with the exception of a small group of white voters whose party loyalty will overcome their unwillingness to vote for black candidates.

[nemein]

If John Q. Voter knows he agrees with the Republicans on 90% of the issues and disagrees with the Democrats on 90% of the issues, why should he spend a lot of time researching the candidates' positions on 20 different issues when a little research will tell him that Candidate A is a Republican and Candidate B is a Democrat?

Then let him/her at least do that little bit of research to figure out which candidate is which. If a city/municipality wants to remove party affiliation from the ballot they should be allowed too. The Fed, especially w/ this racist argument, shouldn't be allowed to step in IMHO.

[Venusian]

I think it actually assumes that black voters will vote lock-step for black candidates, while white voters will vote lock-step for white candidates with the exception of a small group of white voters whose party loyalty will overcome their unwillingness to vote for black candidates.
Sounds like a bad assumption and even if it were valid, why is it the DOJ's job to change that behavior?

For some reason this is really pissing me off.

[Red Dog]

Surely you've read at least some of Ilya Somin's many posts on rational voter ignorance at Volokh?

If John Q. Voter knows he agrees with the Republicans on 90% of the issues and disagrees with the Democrats on 90% of the issues, why should he spend a lot of time researching the candidates' positions on 20 different issues when a little research will tell him that Candidate A is a Republican and Candidate B is a Democrat?

Am I supposed to agree with Prof. Somin on everything? Maybe we should both have letters after our names. Better yet, give Somin my proxy. I don't post much on here anymore, so just assume what Somin says goes for me. That's the ticket.

The reason is because who knows what kind of Republican the candidate is. Plus it presumes that a voter treats all issues equally, which is absurd.

And why do you keep saying 'lot of time' (or the equivalent)?

[nemein]

I think it actually assumes that black voters will vote lock-step for black candidates, while white voters will vote lock-step for white candidates with the exception of a small group of white voters whose party loyalty will overcome their unwillingness to vote for black candidates.

Which again is why things such as race and party affiliation should be removed so these things can be eliminated from consideration. It should be about the person, not the party/race. Frankly the natural extension of what you are saying above is that people don't even necessarily have to know who the candidate is. Just let them go in and hit the R or D button and let the powers that be decide who will actually serve later.

What would be interesting, but wouldn't work in a practical manner, would be to have voting based on a series of yes/no or 1-5 ranking questions (similar to those websites you see around election time) and then your candidate is automatically chosen/vote cast based on those answers instead of the usual "considerations".

[Red Dog]

What would be interesting, but wouldn't work in a practical manner, would be to have voting based on a series of yes/no or 1-5 ranking questions (similar to those websites you see around election time) and then your candidate is automatically chosen/vote cast based on those answers instead of the usual "considerations".

Then folks would need a guide to know what is the 'Democrat' answer and the 'Republican' answer. Otherwise, they'd have to invest oodles of time studying for the questions.

[nemein]

Then folks would need a guide to know what is the 'Democrat' answer and the 'Republican' answer. Otherwise, they'd have to invest oodles of time studying for the questions.

I suspect you are being facetious but if they need that much hand holding screw them... they shouldn't be voting. Then again I believe everyone who is eligible to vote should be allowed to vote, but that doesn't necessary mean they should vote.

[spainlinx0]

I think it actually assumes that black voters will vote lock-step for black candidates, while white voters will vote lock-step for white candidates with the exception of a small group of white voters whose party loyalty will overcome their unwillingness to vote for black candidates.

So, in general, blacks are more racist than whites?

[Red Dog]

So, in general, blacks are more racist than whites?

C'mon - surely you know, racism doesn't go that way.

[JasonF]

Sounds like a bad assumption

Based on the letter, it sounds like it's an assumption based on empirical studies.

and even if it were valid, why is it the DOJ's job to change that behavior?

Because the Voting Rights Act says so.

[Pharoh]

Surely you've read at least some of Ilya Somin's many posts on rational voter ignorance at Volokh?

If John Q. Voter knows he agrees with the Republicans on 90% of the issues and disagrees with the Democrats on 90% of the issues, why should he spend a lot of time researching the candidates' positions on 20 different issues when a little research will tell him that Candidate A is a Republican and Candidate B is a Democrat?

I am not a regular reader of Volokh, so forgive me if this is common knowledge, but doesn't Professor Somin believe that voters behave irrationally regardless?

Or another way, there now exists surface advantages to remaining uninformed. Wouldn't the proposed change help correct that, and help alleviate the unintended results that stem from irrational voting?

[Red Dog]

Because the Voting Rights Act says so.

Yes and the DOJ always follows what the law says. :lol:

Like I suggested - if this happened in MA rather than NC, the DOJ wouldn't bat an eye.

[JasonF]

Am I supposed to agree with Prof. Somin on everything? Maybe we should both have letters after our names. Better yet, give Somin my proxy. I don't post much on here anymore, so just assume what Somin says goes for me. That's the ticket.

The reason is because who knows what kind of Republican the candidate is. Plus it presumes that a voter treats all issues equally, which is absurd.

And why do you keep saying 'lot of time' (or the equivalent)?

I didn't mean to suggest that you had to agree with Professor Somin; merely that this wasn't some indefinisble idea I was making up out of whole cloth.

And I'm saying "lots of time" because if you don't thoroughly research how each candidate will vote on each issue that may come before him or her, you are implicitly accepting the idea that there is a limit to how much benefit there is to gaining knowledge of a candidate. At which point, to paraphrase the old joke, we've already established what you are and we're just haggling over the price.

[Red Dog]

A voter doesn't have to research each issue. Just the ones that are most important to the voter. That's usually just a handful. It's not time-consuming, particularly in this day and age. Back before internet or television, I could accept your premise to some degree.

And I still think its indefensible whether or not Prof. Somin's thinks there's merit to it. Frankly, I wasn't aware of Somin's work on it. I don't read those type of posts on volokh, but I can't help but think you picked that out knowing that Somin and I share the same philosophy on a great many things.

[JasonF]

because every republican doesn't agree on 90% of issues.

I'm not suggesting that, but I am suggesting that for many voters, knowing that there's a Democrat in the race and a Republican in the race will lead them to the same conclusion they would reach if they spent time researching each candidate's position on abortion, taxes, gun control, health care reform, the environment, regulation of Wall Street, and all the various other issues that the politicians might need to address.

If you don't think there's broad agreement within political parties, try this experiment. Pick 50 bills that came up in the House last year and were reasonably controversial (say at least 100 yea votes and at least 100 nay votes). For each one, pick any two Representatives at random. If the two Representatives are of the same party and vote alike, or if they are of different parties and vote opposite, I win $1. If they are of the same party and vote opposite, or are of different parties and vote the same, you win $1. When we go through all 50 bills, who do you think will have more money?

This isn't to say party ID is a 100% predictor of voting. I'm sure you will have some money at the end of the experiment, because sometimes, people do cross party lines. But I'm pretty sure I'll have more money.

[nemein]

I'm not suggesting that, but I am suggesting that for many voters, knowing that there's a Democrat in the race and a Republican in the race will lead them to the same conclusion they would reach if they spent time researching each candidate's position on abortion, taxes, gun control, health care reform, the environment, regulation of Wall Street, and all the various other issues that the politicians might need to address.

At least then they have taken the 5 or 10 mins to inform themselves so they are an informed voter instead of a blind voter. Maybe I just expect more out of my fellow citizen than you do. I don't think catering to the lowest common denominator when it comes to elections is helpful to anyone though.

[Dr Mabuse]

That's the 'magic' of the liberal left.

They approach this and many other issues with an overwhelming 'black people/minorities are too stupid to think for themselves like white people, we have to help them as they are inherently inferior to whites' attitude in many, many things. The black community seems to approve of this in large part, it's part of the dysfunction of that group at the national level.

Someone of any political affiliation, much less a 'conservative', says 'a black/minority person can do for themselves just fine, and if they don't want to it's their loss like anyone else' and they're a racist who want's to keep black people/minorities down.

Funny how that works.

[Red Dog]

At least then they have taken the 5 or 10 mins to inform themselves so they are an informed voter instead of a blind voter. Maybe I just expect more out of my fellow citizen than you do. I don't think catering to the lowest common denominator when it comes to elections is helpful to anyone though.

It's helpful to those who either a) want to see benefits accrue to their 'team' in specific elections or b) want to perpetuate the 2-party stranglehold.

If you have party affiliations, then why not identify the incumbent on ballots too. That conveys a lot of information.

[Venusian]

Because the Voting Rights Act says so.It says that the DOJ should make sure blacks get elected?

[Red Dog]

It says that the DOJ should make sure blacks get elected?

Pretty much - at least in the South.

[Venusian]

I thought it was only supposed to ensure that there weren't institutional barriers that kept blacks from getting elected.



Either way, Reconstruction is over. Get the Feds out of our elections.

[wishbone]

Obscure change to the law

On North Carolina's ballot, the presidential contest is not included in the list of “Partisan Offices.” In order to cast a vote for president and a straight party vote, you need to make two marks – one in the presidential contest and the other in the straight party section. (And a straight-ticket vote does not cast a vote in judicial races, because those are nonpartisan.)

A state law passed in 1967 prohibits the combination of the vote for the president with any other office on the ballot. Why would a General Assembly controlled by Democrats in 1967 pass such a law? Straight party voting reduces the time it takes people to vote. It also means more votes are cast for offices lower on the ballot because people can simply register their vote for all partisan offices with one mark.

But for Southern Democrats in the 1960s, the specter of increasingly liberal candidates at the top of the ticket raised a problem. If the vote for president were included in the straight party option, Democrats who did not like the presidential nominee might be less inclined to vote straight party. The solution – separate the vote for president from the straight party vote.

Unfortunately, this ballot design introduces confusion. Some voters check the straight party option without realizing the need to vote separately in the presidential race. In studying the effect of ballot design on voting outcomes in North Carolina in 1992, Duke professor Sunny Ladd and I estimated that the straight party voting option caused nearly 1 percent of voters who went to the polls to fail to cast a vote in the presidential race.http://www.charlotteobserver.com/406/story/236903.html

Interesting. I have heard that one can vote split ticket (http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,1607,7-127-1633_8716_45458-202640--,00.html) with optical scan voting machines but I have not tried it.

[Red Dog]

Read Section 2. Apparently the DOJ thinks that taking off affiliations is a 'discriminatory result' against a group that can't effectively gets its folks to bother voting.

And to repeat, this only applies to those racist bastards in the south.

[JasonF]

I am not a regular reader of Volokh, so forgive me if this is common knowledge, but doesn't Professor Somin believe that voters behave irrationally regardless?

I don't know that he takes a position on that. Rather, his point is that there are rational reasons why a voter might want to limit the amount of time invested in researching a candidate's position.

Reading through the comments here, it doesn't seem like Red Dog or nemein are disagreeing with that.

I read their posts as saying that voters should select the issues that are "important" (based on some threshhold criteria for importance) and research those, but for those issues that are "unimportant" to that particular voter, not to bother researching.

(I don't disagree with that, by the way).

My point is that party identification can be an important data point in determining candidates' positions, and that for most voters, knowing a candidate's party affiliation will reduce (often to zero) the amount of additional research needed in order for the voter to have the information he or she needs to cast his or her vote.

Or another way, there now exists surface advantages to remaining uninformed. Wouldn't the proposed change help correct that, and help alleviate the unintended results that stem from irrational voting?

Assuming there is a positive correlation between a candidate's party identification and his or her predicted voting patterns, the proposed change would increase the costs associated with becoming informed.

But I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about a voter who makes a rational decision to remain (partially) ignorant and votes based on his or her incomplete knowledge; you seem to be talking about a voter who makes an irrational decision regarding which candidate to vote for.

[nemein]

My point is that party identification can be an important data point in determining candidates' positions, and that for most voters, knowing a candidate's party affiliation will reduce (often to zero) the amount of additional research needed in order for the voter to have the information he or she needs to cast his or her vote.

My point is if you don't want to put enough thought into the voting process before the election to at least find out which candidate is from which party, you probably shouldn't be voting in the first place.

[JasonF]

Either way, Reconstruction is over. Get the Feds out of our elections.

Reconstruction ended with Rutherford B. Hayes. The problems with voting in the South continued far beyond that, and were unique to that part of the country.

I actually do agree with you that the unique preclearance requirements for the South have probably outlived their usefulness. But this came up for renewal in 2006 and although an argument was made to remove preclearance (or extend it to all 50 states), it failed. The Supreme Court also considered this last year, but 8 of the 9 justices punted and remanded the case on statutory grounds (Justice Thomas would have found preclearance unconstitutional).

[JasonF]

My point is if you don't want to put enough thought into the voting process before the election to at least find out which candidate is from which party, you probably shouldn't be voting in the first place.

That's all well and good. But if you research each candidate's position on 25 issues, somewhere out there is somebody who is disgusted with you because if you're not willinf to put enough thought into the voting process before the election to research 26 issues, you probably shouldn't be voting in the first place. Where should the line be?

[spainlinx0]

You're assuming that people choose their party affiliation by issue rather than by other reasons in the first place. Some people vote democrat or republican based on what their parents did, and have no clue on the issues or which party espouses which issue. Are those people being done a favor by this? It really seems like we're trying to promote ignorance in this country with these things.

[sracer]

My point is if you don't want to put enough thought into the voting process before the election to at least find out which candidate is from which party, you probably shouldn't be voting in the first place.
That's if you still have faith in "the system".

Since elected officials don't think for themselves and are really there because the suit fits (Brady Bunch reference to Johnny Bravo) ballots should only have the party listed...

... why perpetuate the illusion that the individual candidate matters or makes a difference?

[spainlinx0]

That's all well and good. But if you research each candidate's position on 25 issues, somewhere out there is somebody who is disgusted with you because if you're not willinf to put enough thought into the voting process before the election to research 26 issues, you probably shouldn't be voting in the first place. Where should the line be?

Seriously? Let's take $100, and we'll go through 100 people and ask them if 25 issues is enough research. Who will end up with significantly more money at the end of our test?

[JasonF]

Seriously? Let's take $100, and we'll go through 100 people and ask them if 25 issues is enough research. Who will end up with significantly more money at the end of our test?

I picked 25 because it's an absurdly high number. But earlier in the thread, Red Dog suggested that a voter would need to reasearch "just a handful." What's a handful? Let's say 5 issues. I'm sure there are people who will say that's not enough and others who will say it's more than enough. If we drop it down to 3 issues, more people will move from the latter column to the former, but there will still be people in both columns. The point is, wherever you draw the line, there will be people on both sides of the line.

Why do you get to decide that classicman needs to know more than a candidate's party affiliation before he decides whether to vote for them?

[nemein]

Why do you get to decide that classicman needs to know more than a candidate's party affiliation before he decides whether to vote for them?

If that's all the person wants to know that fine w/ me. Everyone decides for themselves how informed they want to be before going into an election. All I think is that people should at least make some sort of effort if they want to be responsible citizens, and because party affiliation is easy enough to find elsewhere if this area doesn't want it on the ballot they should be allowed to remove it IMHO.

[spainlinx0]

I picked 25 because it's an absurdly high number. But earlier in the thread, Red Dog suggested that a voter would need to reasearch "just a handful." What's a handful? Let's say 5 issues. I'm sure there are people who will say that's not enough and others who will say it's more than enough. If we drop it down to 3 issues, more people will move from the latter column to the former, but there will still be people in both columns. The point is, wherever you draw the line, there will be people on both sides of the line.

Why do you get to decide that classicman needs to know more than a candidate's party affiliation before he decides whether to vote for them?

As nemein said, how about we leave it at 1? Find out the party affiliation yourself.

[Pharoh]

I don't know that he takes a position on that. Rather, his point is that there are rational reasons why a voter might want to limit the amount of time invested in researching a candidate's position.

Reading through the comments here, it doesn't seem like Red Dog or nemein are disagreeing with that.

I read their posts as saying that voters should select the issues that are "important" (based on some threshhold criteria for importance) and research those, but for those issues that are "unimportant" to that particular voter, not to bother researching.

(I don't disagree with that, by the way).

My point is that party identification can be an important data point in determining candidates' positions, and that for most voters, knowing a candidate's party affiliation will reduce (often to zero) the amount of additional research needed in order for the voter to have the information he or she needs to cast his or her vote.



Assuming there is a positive correlation between a candidate's party identification and his or her predicted voting patterns, the proposed change would increase the costs associated with becoming informed.

But I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. I'm talking about a voter who makes a rational decision to remain (partially) ignorant and votes based on his or her incomplete knowledge; you seem to be talking about a voter who makes an irrational decision regarding which candidate to vote for.

Because generally speaking I don't believe in rational voters. I thought Professor Somin believed the same, but I could be mistaken.

[Red Dog]

(Justice Thomas would have found preclearance unconstitutional).

Seldom wrong and right again. And to think he's the 'wacko' on the Court. -rolleyes-

[Red Dog]

You're assuming that people choose their party affiliation by issue rather than by other reasons in the first place. Some people vote democrat or republican based on what their parents did, and have no clue on the issues or which party espouses which issue. Are those people being done a favor by this? It really seems like we're trying to promote ignorance in this country with these things.

Yep. I'd guess that 90% of the people who vote only based on party affilation are that way because of their parents or people told them they are that way without doing any kind of research on their own.

[Cheato]

Think back to when you were young and first learned that somebody could just vote for an entire bank of candidates by choosing "Democrat" or "Republican."

If you were shocked by that, and were dismayed to discover that people didn't actually research who they voted for and what positions those people represented, and felt that the entire system had a major fault in its design, then you are probably an independent thinker.

If you thought to yourself, "well, that makes it easier," then you're probably an idiot.


I think those kinds of switches/buttons in election booths should be connected to nothing whatsoever. If you choose to vote that way, your vote simply doesn't count. Your vote was just white noise, anyway; let's filter it out. Just because one side had more idiots who went with the one-button option than the other side did, it only means one thing: the winning side had more idiots.

[Red Dog]

That's all well and good. But if you research each candidate's position on 25 issues, somewhere out there is somebody who is disgusted with you because if you're not willinf to put enough thought into the voting process before the election to research 26 issues, you probably shouldn't be voting in the first place. Where should the line be?

25 issues?! Again, you keep making it sound so time-consuming.

[Red Dog]

If that's all the person wants to know that fine w/ me. Everyone decides for themselves how informed they want to be before going into an election. All I think is that people should at least make some sort of effort if they want to be responsible citizens, and because party affiliation is easy enough to find elsewhere if this area doesn't want it on the ballot they should be allowed to remove it IMHO.

Exactly. I really don't care how a person votes or what leads them to their vote, but I would hope that they put some degree of thought into it. I don't think it's government place or role to provide the aid of party identification to the voter, no more than it would be to provide other descriptions of the candidates on the ballot. Just put the names on the ballot.

[JasonF]

Seldom wrong and right again. And to think he's the 'wacko' on the Court. -rolleyes-

I think Justice Thomas is right about the Constitutionality of selective preclearance based on 1972 baselines, and I think a majority of the Court probably agrees with him. But I agree with his eight bretheren that it wasn't necessary to reach the Constitutional issue in this case.

[jfoobar]

Think back to when you were young and first learned that somebody could just vote for an entire bank of candidates by choosing "Democrat" or "Republican."

I remember thinking, "What? There are only two major parties???"

[kvrdave]

Think back to when you were young and first learned that somebody could just vote for an entire bank of candidates by choosing "Democrat" or "Republican."


I remember thinking, "Good. Now Blacks will know who to vote for."

[Red Dog]

Why beat around the bush. I think ballots in the south should look like:

__ Joe Schmo - Republican (Republicans hate black people.)

__ Jack Smith - Democrat (If you are black, you are required by law to vote Democrat)

__ John Doe - Independent (He's got no chance. Don't bother. And if you're black refer to the law above.)

[mosquitobite]

:lol:

[BKenn01]

The DOJ's actual rationale is that the white voters won't hold their nose and vote for a black candidate unless he's a Democrat.Of course, you could point out -- quite correctly -- that this town has more black voters than white voters, so if the black community could get its act together and increase turnout, it wouldn't matter who the white voters vote for.

And that is total Bull Shit JasonF, neither is a justification for forbidding non partisan elections.

White people and for that matter Black people are for the most part going to vote for people they agree with. It should really bother Black people that the thought is that if you are not a Democrat you wont get their vote.

That is a sure fire way to get yourself taken for granted and your interests ingored.

[BKenn01]

Party affiliation -- particularly in larger elections -- conveys important information about a candidate and serves as a useful proxy. In many cases, it's more efficient (in terms of use of the voters' time) to vote along party lines than to invest significant amounts of time in investigating the specific candidates' positions.


It is probably more about preservation of power. Here in KY (a very very Red state) the Democrats have strangleholds on local politics and probably as many as 1/2 the elected Democrats are really Republicans. This skews the registration because people want to vote in local elections but cant if they register Republican.

It is this way even in counties where the Republicans usually win by double digit margins in Federal elections and a Democrat has absolutley no prayer of winning at the Federal level.

[kvrdave]

White people and for that matter Black people are for the most part going to vote for people they agree with. It should really bother Black people that the thought is that if you are not a Democrat you wont get their vote.

That is a sure fire way to get yourself taken for granted and your interests ingored.

It should bother blacks, but let's face it...they vote for Democrats more consistently than Iraqis used to vote for Hussein or North Koreans vote for Kim Jong Il.

[brayzie]

This skews the registration because people want to vote in local elections but cant if they register Republican.



If you don't mind could you explain this a little? If you register as a Republican you can't vote for local elections for like mayor, etc?

[Venusian]

If the local elections have a lock by a certain party, Democrats in his examples, you have to be a Dem for your vote to count. The primary is essentially the election.

[Red Dog]

If you don't mind could you explain this a little? If you register as a Republican you can't vote for local elections for like mayor, etc?

I assume he means since Democrats always win the general election in the areas discussed, the election that effectively decides local races is the Democratic primary, which I presume is only open to Democrats (no cross-over voting allowed). So if you are a Republican, if you want to have any say in local elections, you have to register Democrat.

That too would be the way it is for my area (Arlington, VA - Democrats win everything), but there is no party registration in VA so primaries are open to everyone (but you can only vote in one or the other).

[brayzie]

Ah, okay. Thanks for explaining that.