Many of us feel that the fate of our democracy is based on the easily accessible right to vote for all. Who would ever have guessed that this right is at the mercy of two people who either can’t think straight or are being paid not to think straight? I will summarize below and let the reader decide.
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., in a recent speech, made an impassioned defense of election integrity but concluded that polarization would only be made worse by ditching the one thing that stands in the way, the filibuster, and therefore, she would not be voting for the voting rights bill.
The only conclusion I can draw is that, for Sinema, the reduction of polarization is more important than maintaining the right to vote.
Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin’s argument for not ditching the filibuster used to be, like Sinema’s, that it would be too divisive.
Recently, his position has morphed into the following, and I quote: “Voting is very important. … But to break the opportunity for the minority to participate completely, that’s just not who we are.”
As I interpret this word salad, Manchin is really saying, “The filibuster is necessary because it protects the minority from the majority.” In the context of preserving voting rights, Manchin’s position seems to be that the rights of the minority are more important than the right to vote.
The idea that the above “arguments” have been used to throw out any right-to-vote legislation is utterly mind-blowing. Since neither Ms. Sinema nor Mr. Manchin are stupid, we are left wondering why they are acting the way they are.
Julia Sperry
Hockessin
