One Man; No Vote

I continue to be - amazed isn't quite the right word, but will have to do - at how blithely Rethuglicans are willing to allow the disenfranchisement of registered voters.

Now I agree that the California recall has turned into a circus. I also think that some of the arguments, both pro and con for postponing the election were a little tortured. Although on balance, I think those for postponement were most compelling. What strikes me about the conservative blather about the matter is how easily they can ridicule "stopping an election (they refuse to use "postpone") in order to save democracy," while being completely oblivious to the fact that a delay would actually improve the democratic process by ensuring more votes are cast and counted.

Of course the obvious problem is that the votes that would be lost are in the poorer districts of California where they can't afford to upgrade to newer, more reliable voting machines. Those districts are most likely predominately Democratic, so... Well you can see where that line of thinking goes.

But the Repugs dismiss the whole process, the whole idea, as some minor impediment as opposed to true disenfranchisement. As the title of this post suggests, Republicans, it seems, would love to go back to the days when only monied, male "landed" gentry could vote.