55

I want to know about whether or not many high profile Republicans want fewer eligible Americans to vote because they believe it could help them win more elections. An example that makes me suggest this was the voter ID laws which impact certain types of people disproportionately.

It is also commonly believed that higher turnout helps Democrats. Though this is not always the case, the general trend has been backed up by evidence in some studies and by correlations such as the 2014 and 2018 midterms.

This is an objective question. I am asking if there are any high ranking officials in government and/or official GOP ranks who have indicated that they would prefer if fewer eligible voters voted, under the assumption that a disproportionate number of lower propensity voters would vote Democrat.

Azor Ahai -him-
  • 7,150
  • 2
  • 32
  • 47
Number File
  • 12,103
  • 6
  • 45
  • 92
  • 6
    Comments deleted. Please don't use comments to answer the question. If you would like to answer, post a real answer. Also, this is not a place to debate how the current President of the United States should be addressed. – Philipp Oct 06 '20 at 16:32
  • @AzorAhai's edit changed the question quite significantly in the body, so it doesn't align with the answers very well anymore. Also it didn't change the title, and there's a mismatch between them now. – sgf Oct 08 '20 at 20:45
  • @sgf Not really, the intent of the question was quite clear. Still fits the answers, I feel, except perhaps the last, to which I say the section about non-citizens voting is intentionally misreading the post (my earlier comments to this point have been removed.) I didn't change the title because the point is obvious, and I just clarified in the body so everyone could stop arguing about it in the comments. You are fee to edit, of course. – Azor Ahai -him- Oct 08 '20 at 20:53
  • It is worth understanding the backdrop of differing philosophies between Republicanism and Democracy: In a pure Democracy, everybody shows up for a big bang popular vote on every issue and race they are eligible to vote in. The "most popular" candidate or proposal wins. In a Republic, all eligible voters vote, but not all at once in the same race: They elect representatives or delegates, who then vote on behalf of their constituents (though they are not bound to mirror a popular vote). The Constitution structures presidential elections this way. – pygosceles May 27 '23 at 03:38

5 Answers5

72

"They had things—levels of voting that, if you ever agreed to it, you'd never have a Republican elected in this country again."

Donald Trump on Fox and Friends

“Just what America needs, another paid holiday and a bunch of government workers being paid to go out and work ... [on Democratic] campaigns,” he snarked on the Senate floor. “This is the Democrat plan to restore democracy? ... A power grab.”

Mitch Mconnell Video here

Harabeck
  • 965
  • 7
  • 9
  • 29
    I just realized that the US election day is a working day for most people. Why not vote on a sunday? – Eric Duminil Oct 06 '20 at 02:11
  • 42
    @EricDuminil Because when the country was younger people had to take longer to travel to vote and a Saturday/Sunday would interfere with church so they chose a day of the week that people would be more able to get to. The work week wasn't setup like it is now. – Joe W Oct 06 '20 at 02:39
  • 2
    @EricDuminil Saturday would probably work a lot better. Also, most people who work full time on the same day can still get there outside of working hours. Among those who can't, at least some can still mail in ballots. It would be more convenient to have it on a Saturday, but those who want to vote and can't are normally only a small percentage, so there hasn't been "enough" of a push to do something like that. – Panzercrisis Oct 06 '20 at 03:12
  • 17
    @EricDuminil: You are not the first person to ask that. Not only are there questions about that very thing on this site, but one of the most well-known advocacy groups for changing the US voting system is literally called Why Tuesday?. – Jörg W Mittag Oct 06 '20 at 07:13
  • 2
    @JoeW: Thanks. I guess I should have asked "Why is it still on a Tuesday?". – Eric Duminil Oct 06 '20 at 08:01
  • 18
    @EricDuminil Many aspects of US democracy have been designed to be very hard to change. That means it can only change with prolonged bipartisan cooperation, which doesn't happen in the current political climate. – gerrit Oct 06 '20 at 08:02
  • 3
    @Panzercrisis: Why would Saturday work a lot better? I'm guessing many Jewish people wouldn't vote, for example. Also, fewer people work on Sundays than on Saturdays. Finally, the small percentage you're talking about doesn't seem to fit with the second quote in the above answer. – Eric Duminil Oct 06 '20 at 08:03
  • 20
    The Mitch McConnell quote shows that he disapproves of something which might increase voter turnout, but it doesn't show that he disapproves of it because it will increase voter turnout. In fact, he gives reasons that has nothing to do with voter turnout (even if those might not be his actual reasons). Compare it to a more blatant example: "I don't think people should be killed if they don't go and vote". Yes, doing so would probably increase voter turnout, but the objection probably has more to do with the whole murder thing. – NotThatGuy Oct 06 '20 at 08:51
  • 1
    This is an aside which I'm sure will be deleted soon but in my country there is not a fixed day for voting and whichever day of the week the government chooses is criticised. This is not to endorse any specific complaints but to show there are pros and cons to each choice. Voting on the weekend is criticised because people go away for breaks on the weekends (this reasoning is also used against the idea to vote on Thu, Fri or Mon and make that a holiday). Students who register at college but travel home at the weekend can't vote (the mirror is used to criticise weekday voting). – Eric Nolan Oct 06 '20 at 09:40
  • @EricDuminil Saturdays would work better than Sundays likely because the majority of Americans are religious, and participate in religious activities throughout the day on Sunday and/or hold religious beliefs that Sundays are for rest. – TylerH Oct 06 '20 at 14:38
  • 1
    @Panzercrisis There may also not be so much of a "push" in recent years because of the widespread implementation of early voting and no-excuse absentee voting. If you can vote at a polling place on any convenient day, or if you can just drop your ballot in a box at city hall on the day of your choosing, then the actual day doesn't matter so much anymore. Many who might otherwise push to change election day might instead be expending their energy on expanding early voting and no-excuse absentee voting, as those will help for other reasons as well. – Lee C. Oct 06 '20 at 14:45
  • 1
    @EricNolan I will say having a fixed day for voting is important as letting the current government decide when to hold elections can let them chose a date that would help them stay in power. An example of this is choosing it near a major holiday such as Christmas when college/university age voters are traveling for break and may have a harder time voting. In the end no matter when you hold an election people are not going to be happy as there is no one day where no one has conflicts. – Joe W Oct 06 '20 at 15:07
  • 4
    @TylerH The problem with Saturdays is that some religions do hold that day as holy and even limit what is done on Saturdays. – Joe W Oct 06 '20 at 15:09
  • @JoeW Yes, but the point is the vast majority of religious citizens of the United States belong to a religion where that day is Sunday, not Saturday. That's why Saturday is suggested as the better day, not the best day. – TylerH Oct 06 '20 at 15:19
  • 1
    @TylerH So it is okay to make something that causes them to not to be able to vote when we have 5 other days that are unlikely to have issues due to religious reasons? It isn't like we can't make voting day into a holiday to handle work issues since federal elections only happen once every 2 years – Joe W Oct 06 '20 at 15:21
  • 1
    @JoeW Everybody works on a Tuesday. Most people don't work on the weekends. More people are available on a Saturday than a Sunday. If you're going to just choose a new day of the week, you choose the day where the most people are already available. This is not a controversial thing. I agree that having election day be a federal/national holiday is best, but the question is whether Saturday or Sunday is a better day for increasing voter turnout in the United States as a whole, not better for one specific group. – TylerH Oct 06 '20 at 15:29
  • @TylerH That is why I mentioned making it a holiday which is easily in our power. No matter what day you chose people will be working and having people not being able to vote because of religious practices on the day chosen is pretty bad. Not to mention there is no reason at all anymore to limit voting to a single day. – Joe W Oct 06 '20 at 15:31
  • 11
    Focusing on one day is silly. Having it on the weekend won't solve the problem. Having a holiday won't solve the problem. Allow people to vote over a week, there problem solved. – eps Oct 06 '20 at 15:54
  • @eps Most states do now allow early voting of up to a week, many allow even longer. (Voting has already started in many places, a month ahead of the election.) But the vast majority of voting still takes place on Tuesday, and more significantly, most states do not allow the votes to be counted until then, so even if everyone votes early, there will still be a delay due to how long it takes to count them. – Darrel Hoffman Oct 06 '20 at 16:04
  • 5
    @TylerH: Going to church on Sunday and going to vote on the same day shouldn't be a problem for many christians. Going to vote on Saturday might be a problem for Jewish people, though. – Eric Duminil Oct 06 '20 at 16:06
  • @EricDuminil "should not be" != "is not". "should not be" is not even the same as "won't make a stink about it". You also might be surprised how much time evangelical Christians spend on religious things on Sunday, especially in the American South. – TylerH Oct 06 '20 at 16:13
  • 3
    @TylerH Well, waitstaff and retail are more likely to be working on weekends. So moving to a weekend punishes them to make it more convenient for the 9-5ers... or basically punish poor people and reward rich ones. The only fair thing is to have a much longer voting window/mail in voting/etc. Washington (state) has had an option since 2005 for each county to choose mail ONLY voting and most counties have been doing that for years. I don't see why more states can't figure that out. – user3067860 Oct 06 '20 at 17:06
  • 1
    @user Washington has been all vote for mail for a long time. There are no polling places (it's amazing) – Azor Ahai -him- Oct 08 '20 at 22:19
42

While this is older and from 1980 here is Paul Weyrich coming out and saying more people voting is bad:

Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.

More on Trump

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-falsely-claims-expanding-voting-access-would-hurt-republicans-2020-3

On "Fox & Friends," Trump went several steps further by directly suggesting that Republicans shot down those measures specifically because they would increase voter turnout and make it harder for the GOP to win elections.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/republicans-now-just-admitting-they-want-fewer-americans-to-vote

mcconnel

https://www.gq.com/story/mcconnell-voter-turnout-bad

On Wednesday, Mitch McConnell once again articulated his commitment to limiting voter turnout, but this time he didn't try to hide behind "security concerns." He took to the Senate floor to voice his opposition to a proposal that Election Day be made a federal holiday. It's a move that would go a long way to improving voter turnout and drastically cutting down wait times. Or, as McConnell sees it, it's a "power grab" by Democrats.

agc
  • 12,881
  • 4
  • 36
  • 73
Joe W
  • 16,549
  • 3
  • 45
  • 87
28

In the 2012 Obama vs Romney presidential election, Pennsylvania state House Republican leader Mike Turzai admitted openly that the whole purpose of a voter ID-law was to suppress Democratic votes and win the state for Mitt Romney.

In listing the accomplishments of the state House and Senate GOP for the partisan crowd, Mr. Turzai pointed to the new requirement for all voters to show a photo ID card as one example.

"Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it's done," Mr. Turzai told the gathering of party activists. "First pro-life legislation -- abortion facility regulations -- in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor [Mitt] Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."

Turzai's voter ID remark draws criticism – Pittsburg Post-Gazette

Some other sources for the same statement:

thieupepijn
  • 2,458
  • 9
  • 13
  • 24
    That's your interpretation, it's not what the quote actually says. Another interpretation would be that without voter id laws, enough fraudulent ballots would be cast to change the results of the election. – horns Oct 07 '20 at 12:22
  • 8
    @horns That is indeed the reason that Turzai's spokesperson gave in the link in the answer, so I have to agree with this comment. It's possibly suspicious, but not an admission of voter supression. – Mark Oct 07 '20 at 15:46
  • 4
    @horns, Re "Another interpretation...": the existential difference being that only one interpretation voter suppression has both ample present day and historical evidence going for it, whereas the other interpretation massive voter ID fraud offers scant evidence, (peppered by partisan anecdotes and paranoid speculation). – agc Oct 20 '20 at 15:22
  • The voter ID laws particularly targeted groups that were likely to vote demecratic, such as immegrants (legal and illegal). They tailored the law carefully to not exclude as many republicans, for instance I believe the law allowed the use of NRA id, something far more likely to be possessed by republicans then democrats, as a valid form of ID. All this really proves is that Romney believed he could craft the law in a way that drove away more democrats then republicans, not necessarily that he believes fewer voters in general favor republicans. – dsollen Oct 21 '20 at 18:40
12

Yes, lots of it. For example, Republicans are generally opposed to felon voting. Felons are obviously people. They do this entirely in the open, and there is no secret about it.

The Atlantic
National Review

Here is another category of examples. Republicans are generally opposed to non-US-citizens voting. Non-US-citizens are obviously people. Again, it's entirely in the open, and you don't have to look for anything secretive to see it.

NBC News
Fox News

William Jockusch
  • 3,959
  • 1
  • 12
  • 22
1

The Trump campaign in 2016 used voter information from Cambridge Analytica to target a group of voters they labelled 'Deterrence'. That is, the were deemed susceptible to being deterred from casting a vote. The campaign could then, for example, use online advertising targeting that group to achieve this.

To me, this tactic seems like a perfectly valid example of 'wanting fewer people to vote'. After all, if you can convince someone to lose faith in their preferred candidate so that they will not vote for them, you (as an opposing candidate) have completed the first step towards winning their vote.

https://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-trump-campaign-strategy-to-deter-millions-of-black-americans-from-voting-in-2016

Brett Rogers
  • 31
  • 2
  • 1
    how is "wanting fewer people to vote" a loaded term? – yeah22 Oct 08 '20 at 22:58
  • 1
    Because it encompasses rather mundane meanings like in the example I gave, but also those more morally dubious like closing polling places @yeah22 – Brett Rogers Oct 09 '20 at 01:04
  • not really, it just encompasses... wanting fewer people to vote. neither for yourself, nor the other candidate. – yeah22 Oct 09 '20 at 01:35
  • If you don't consider the variety of ways this would be achieved, I suppose you're right. I'll remove that part. – Brett Rogers Oct 09 '20 at 01:45
  • 1
    @yeah22, Re "Not really": That's hard to believe. Please name a serious candidate or party that has ever wished for fewer votes. – agc Oct 20 '20 at 15:35
  • @agc I'm not speaking of the candidates themselves, but rather the simple term "wanting fewer people to vote" – yeah22 Oct 21 '20 at 02:19
  • @yeah22, Reminder: on 10/9 You commented "...to vote. neither for yourself, nor the other candidate", (to vote for yourself implies being a candidate), but now contradict that with the comment "I'm not speaking of the candidates themselves". Please clarify. – agc Oct 21 '20 at 12:05
  • @agc That's true. I think what I meant by my original comment was that if, hypothetically, as proposed by the original question, a party wanted fewer people to vote, it would mean trying to get fewer people to vote, not trying to get people to vote for you. – yeah22 Oct 22 '20 at 16:21