Vexatious Voting

On 2022’s first Remnant, a COVID-addled Jonah is joined by fan-favorite guest Yuval Levin for ...

By
29

On 2022’s first Remnant, a COVID-addled Jonah is joined by fan-favorite guest Yuval Levin for a discussion of voting rights in America. Voting, Yuval argues, has never been easier, despite claims to the contrary made by progressive and conservative commentators alike. The real problem is that both parties are fueling a loss of public confidence in elections, and trust must be restored for American democracy to continue to function. Jonah also quizzes Yuval on his case for expanding the House of Representatives and what it means to be a “recovering political scientist.” Grab your bingo cards for a thoroughly wonky beginning to the year.

Show Notes:

– Yuval: “Democrats, Voting Rights Are Not the Problem”

– Does high voter turnout help one party?

– A war on democracy?

– The Policy State, by Karen Orren and Stephen Skowronek

– Ben Sasse’s Schoolhouse Rock moment

– Yuval: “One way to reform the House of Representatives? Expand it.”

– Jonah, Yuval, and an expert panel discuss expanding Congress

– The Remnant with Michael Strain

– The Remnant with Sally Satel

By
Comments (29)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Marc Frischhertz

    I know the Constitution has provisions that leave the administration of voting to the states, however, is there general agreement that the right to vote is a constitutional right? If so, why do conservatives see the right to vote differently than the right to bear arms? Most conservatives fight against individual state laws that hinder the right to bear arms, essentially arguing that the constitution demands every state must allow the right to bear arms under the constitutional carry argument.

    Why is voting different? How do those same conservatives with intellectual honesty argue that a system of voting that requires some to wait in lines for hours, or where one state allows 14 days if absentee voting and others 7 days, or other state to state differences? Shouldn’t every American’s right to vote be equally exerciseable?

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    The Stray Goose

    If you guys are looking for good ideas: Jonah Goldberg, Yuval Levin, Charlie Cooke, Kevin Williamson and a good bottle of scotch. Set up the microphones and go...

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    C C Writer

    I'm still listening to this podcast, but just now Jonah and Yuval began discussing whether politicians should represent their constituents. This puts me in mind of a line I saw a couple of months ago in one of my favorite comic strips, arguably the most intelligent (and yet apolitical) one out there:

    "Elected officials are supposed to represent us. We're not supposed to have to represent them."
    https://www.gocomics.com/frazz/2021/11/07

    I think that answer covers more than Jonah and Yuval intended with the question, but it certainly illuminates the current state of politics, doesn't it?

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Yuval for President, 2024. Running as the head of the Remnant Party.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    The Stray Goose

    One hundred and fifty new members of Congress? Where would you put them?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      CynthiaW

      Basement.

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    The Stray Goose

    It's very true that the political elites are not representing the wants/needs of their constituents. Mitch McConnell said he had a healthcare plan. All we had to do was vote in the Republicans and he'd show it to us. One of the many failings of Donald Trump was that he didn't make the Republicans submit a competing plan with Obamacare.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    The Stray Goose

    The MSM's vague references to 'voting rights' is common for them. With just about any topic there is always an implied, "IfyaknowwhatImean..."

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    ed74siasl

    To be fair, even if both parties believe maximal turnout benefits Democrats, isn't maximal turnout also something that Democrats believe is a good unto itself? Point being not all the effort on the left to increase turnout is pure political expediency, but intended to increase democratic participation.
    If Republicans try to diminish turnout, is there any motivation other than trying to rig the system and/or nativism?

    Collapse
  9. Richard Fulmer

    Yuval’s point about the parties weakening our democracy by painting each other as a threat to democracy is reminiscent of the “Soup Wars.”

    Campbell’s Soup started a tit-for-tat advertising battle with Progresso with each claiming that the other used MSG in some of their products. According to some analysts, Campbell’s finally ended the campaign because it was leading consumers to believe that soup in general was unhealthy.

    Neither party - the Democrats or the Republicans - has an interest in bringing the system down around its ears. But both believe that they can gain by tearing the other down. In the end, we all lose.

    Collapse
    1. Richard Fulmer

      This situation is akin to a “tragedy of the commons” scenario in which people have perverse incentives to grab all they can of a resource before someone else does. Left unchecked, this ends with the destruction of the resource.

      Tragedy of the commons dilemmas can usually be solved by assigning ownership of the commons or of the use of the commons in such a way that the incentives change from “grab all I can before the other guy does” to “protecting the resource benefits me.”

      In the case of performative politics or of outrage-driven journalism and social media, however, the “commons” that is being destroyed isn’t a physical thing but a set of norms and institutions that enable people with diverse goals and beliefs to peacefully coexist.

      How does one assign rights to norms and institutions such that peoples’ incentives to protect them override their incentives to exploit them?

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    PaulH

    Yuval seemed puzzled over the concern regarding Trump supporters running for positions as election officials. While it is difficult to know exactly what these people might do (because that will be depend on the actual situation), it is disconcerting that people so lacking in independent judgment that they believe Trump's election lies are seeking to oversee future elections. These roles (which are generally rather tedious and thankless) have generally been held by earnest, wonkish good-government types. To the extent they are held by more rabid partisans, the likelihood that their decisions will be influenced by partisanship or perceived to be influenced by partisanship is greatly increased. Neither is good for the public's faith in the democratic process.

    Collapse
    1. GregS

      Yeah Yuval seems to think that these people are normal decent folks who, once they are in charge of elections, won't do anything illegal or unethical because they only ran for the position out of the concern that the other guys were cheating.
      But a firm evidence-proof belief that you were cheated will inevitably lead to some number of them concluding that if a republican loses, that is in and if itself proof that the election was rigged. And then there is no telling what they will do - not certify the results, "find" a few thousand votes (as Trump was asking Raffensperger to do).

      It doesn't matter if these actions are litigated and judged to be illegal by various courts. The damage will have been done. Let's not be naive/Pollyanna-ish about this.

      Collapse
Load More