When rules and rights collide

Elections are complex in our system, and we are in the midst of what promises to be an unsatisfying debate over who gets to vote, how people can vote, who is in charge, and much more.

The politics of this debate, at a glance, appear to pit one political party that desires more control over all these questions vs. a party that desires more access to voting. I know the "nuts and bolts" questions get into all sorts of interesting options and disagreements, but there we are.

At the macro level, the party supporting MORE voting appears to be on the firmer ground, ethically and morally, if not legally.

Look at it this way: Imagine a new nation just beginning its journey with democracy and voting rules. Would that nation start with a premise that only a percentage of the population would be allowed to vote? Wouldn't systems be instituted that would support finding ways for as many people to vote as possible? After all, going the other direction would indicate a lack of confidence in the overall population of the country.

Of course, that less confident approach is precisely the sort of system the United States was based upon, and that starting point has meant that the percentage of people living in the country has slowly and fitfully grown.

I readily acknowledge that one of my basic views on humanity reflects a famous line from Seinfeld: "People. They're the worst." 

But if we live in a nation that has as an overriding precept the importance of the voices of the people in choosing how to solve issues, support neighbors, and provide for the common defense and so much more, then our default has to be that we respect the majority's views through the ballot box.

The majority is not always right or moral but near universal voting would at least better reflect a nation's opinions. And it seems most fair to define the majority as being based on the entire population of voting age.

If that become our guiding principle, the point of politics would be to advance better arguments and better leadership. The current political party that seems most worried about near universal voting seems to mostly be worried that they are having trouble appealing to the majority of American citizens.

So who needs to change gears?