That republicans fear large voter turnouts, with a diverse number of Americans exercising their right to vote, comes as no surprise.
Dear
C_Clayton_Jones
There are "conflicts of interest" among politicians and corporate interests mixed with govt
as there are with voters either getting benefits or thinking they are.
NEITHER is sticking to the principles that govt is SUPPOSED to follow.
This is like people abusing science or math to "get the answers they want by popular vote"
instead of using science and math as consistent systems to get consistent answers using given
laws and formulas that represent existing relations and how things really work in the world.
The same way people are generally afraid of corporate conflicts swaying politicians,
and as soon as people in power can vote themselves better benefits or more money for their interests,
then fairness and equal treatment of all people and all states and interests goes out the door,
The same conflicts of interest affect voting.
A. if Conservatives think they are going to get "prolife" and "anti-terrorist/progun" legislation by voting
for Candidates X Y Z then they bet all their money on that horse and expect the big pay off for winning the race
B. If Liberals think they are going to get "prochoice" and universal health care benefits, gay marriage benefits,
higher minimum wage, increase in social programs and reduction in war spending, then they will all go rally
around Candidates 1, 2, and 3 and push that in the media
Since both approaches are equal Political Beliefs, legally to be purely equally inclusive and either neutral to both views or defending all views equally, the Govt should never be used to promote ONE agenda or belief over another. That is no longer neutral but is taking sides, similar to religious biases and beliefs that don't belong in Govt.
Both parties are so used to pushing their way, they don't see when they cross the line between "separation of church and state" and are pushing a faith-based agenda biased toward THEIR beliefs of THEIR party members.
The politicians exploit and capitalize on this fear of being outnumbers and overruled by the other party's beliefs.
If BOTH parties would lay off this political bullying, stick with the Constitution that CHECKS against such abuses, then NOBODY could get away with it. But since both keep using bullying tactics, they aren't in any position to check the other. So they BOTH have "conflicts of interest" by putting party politics and favoritism above the law.
Technically if we were to enforce Constitutional principles of equal protection of the laws, not abusing Govt to establish any kind of religious bias that discriminates against certain people or groups by creed, and equal representation for the entire public in govt policies (instead of majority rule skewed if not hijacked by corporate funded politics and lobbying), then NEITHER party could get away with promising and pushing "private" agenda while making the public pay for it. We could start holding parties to enforcing Constitutional principles and ethics, and keep the political biases and beliefs within respective party platforms and programs only those members pay for and are bound by if they opt into such policies voluntarily. Like religions, membership should be voluntary.
C_Clayton_Jones
There are equal conflicts of interest on both sides, with voters in both parties.
Even Conservative Constitutionalists who swear to uphold the Constitution will put THEIR beliefs in "right to life" above the free exercise and equal free choice of others who don't share this same belief; they will compromise their own Constitutional concepts of religious freedom when it comes to Muslims or Prochoice beliefs, etc.
So if you are like my friend Daron who FEARS the Conservatives and Christians as some huge lobby that can organize through churches and political groups to rally and push their own beliefs and agenda,
then of course you will "fear" for these people to vote in large numbers.
Likewise, if the Democrats keep advertising their leaders want Amnesty and Benefits for all immigrants, legal or illegal without holding people to account, that is going to create fear of buying out voters who want this policy to pay for their social programs and benefits without taking responsibility for the cost.
I see the fear as mutual.
But none of that is necessary.
If we uphold the law, the natural principle of people paying for their own programs they believe in,
then NEITHER side, NEITHER party could get away with exploiting that fear for votes and campaign funding.
The law if enforced consistently could prevent ANYONE from having to pay for programs that the other party believes in, and instead allow parties to pay for their OWN programs WITHOUT interference by the others!
There would be NO MORE FIGHTING over who is buying which voters
because each group would be responsible for the policies they offer.
If you offer a 7 course banquet for guests to join your club, then you pay for that.
You don't go offer that to invite people, and then charge the tab to the other clubhouse to pay for it all.
PUBLIC policies and programs the govt should be used to pay for should
be by AGREEMENT by the PUBLIC if that is who is paying the bill.
(And if govt is so big that we cannot tell who is paying for what,
then we REALLY need to reorganize where there is accountability for resources used by which areas.)
What do you THINK it means to represent the PUBLIC?
How can that possibly mean only to represent the agenda of ONE party OVER the other,
whoever wins that particular vote or debate or ruling.
Unless policies are based on agreement and consensus,
there is too much "selling out" where money and politics pushes a bias on decisions
instead of these representing the ENTIRE public interest (not just the side of the winning lobby).
