Thread by @Cobretata

I'm not a fan of pointlessly inconveniencing voters, but this mad dash to make voting effortless is a horrible idea, even without considering the destruction of all ballot security and the increased risk of fraud. Requiring SOME effort makes for better voting.

One of the fascinating things about the Internet and social media age is how it has illuminated the changes in human behavior that come from eliminating ALL costs or effort from a given activity. We act very differently when the cost is a tenth of a penny rather than zero.

When it comes to voting, we unquestionably end up with a lower quality of civics and politics - and a VERY noticeably lower quality of elected official - when voting becomes a zero-effort activity. People respond to the message that voting is a frivolous activity.

It's a bit like the old lesson - you know, the one our political class absolutely refuses to learn, ever - that "public property" tends to be treated like garbage because nobody "owns" it. Treat ballots like trash, and people won't see their votes as valuable.

When people treat votes like disposable trash, political organizations can start scooping them up like garbage into a dump truck. We have a LOT of that going on today with "ballot harvesting" and that nonsense. Voters are becoming a passive resource to be harvested like wheat.

It's remarkable how much the quality of civics improves when ballots are treated with a little reverence, and a bit of effort is required. Look at how voter participation tends to INCREASE in Voter-ID states, contrary to the fearmongering about "voter suppression."

Why not cut to the chase and just let people go to a website and click the party they support, and it counts as a vote for the slate from that party? Hell, why not let them choose a default party so they don't even have to click that website every election?

Does anyone think a zero-effort, zero-hassle system like that would improve the quality of our democracy, even if it was guaranteed to be secure? Of course not. The opposite would happen. Voters would become even more disengaged and thoughtless than they are now.

But also, can you doubt that a lot of people WOULD go for it? They'd be persuaded to use a zero-effort automated online voting system by the same sleazy hustlers that came up with ballot harvesting and mail-in voting. People would be taught to demand it as a "civil right."

"Filling out ballots is too complicated! People who know the Democrat Party is looking out for them should be able to use their 100% secure Amazon.com accounts to cast one-click votes for the Democrat ticket from the comfort of their homes!"

Don't be surprised to see real pressure for stuff like that, especially if the Dems' current effort to turn all of our elections into permanent carnivals of fraud by eradicating ballot security is successful. They want more fraud, yes, but they also want to indulge lazy voters.

They'll tell you nobody who objected to mail-in voting on ballot security grounds could possibly object to online voting secured by big corporations like Amazon that spent fortunes developing secure login systems. No more need to worry about stolen or manufactured mail ballots!

You cannot claim "democracy" is sacred without also treating ballots as sacred. "With great power comes great responsibility." Well, if voting is the ultimate power, then it must also be treated like the ultimate responsibility.

(Voting shouldn't be treated like the ultimate power - no one should EVER think for a moment that "democracy" is a perfect shield against tyranny - but that's a discussion for another day.)

If you expect people to act like voting is a responsibility to be taken seriously, a decision they should weigh carefully, then you must require them to put some effort into the act. Treat ballots as valuable if you want people to value them. It's human nature. /end