Higher voter turnout as an end

Sometimes people say the dumbest things that really do tip their hands.

At New Patriot they began riding Pawlenty for scheduling special sessions on questionable days.

Why were these elections held two days before Thanksgiving? Why not a more logical date (like, oh, say, election day)?

The governor has the responsibility for scheduling special elections. Governor Pawlenty scheduled these elections at this time. There's two more special elections coming up to fill seats in St. Cloud. Governor Pawlenty scheduled that special election for December 27. Two days after Christmas. In a college town.

Well, first of all you cannot have a special election until the seat is actually open. Then you have to consider that the special election must be quick enough so the citizens will be without representation for as short of time as possible but far enough out so the Lefty conspiracy theorists would not whine about not having sufficient time for campaigning. Next there is also the complication of election law changes after New Year's.

Pawlenty's press secretary, Brian McClung, defended the governor's decision. He noted candidates need time to file affidavits with the Secretary of State's office, and there's also the possibility of a primary election.

McClung noted the special election is cheaper in December rather than next year because of new regulations that become effective on Jan. 1 under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA)

But that is not the most ridiculous part of New Patriot's posting.

MN Politics Guru thinks that Gov. Pawlenty is trying to manipulate the results of these elections by making them as inconvenient as possible.
...
By contrast, Democrats generally believe "high turnout is an end in itself" as MN Politics Guru says. Obstacles to voting are obstacles to the will of the people.

Sorry, no, wrong answer. "High turnout" as an end is terrible. With every right (like voting) comes responsibility (maintain interest). High turnout does not meet any ends except to guarantee that people who do not take their rights seriously and do not uphold their responsibilities can vote.

I will also make the following charge (again). Same day, even same week registration only allows fraud. Because there is not any proof in this instance only means that it is too difficult to actually prove. When I had infiltrated the University of Minnesota Green Party executive mailing list in the late 90's I was appalled at the repeated coordinations and organizations of getting students from Wisconsin and Iowa to bus up to the U of MN where they would stay with fellow Greenies. The host Greenies would vouch for the students at the polling stations near campus so the visiting people could register on same day and then vote for Paul Wellstone. The plans were underway and then I was discovered and removed from the list before I could copy the archives. There were also flyers floating around the campus asking for hosts.

It happens...and same day registration allows it to be undetectable.

When I was much younger I lived in a very liberal state where you had to register before 30 days prior to an election. I was not paying attention enough to do so and was unable to vote. That is exactly how the system should be. If you are not paying attention to the country enough to even take the trouble to register then you are not responsible enough to enjoy the right to vote.

High turn outs only prove that there are more people pulling levers...or more multiples.

But the very fact that the Dems think that high voter turn out is the end shows that the actual drive towards a responsible and informed public is not an end. They do not want the public to be informed and they do not want very strict identification processes to protect the sanctity of the voting process. They don't want a system that encourages clean elections. They want a system that allows undetectable fraud. That is what same day registration does, that is why "high voter turnout as an end" is their goal as opposed to an educated public.