Democratic voters must stop sitting out elections

Both Democrats and Republicans should put the doublespeak aside when it comes to arguing for or against tougher voting registration laws.

First, the New Hampshire state Democratic Party.

For months now, press secretary Harrell Kirstein has reminded e-mail recipients of attempts by the Republican-led New Hampshire Legislature to disenfranchise voters.

Early in this year's legislative session, Democrats objected to a bill that would have required college students to vote in their hometowns. Or put another way, prevent them from voting in New Hampshire college towns where they are only temporary residents.

After this bill failed, the Democrats drew bead on a bill that would require voters to show a photo I.D. in order to cast a ballot at their local polling station.

This effort did pass muster in the legislature, was vetoed by the governor and is now awaiting an override by the legislature, expected next month.

The crux of Democratic complaint is that neither bill is needed. They argue there is fundamentally nothing wrong with college students voting no matter where they may live at a given moment.

As for the voter I.D. bill, they see it as a return to the Jim Crow days when minorities and the less educated were kept from voting solely due to their color and class.

Republicans, on the other hand, argue that voter registration and balloting laws have become too lax and invite fraud.

Up until last week the debate between the parties had remained relatively civil. That is until a story in a Maine newspaper found that the son of House Speaker and lead Republican Bill O'Brien held a double-registration while attending a Maine college and that O'Brien's wife, as a supervisor of the checklist in Mont Vernon, should have caught the problem as part of her official duties.

Since then Democrats, through the missives of Press Secretary Kirstein, have sought to paint Speaker O'Brien as a hypocrite for somehow (begin italic) allowing (end italic) his son to register twice (although it appears he never double voted).

Instead, what the faux pas shows is the problem with current voter registration laws and mechanics — not hypocrisy.

If there is hypocrisy it lies in either party trying to claim purity in the debate over voter registration and fraud.

Democrats like easy registration laws. They like same-day registration because Democrats are good at motivating college students and inner-city voters who might not have given a thought to registering until the last minute, if even then.

And let's face facts, college students and voters from the inner city tend to support Democrats.

Republicans, for their part, want to blunt Democratic efforts to stuff the ballot box.

If it weren't for the politics (yes, wishful thinking) both parties could agree on changes to voting laws that make sense.

College students are not disenfranchised by being asked to vote back home. It's called absentee voting, not punishment. Foster's Daily Democrat has previously argued it is a college student's civic duty to vote in his/her hometown for School Board and City Council.

When Democrats sit out elections, we hand victories to Republicans. If the Tea Party/Republicans don’t get the candidate they want, they’re not going to stay home. They’re going to vote for whichever candidate they get.

Sure, President Barack Obama has been a disappointment in some areas, but he’s a much better choice than Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry or any other potential Republican candidate. Democrats need to vote, in every election, and stop letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Democratic voters sit out elections when they have candidates that they don't like, but rather additional voters turn out and vote Democratic when a new cause du jour shows up.

2008 was a perfect example of this, and was confirmed by the 2010 mid-terms. Don't expect 2012 to be a banner year for the Democrats unless Hillary mounts a primary challenge.