The cynic's case for democracy. Anti-voting conservatives are courting violenc.
Tweet text:
Marc E. Elias
@marceelias
"When someone is designing a disenfranchisement scheme, there is an inherent conflict of interest. One will always be tempted to shade the categories of "worthy voters" so that the scheme benefits one's own political interests."
The cynic's case for democracy
Anti-voting conservatives are courting violence
theweek.com
https://theweek.com/articles/976287/cynics-case-democracy
Maybe democracy is actually
bad? As conservatives desperately search for rationalizations to justify Republicans' assault on voting rights in Georgia and several other states, this classic dumb argument is bubbling up once again. The case for disenfranchisement is the same one you've probably heard at a bar or party over the years: There are tons of stupid people in America, and they can't be trusted to make wise decisions.
"Voters individually and in majorities are as apt to be wrong about things as right about them," writes Kevin D. Williamson at National Review. They "often vote from low motives such as bigotry and spite, and very often are contentedly ignorant."
On the merits, this is a crock. The average citizen is every bit as trustworthy as the average graduate of Harvard, investment banker, elected official or political pundit, if not more so. Moreover, the whole moral foundation of democracy is political equality a social contract between the people and their elected representatives.
But there is another more cynical case for universal voting. Democracy, which has come to be based on an ever-greater franchise, provides legitimacy to government and an orderly mechanism for resolving political conflict. Undermine those things, and violence and instability could spill out of control.
*snip*