Tag: partisanship

Analyzing Bipartisanship: Drawing the Line with Unwarranted Division

Simran Sharma ’22

The two-party system in the United States dates back to 1792, with the Federalist Party, founded by Alexander Hamilton, and the Democratic-Republican Party, founded by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. The ideals of these two parties were different from those present in the party system , but the precedent set by their division is one that has lasted throughout our history as a nation. It is worth mentioning that this political divide was foreseen and condemned by the very same men who caused the split. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison both detailed the dangers of domestic political factions. Famously, even George Washington detailed the threat of conflict and stagnation associated with political parties in his “Farewell Address”. Had these men heeded their own advice, or the advice of the first POTUS, perhaps we wouldn’t find ourselves in the political climate defining the headlines of today.

Fast-forward to the present day; what is  one of the biggest societal  rules which we find ourselves forced to adhere to? Don’t talk politics. It’s a topic which has been stamped with the scarlet letter, deemed dangerously personal. But politics are simply impersonal. It is the deep-rooted disparities which have manifested into disdain between both ends of the political spectrum that elicit such fervor. Political conversations are considered taboo, not because the subject is intrinsically divisive, but because we allow it to be.

Now, this is not to say that we shouldn’t form and hold firm to our own ideals. The beauty in this modern era is that we have a wealth of knowledge at our disposal, and we can pair this information with our morals to establish our political stances. However, there is a thin line between fierce belief and a closed mind. The polarization which plagues our nation will not be conducive to creating lasting change going forward, but will rather further a climate devoid of conversation.

Politics are subjective, which is why multiple parties exist in the first place. Treating our inclinations as factual has led to the political turmoil we see play out in the media every day. If you’re a Republican, you’re deemed racist, and if you’re a Democrat, you’re a snowflake. These generalizations paired with unwarranted aggression have created a palpable hostility between the left and right. Of course, there is basis to the differing stances on both sides, meaning that disagreement is inevitable. It is how these disagreements are dealt with that has created the deadlock between both ends. In so many cases, it is no longer about coming to a constructive resolution, but rather attacking the other side. Naturally, both conservatives and liberals hold that their positions on issues are the best. This is important to creating legislation in our country, but when no one is willing to listen, it leads to a mundane standstill which is detrimental to our progression as a nation.

The reason why there are clear party lines is because people align themselves with the ideals which they believe are most conducive to the betterment of the United States. In the case of politicians, true morals may be muddled by monetary incentives, but the average American sides with what they believe in. Yet, politics in this country have become a moral battleground filled with genuine hatred. While both sides may not agree with each other, most Americans have the same objective in doing what’s right for society. 

Given, certain ethical issues which are poorly handled under the political microscope deservedly cause outrage, but shortcomings in morality such as racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., can not be wholly conflated with one side and considered a defining trait. Similarly, simply deeming a whole side ‘annoying’ or sensitive because they don’t agree with you is not a valid argument, nor is it helpful in creating any meaningful change.

Gen Z. We’re supposed to be the most tolerant, politically-involved generation to date. While the latter mostly holds true, we seem to be doing no better in the open-mindness aspect – after all, we have been brought up alongside the rise of digital media. This should have cultivated a culture which celebrates diversity of thought through countless channels of communication. Instead, however, we are perhaps the worst offenders in the political war. We are stubborn. While our ability to hold steadfast to our beliefs and our advocacy of these beliefs on social media have done worlds of good, it has been taken to a fault, demeaning others on account of their surface-level political beliefs. We pride ourselves on being independent of the prejudice of our parents, and thankfully, most of us are. However, our generation holds biases of our own.

Ultimately, as with so many historical disputes, the issue lies in generalizations. Once a person is known to hold a certain opinion on one topic, they are suddenly assumed to fit a certain mold. There is so much fluidity in politics, which is why it’s a spectrum, not a binary. While it may be true that certain stereotypes are grounded in truth, they don’t apply to every person. We have imposed certain political boxes into the mainstream, but fail to realize that most people don’t fit these cut and dry labels. While most people lean left or right, it doesn’t mean that they fully align with the traditional Republican or Democrat label. At our core, we are people, not political puppets. Aligning with certain principles towards either side doesn’t necessarily translate to always voting on party lines.

The now normalized way in which both sides abhor each other has led to a nation divided. Amidst the unprecedented murder of George Floyd, there has been a surge in support for the BLM movement and a strong sentiment towards police reform. This has sparked a heightened amount of hostility between the political left and right. While there are certain specific issues which could be points of contention, the basis of this movement, eliminating racism and implementing policies against police brutality, seems to be a given of common human decency. This situation is not an issue of conservative or liberal, but rather of humanity. Yet, still, it has been defaced into a political battle.

Granted, some tension between the left and right is fundamental to a two-party system. If there are two defined sides, vying for control to implement legislation based on their beliefs, there is bound to be a power struggle between them. However, the degree to which this tension has escalated is unwarranted. How is it a widely accepted norm for people to attack each other based on their beliefs? This is not a defense of extremism on either side, as the attack on that is warranted. But we have closed our minds to each other, and we are bound to suffer because of that. Is this a commentary on the failings of a two-party system as a whole, or on the antagonizing which we have chosen to succumb to? Is the hostility an inevitable product of the system, unavoidable by human nature? Honestly, this I don’t know, but we should come together as people, not parties, to discuss it.

The Attack on Voting

Haroon Shaikh ’22

Voting has been debated about in state government in recent years. However,  Covid-19 has sparked a new debate about voting in many states, the issue leading to animosity between state officials and causing the president to be fact-checked by twitter.  What has made this topic so controversial and how do these debates pose a threat to our elections?

Due to the Coronavirus pandemic, the safety of voting in the 2020 primaries and general election is currently being scrutinized, especially considering the “second wave” of COVID-19 predicted to hit this winter.  To make voting as safe as possible, some states are suggesting to increase the accessibility of mail-in voting. However, expanding voting has never been greeted with unanimous support, tending to fall along party lines.

 Expanding voting occurs when ballots and registration are more readily available to people who are eligible to vote. There are many reasons to support the expansion of voting:  for one, the U.S. repeatedly has a lower voting turnout compared to that of other nations. In the 2016 election, around 56 percent of the people who are eligible to vote actually voted.  Compared with countries in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) the U.S had lower turnout than 25 out of the 32 countries in the organization.  Voting  by mail is seen to increase voter turnouts.  Voting traditionally in a booth can be very inconvenient and overall elicit a decrease in turnouts.  In 2016, twenty-one of Utah’s counties conducted the election by mail while 8 continued with traditional polling.  Counties with Vote by Mail(VBM) showed an 8.7 percent larger  turnout compared with counties that did not.Turnout in the last 4 general elections have been higher in counties with mail in voting. 

On the statewide level, Colorado, Washington, and a few more states hold all their elections by mail. Ballots are mailed out before election day, but voters still  have the options to fill out their ballot and drop it off for collection, mail it back, or to vote in person. There was an increase in turnout from 51.7 percent to 54.7 percent, but it is not clear whether it was a direct result of mail in voting. However, mail in voting also reaped another benefit: in 2016, it was found that the costs of voting dropped around 40 percent. In 2008, the average cost of one vote was $15.96. In 2014, after the vote by mail was enacted,  that cost went down to $9.56 per vote. There was a decrease in the cost of printing, labor, rental, postage, and other costs that would be present with traditional voting. Before the Covid-19 pandemic, there were only five states that conducted elections entirely by mail where ballots were automatically sent to residences. 

The concerns Over Complete Mail In Voting

A main reason why some states are hesitant to expand voting is due to concerns of voter fraud; as states were debating on whether mail in voting should be expanded, there was clear opposition from the president and republican politicians for this reason.

“There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one,” Trump tweeted. Twitter then added a fact check label which redirected users to a source explaining mail in voting and the incredibly low risk of fraud occurring . This criticism occurred, despite the president and his staff having all voted by mail in several previous elections.

In Wisconsin, during the  2020 primaries, a conservative majority court  did not find it necessary to expand  voting to completely mail. This led to long lines and only five of the 180  polling locations to remain  open in the city of Milwaukee. Even with refusing to expand mail in voting, 77 percent of votes casted were through absentee ballots.Turnout was still relatively high even with restrictions. In the 2020 primary, 34 percent voter turnout was reported. It was  less than the 47 percent reported in 2016  but in the 2016 primary there was a competitive republican race as well instead of one competitive democratic race. However, a safety concern occurred when 52 people who worked at the polls or voted for the election tested positive for Covid-19. In May after the primary Wisconsin’s Election Commission unanimously voted to send absentee ballot applications to all voters.

Recently,  a conservative court in Texas remotely voted to rule that lack of immunity from Coronavirus will not be a valid excuse to receive an absentee ballot. To receive an absentee ballot, the recipient must be 65 years or older, have a disability or illness, be planning to leave the county during the election period, or be confined in jail. However, the state conceded that officials can’t deny voter applications for the clause of disability, even if the reason is linked to coronavirus. 

There is a common pattern of Republican politicians trying to stop the expansion of   voting . When looking at the facts, voter fraud is a concept that is not a legitimate threat to our elections – illegal voting is a miniscule problem.

Our elections have been investigated many times to ensure a fair vote occured.  In the 2016 election, all states reported no indications of massive voter fraud. Two studies were conducted in 2014 to see how safe our elections were. In one study it was found that from 2000-2014 there were only 31 credible allegations of voter impersonation. More than one billion ballots were casted during this time. It is most likely that most of these  claims were dismissed. The second study in  2014  found no evidence of widespread fraud for the 2012 election.  After the 2016 election President Trump tweeted, “Wow, Report Just Out! Google manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016 Election! This was put out by a Clinton supporter, not a Trump Supporter! Google should be sued. My victory was even bigger than thought!” Because of his belief that there was massive fraud,  Trump set up a commission to investigate elections.  President Trump’s own commission to investigate voter fraud found no credible evidence and was disbanded. There have been dozens of other similar investigations which all have led to the same conclusion – voter fraud and voter impersonation is incredibly rare.

However, this false narrative that fraud is rampant and our elections are in jeopardy continues to persist. From 2017 – 2019, Arkansas, North Dakota Missouri,Georgia, Iowa, Indiana,Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Arizona, Florida,Tennessee, and Texas enacted stronger voting  restrictions. This included strict photo id laws, reducing early voting, and making registration and staying registered harder.

Problems With these Laws

Aggressive voting laws try to solve the issue of voting fraud that has time and time again been deemed insignificant, bringing on an onslaught of negative effects. For example, strict voter ID laws reduce turnout by 2-3 percentage points. This requirement  disproportionately affects minority voters – twenty five percent of African-American citizens who are eligible to vote do not have photo id.  A study also showed that minority voters are more frequently questioned about their ID. Some states are also much more stringent when it comes to acquiring an ID, as required documents, travel expenses, and wait time can cost from 75 to 175 dollars. For low income communities, many will be turned away from voting simply due to the inconvenience and the cost. States with strict ID laws also have an increased financial weight: Indiana spent 10 million dollars from 2007-2010 in order to set up a vote by ID system.  Texas spent 2 million dollars on voter education and efforts in order to make its Voter ID law successful.  Voter ID laws reduce turnout, disproportionately affect minority voters, and cost states an unnecessary expense.

Other laws such as restricting earlier voting and making a strict deadline of voter registration also unnecessarily decrease turnout. This excuse of fraud to justify voting suppression caused a lot of controversy in 2018’s gubernatorial election.  Brian Kemp (Republican) and Stacey Abrams(Democrat) ran an incredibly close race. Stacey Abram’s campaign relied on minority and infrequent voters, yet Georgia’s voting laws made sure this would not happen. Georgia has one of the strictest voting laws, requiring all voters to register thirty days before an election. Because of this, 87,000 voters were not allowed to vote since they registered after the deadline. Georgia also has laws that remove voters who are registered simply because they are infrequent voters. Led by Brian Kemp’s own office,on a single day in July 2017, 560,000 Goergians were removed from the  voter rolls because they skipped elections. The total number of purged voters was 1.4 million.  The majority of  purged voters lived  in Democratic precincts. The defense for this was that many had moved away or died. However, an investigation found that 65 percent of those who were purged re-registered from the same county, meaning they would have been eligible to vote if they were not disenfranchised. Another policy nicknamed an “exact match policy” held up 53,000 pending registrations due to small typos such as a missing apostrophe or a hyphen. Most of these held up registrations were people of color (POC). All of this was done in the name of protecting voter fraud while in actuality, it caused the suppression of votes and most likely led to the narrow victory of Brian Kemp. In the end of the governor’s race, Brian Kemp won the election by less than 55,000 votes. Brian Kemp then himself oversaw the election and declared it fair. Georgia is not the only state with these laws, as key battleground states such as Florida, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Texas, and Ohio have similar legislation.

The Republican party is now also moving towards an increase of patrols in the  voting booths.In May, 50,000 volunteers in 15 states were being recruited to monitor the polls and challenge voters who seem suspicious. This was part of a 20 million dollar plan.  The reason why there is such a rise in measures like this is due to a 2018 court ruling that allows the Republican Party to campaign against fraud without a court approval. This ban has been going on for around 40 years and it has now been lifted. These patrols can challenge voters and their right to cast a ballot. The reason why this is so troublesome is because this will negatively affect turnout of minority votes. In 2018 when the party recruited off-duty police officers to monitor polling places in predominantly black and latino neighborhoods a lawsuit claimed that the officers stopped volunteers from helping voters and only caused disruptions. These patrols will only intimidate voters and will target minority voters.

A tremendous amount of pressure from Rightwing goups to suppress votes is increasingly occuring. In Wisconsin, a right wing group wanted the state to remove around 230,000 voters a year earlier than planned. Wisconsin is a swing state and  elections come down to a small margin of victory. In a state where  the Supreme Court  was won by less than 6,000 votes,  the governor seat by  30,000 votes , and Trump’s presidency by only 22,000 votes, the impact of voting is critical – it only takes a few thousand votes to completely shift which party controls the state. Majority of those who were removed came from precincts and cities who vote Democratic.

There’s a pattern of unfair and unjust laws that disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people. The true purpose of these laws seem to simply suppress low income and minority votes in order for elections to favor some people . We must see through this  false facade of voter fraud because the right to a fair election is being taken away.   

Ways you can help

The first thing we need to do is register to vote and show up to polls to make our voices heard no matter how hard people try to stop us.  If you are eligible to vote please click here and try to register. Stacey Abrams has founded multiple organizations to help ensure a proper voting process. Visit organizations such as Fair Fight to find ways to help out. This fight is crucial for America and the people’s voice must not be dimmed.