OK, that’s an honest position, namely, “I don’t want everybody to vote.
DavidGrace
1

OK, that’s an honest position, namely, “I don’t want everybody to vote. I only want dedicated people to vote. I want to suppress the votes of the average Joe Sixpack who is not invested in the process.”

I’ll have to call you out on your characterization. There is no “suppression” going on. It’s apathy. I don’t want apathetic voters voting. The average Joe Sixpack who is invested in the process will find a way to the polls.

Also, you can’t suppress someone who is educated. If I walked in and they wouldn’t allow me to vote because of some bureaucratic mix-up, I would demand a provisional ballot. Then my information would be checked if my vote would have swung the outcome.

The opposing view is that society is made worse, not better, when only the dedicated members of interest groups or committed ideologues vote.

Actually, society is made worse when non-engaged people vote. I think your concentration should be encouraging people to become engaged.

But I applaud your honesty in stating that you don’t want the average person who does not have a strong enough motivation to overcome the barriers to voting to show up at the polls. That certain explains why you don’t want to make it easier for people to vote.

I don’t consider them “barriers”. I (and nobody in my circle of acquaintances) has any problem getting to the polls on election day. And I have acquaintances of differing political persuasions.

I also dislike early voting. When you vote a month ahead of time, what happens when you find out in the last week that one of the candidates beats his wife and you already voted for him?