Age Of The Reasonable Voter

When India gained independence in 1947(or to be precise were 'gifted' independence in 1947), the huge population had little or no say in the election [again to be precise 'selection'] of Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru as India's first Prime Minister. All that the word 'democracy' signified was that when it came to our political ideology, we were with the western side of the two power blocs existent at that point of time in world history. Whether we accept it or not, Nehru was clever enough to 'strike a balance' by going democratic and socialist both. He wanted the US, but was too afraid to lose the Russians or the Chinese for the matter of fact. The idea was to take the best, and leave the rest. But one gets a feeling that this was done to accommodate the policy and outlook of Non-Alignment that Nehru always endorsed. He wanted India to benefit from everyone, not a bad idea at all.

Over the years, the Indian democracy plunged into the dark and dead phase of a single party system. If you ask me, this was no different from what was going on in China. The Indian National Congress, riding high on the pre-independence exploits of Nehru and Gandhi, managed to win the confidence of the Indian voters over and over again. But there was no contest actually; no other party was a big gun enough to pose a challenge to the strong and widely respected INC. See during those days, the INC was not a political party for the people of India. The image was that these are Gandhi's men who fought hard for our independence and hence deserve to govern us. In the deification of Gandhi, we gifted ourselves with a long lasting Congress hegemony. In the 1970s, the Janta Party did manage to upset the INC momentum, and in the 1990s the party [INC] went through a lot of ups and downs, but if you see it in the long run, INC continues to dominate the Indian political scene - and that too by quite a margin.

What actually propelled the growth and success of INC? As mentioned above, it was the general belief that INC is NOT a political party but simply 'Bapu's group'. Also, both direct and indirect illiteracy ensured that the INC people enjoyed their dominance for a long time. Direct illiteracy obviously means people who were not educated. But what about indirect illiteracy? See even the educated masses were 'educated' and 'trained' to respect and spread INC ideals. The course books included scores of paragraphs describing the work of INC and glorifying INC leaders. INC popularized itself in the course books and created a section of educated people in the society which helped in spreading the message of INC. Indirectly illiterate, these people had no idea that were not 'educated' but 'trained'. It is quite an irony that Gandhi himself wanted the INC to dissolve as he believed that it had served its purpose. But with Nehru and a few other opportunists in waiting, INC was transformed into a full time political party. This meant bidding farewell to the Gandhian concepts of complete selflessness and social service.

The 90s showed us so how 'unstable' a democracy can get. Also, how desperate the leaders can be. When the NDA finally showed up as a strong opponent to the INC led UPA, we entered the age of coalition parties. Yes indeed the Janta party was a coalition, but a coalition as fragile and uncoordinated as the Janta Party cannot really be included in our history books as a 'proper coalition' or as a coalition which forced the INC to seek friends.

Over the years, elections in India have been fought over petty, unreasonable, ridiculous and useless issues. Right from religion to caste, the blame game continued and the voters were misguided or uninterested in elections altogether. But now we see a different breed of voters. This is a time when a democracy is tested. This is a time when political parties must revamp their strength and modernise their methods. Any party that fails to concur - is lost forever. The political parties of our time must realize the importance of restructuring their framework as well as their ideology. We all know how badly the BJP struggles to reach to a conclusion when it comes to deciding the party's basic ideology. The members are nibbling away at each other's faults and the whole alliance [NDA] is shapeless and in despair.

The INC meanwhile, is surrounded by allegations of corruption and poor governance and has become the 'virtual punch bag' for most of us. Need an outlet to drain all your anger and disgust? Start a discussion about UPA and you will be relieved and leave the room as a relaxed and satisfied soul. I don't know what actually invited this avalanche of hatred, but the UPA surely needs a BUZZ!!

After Rajnikant and CID jokes, the UPA jokes entertain audiences all around the world.

We now shift our focus to State elections. If we look at the past one decade, we will see that the verdict of voters in two states, prove that India has entered into the age of the reasonable voter. Gone are the days when a party could rule without offering any form of development to it's voters. When the Laloo Prasad government was given a shocker by Nitish Kumar and company, almost every political analyst blamed the dismal condition of Bihar for the fall of Laloo Prasad Yadav. But what we fail to realize is that along with the pathetic condition of Bihar, it was also the realization of the 'good' by the people of the state that led to the election of Nitish Kumar's team. The people were able to reason out that the current party is not capable enough to take care of Bihar anymore and it is time that someone else was presented with the opportunity to provide and protect the State of Bihar. If we closely observe the activities of Nitish Kumar in the recent past, we can easily deduce that the man has realized that it is only through effective development that his party will be able to continue in Bihar.

Mayawati's elephant succumbing to a team of experienced 'cyclists', namely the 'Baap-Beta' combination of Mulayam and Akhilesh, is another example of how poor performance can lead to an absolute shocker. Mayawati was busy constructing parks and statues while the people of UP were struggling to make ends meet. Along with this, extreme levels of corruption and widespread discontent among the 'Dalits', forced them to withdraw support from their own party. Meanwhile, Akhilesh has promised to deliver. Yes that does not sound like anything new but going by the trends, the duo will know that without development, they cannot expect to stretch their welcome in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The Yadavs are infamous for crimes of all sorts. They need to get rid of this tag and make a move towards developing Uttar Pradesh in a manner that will dazzle not only the people of the state but also the people of the country as is in the case of Nitish Kumar.

So with the voters drawing up a list of pros n cons for every political party that appears before them begging for their vote and support, it becomes very important for each party to enter the 'House Of The Voters' with a report card in hand, clearly indicating how useful they have actually been. I'm so happy that the 'Report Card Age' has finally arrived in India. Just waiting for it to spread its wings and reach every corner of the country, so that the country and the states can actually experience the good that comes from living in a democracy. Buckle up, the journey begins!

View the original article here

Voter ID Laws Damaging GOP Brand

I am in the midst of a long business trip, which is why I will check into a California hotel tonight after a flight from Oregon. To claim my room key, I must present two items: a credit card and a photo ID.

I will need that photo ID just to get to California, because security screeners will not let me board an aircraft without one. And I'll need it again after I arrive, in order to pick up my rental car.

Even if I happen to think the demand to see my driver's license upon hotel check-in is a little excessive, I realize that these rules are for everyone's protection. We all live with them. If we expect to show identification to board an aircraft or cash a check or enter an office building, why is there so much controversy over requirements that citizens show identification in order to vote?

Granted, voting is a constitutional right, while driving a car or flying in a commercial jet is not. But all sorts of procedural restrictions apply to the right to vote in order to ensure fair and honest elections. Most places require advance registration of voters, for example. Requiring identification from someone who shows up to cast a ballot makes at least as much sense. After all, you would not want to arrive at your polling place after a long day at work, only to find out that someone claiming to be you had already voted in your place.

Yet voter ID laws have become a partisan issue, with Republicans tending to strongly back them and Democrats opposed. And the Republicans' position has managed to do significant long-term damage to their party's prospects, even though their pro-ID position is basically sensible and ought to be non-controversial. It goes to show that what you say or do matters less than how you go about saying or doing it.

For the 2012 election, only four states have so-called "strict" voter photo ID requirements. Indiana, which in 2006 became the first state to pass such a law, has survived a legal challenge that made it all the way to the Supreme Court. Requiring voters to show photo ID is not, in itself, unconstitutional. However, the way such a requirement is implemented might be.

Just last week, South Carolina's photo ID law was upheld by a federal court with the proviso that the statute not be applied in the current election cycle, as there is not sufficient time to ensure the new rules would not disenfranchise otherwise eligible voters. South Carolina's law benefited from provisions expanding the types of valid photo ID (including passports, military IDs and photographic voter registration cards) and taking steps to make such ID easier to obtain. Voters without photo ID in South Carolina may sign an affidavit offering any truthful, "reasonable" explanation for why they lack such identification. These voters will then be able to cast a provisional ballot, which cannot be challenged unless there is reason to believe the voter has lied. Provisional ballots are also available to voters in Pennsylvania and Indiana who are indigent or have religious objections to being photographed.

In Pennsylvania, Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson blocked a new, stricter voter ID law from taking effect for this November's election because he was unconvinced that voters who hadn't yet obtained photo ID wouldn't be disenfranchised. Officials can still request photo ID from voters in Pennsylvania but cannot prevent anyone without it from voting.

According to ProPublica, which has maintained a frequently updated "Q-and-A" style list of information about voter access laws since July, 30 states have now enacted voter ID laws in one form or another. In some cases, the Justice Department is directly involved in such legislation because of a requirement in the Voting Rights Act that dictates states with a history of discrimination receive clearance before making changes to their voting laws. Texas failed to receive such clearance earlier this year.

Other state laws faced challenges on the state level. Two judges blocked enforcement for Wisconsin's photo ID law earlier this year. Governors - all Democrats - in Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire and North Carolina vetoed strict photo ID bills in their states, though New Hampshire's Legislature overrode their governor's veto.

There has also been a flurry of voter access decisions relating to other rules for voters. Federal judges in Ohio and Florida pressured those states to restore early voting days, originally cut back under new laws. Another federal judge in Ohio held that the state must count the ballots of voters who vote in the right polling place but go to the wrong table for their precinct; The Los Angeles Times reported that 14,000 votes were lost four years ago due to this error. (1)

I have no problem with a modest, non-burdensome photo ID requirement. This means that states should provide IDs at no cost to those who don't have them, at reasonably convenient locations, and with sufficient notice that nobody's voting rights are impaired. These are the same requirements most courts seem to have in mind in their rulings so far. Republicans have gone far beyond these parameters, however, in their push for stricter legislation. This is partly due to a simple lack of sensitivity to the burdens such requirements impose, but also partly done for short-term political gain in the hope of suppressing otherwise Democratic votes.

This approach, like the GOP's refusal to support sensible and humane immigration policies, will backfire in the long term. Comments such as those from Pennsylvania House Republican leader Mike Turzai, who famously claimed stricter voter ID law would "allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania," make it easy to vilify Republican efforts, no matter what their original intent. (2) While Turzai has claimed his remarks were taken out of context, it's hard to misread the words of the Pennsylvania law's sponsor, Daryl Metcalfe, who not long ago called those unable to obtain the required ID "lazy." (2)

Such short-sighted rhetoric damages the Republican brand and makes it more difficult to persuade voters of all races and nationalities to sign on to the party's less-tax, less-government, greater-opportunity agenda. It plays into the hands of critics who say Republicans are all about opportunities for people who already have plenty of them.

It's the kind of move, in other words, that a smart business executive would never make. You don't sacrifice your brand's reputation for transient short-term benefits, at least not if you want to succeed in the long run.

By mostly rejecting ballot access laws with unreasonable requirements, the courts are doing Republicans a small favor. Republicans could do themselves a bigger one by trying to make sure the least-privileged voters, who have the most to gain, align themselves with the GOP's goals of a more prosperous tomorrow, rather than sending a message that presumed Democrat-leaning voters are unwelcome either in the Republican Party or at the polls.

Sources:

1) The Los Angeles Times, "Courts block Republicans' voter ID laws - for now"

2) The Huffington Post, "Pennsylvania Voter ID Laws 'Stink,' Says Republican Community Leader"

For more articles, please visit the Palisades Hudson Financial Group LLC newsletter or subscribe to the blog.

Newsletter: http://palisadeshudson.com/sentinel/

Blog: http://palisadeshudson.com/current-commentary/

View the original article here

What Is Voter Initiative?

What do naturalized citizens, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the League of Women Voters have in common? The answer is Voter Initiative. These interest groups and organizations are trying to introduce new legislation to change policy without government interference. The initiatives on the 2012 Election Ballot are important, so voters need to know what Voter Initiative is, and how does it affect the election?

What is Voter Initiative? It is the process by which citizens originate legislation, or a legislative proposal that can be enacted into law. The initiative may take the form of either direct initiative or indirect initiative. Under the direct initiative, a measure is put directly to a vote after being submitted by a petition. Under the indirect initiative, a measure is first referred to the legislation, and then put to a popular vote only if not enacted by the legislature. The initiative will then be placed on the ballot. Citizens will vote, and decide whether or not the changes should be made. This is a form of direct democracy or pure democracy. The Congressional Black Caucus "For the People" initiative is good example to help one understand Voter Initiative. The CBC partnered with community leaders as well as local and state elected draws attention to voter suppression. The goal of this initiative is to inform eligible voters on what documents and procedures are needed to vote. The Voters Right Act will be affected because of this initiative. This initiative or any initiative let local citizens voice their opinions about issues concerning our country. It is important that a voter analyzes every initiative on the ballot.

How does this affect the election? Some opinions states that initiatives placed on the ballot increases voter turnout. Voters are interested in issues that will affect their lives. For instance, if a voter has never showed a picture ID to vote in the pass, the "For the People" initiative is important to them, so they will make sure to support this initiative. Interest group and organizations will pitch to voters they must vote in this election to support this initiative. A politician might support an initiative, and use this it as a platform for their campaign. Another politician who does not agree with the changes will use stopping the initiative as a campaign platform. This sparks voter's interest, and increase voter turnout. Studies have shown when no controversial initiatives are on the ballot, fewer voters participate in the election. It is not to say that this is the only reason voters participate in elections, but it is to say Voter initiative can have an impact on elections.

Whether it is voter suppression, gay rights, or women rights, Voter initiative is an effective way for citizens to have a voice in the legislative process. This is another check that voters use to balance the legislative process. It eliminates the government, and gives the power to the people. As a voter, you will need to stay inform of the new initiatives that are placed on the ballot by contacting your local governmental officials. Also, make sure you exercise your right, and vote.

View the original article here