NicoleSwan.com

As most people who read the news semi-frequently already know, the South Dakota legislature recently passed a bill banning most abortions in the state (the governor has since signed the bill). A post stating my opposition or support to it would do nothing but fuel a never ending, futile comments argument as discussing abortion, the death penalty, and the use of the word “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance are wont to do. I’m not taking sides — this post is not about sides.

But, I find the condescension and arrogance with which some people have responded to this legislation to be quite frustrating.

Exhibit A is an email I received entitled “Boycott South Dakota? Nope. Let’s Take it Over”, forwarded to me knowing it would make me angry. I saw the humor, but it did indeed raise my ire. From the title alone, one can gather that the author of this email feels that this legislation by an autonomous state is wrong. But apparently, it’s not okay for a state to have legislation that he disagrees with. And since South Dakota’s wrong and his opinion is obviously far superior, he and fellow “progressives” must take over the legislation of a state that they don’t live and whose legislation does not directly affect them.

Following is the email with my remarks inserted.

AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, a very harsh anti-abortion measure just passed in South Dakota (no abortions, not even in cases of rape, incest, or danger to mother). It’s easy to do a knee-jerk response and encourage progressives to boycott the state in the hope that we’ll teach them a lesson. But don’t do it. There’s a better, easier, and faster way.

As I began this note, I had thought the solution would be to encourage people to emigrate to South Dakota, because we could easily take the state over. Here was my thinking:

REASONS TO CONSIDER MOVING

1. South Dakota is a beautiful but absurdly empty state with only 754,844 people of all ages. Its population levels have pretty much stagnated. Despite this, the state still gets two US senators under the Constitution and a disproportionate number of electoral votes.

Um, doesn’t every state get two Senators? You could argue our House representation, but even then it’s only one person. From what I hear, it’s not possible to have half a representative. I’ve heard the argument that even SD’s one person is a disproportionate representation. Since South Dakota can’t have fewer representatives and still be, you know, represented, it seems that the onus is on the author to fight for more representation for his state. Even more to the point, this piece of legislation was at the state level and has nothing to do with federal representation.

2. Land is cheap.

3. Fewer than 400,000 people voted in 2004. We can assume that not all of them are boneheads. After all, “only” about 60%–232,545–voted for GWB. 149,225 voted for Kerry. A recent senatorial race was lost by the democrats by only about 500 votes. If we could convince a mere 90,000 of the Californians, New Yorkers, and other Blue Staters who have long been grousing about overcrowding and high living costs to move there, we could make a huge impact on national politics.

Again, the condescension — the idea that anyone who doesn’t believe what the “blue staters” believe is ignorant. Anyone who disagrees with this author is a “bonehead.” If issues such as religion, abortion, and the death penalty were so black and white with obvious right and wrong sides, they wouldn’t spark the intense discussions and arguments that they do.

THE PROBLEM

Only one problem, though–it’s unlikely we could trigger a mass migration quickly enough. Could we convince 90,000 progressives to move to a strange and hostile territory before the elections later this year? Not likely.

South Dakota is a strange and hostile territory? I wasn’t sure before, but now I’m certain that the author has never actually been to South Dakota. Also worth noting is that the author probably lives in NYC or San Francisco. And South Dakota is hostile?

BUT WAIT! THERE’S A WAY TO TAKE OVER SOUTH DAKOTA WITHOUT MOVING

In doing some more research, I discovered this amazing article from Minnesota Public Radio:
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/10/27_steilm_sodakrvvoters/

Here are the salient points. Pardon me for shouting, but if I understand correctly, this is exciting:

1. YOU DON’T HAVE TO MOVE TO SOUTH DAKOTA TO REGISTER. YOU JUST HAVE TO VACATION THERE LONG ENOUGH TO HAVE A TEMPORARY ADDRESS AT A CAMPGROUND, MOTEL, OR RV PARK. “In Hanson County, population 3100, more than 800 RV’ers [sic] are registered. Most have never stayed in South Dakota for more than a few weeks.”

2. YOU DON’T HAVE TO BE IN THE STATE WHEN THE VOTE TAKES PLACE. “In South Dakota about 70 percent of the RV’ers [sic] registered to vote have requested absentee ballots.”

3. IT’S LEGAL. The law was deliberately written to make “RV Voters” possible. It’s a law apparently designed to help the
Republicans, but we can make it blow up in their faces.

4. THE TACTIC I’M SUGGESTING IS ALREADY BEING USED ON A SMALLER SCALE BY THE REPUBLICANS. In Minnehaha County, says county auditor Sue Roust, “there’s a slight Democratic edge in registration. Whereas with the RV’ers [sic], it’s Republicans 46 percent, Democrats 27 percent.”)

VISIT BEAUTIFUL SOUTH DAKOTA THIS YEAR. Think about it. South Dakota has a lot of charming places to visit: Mount Rushmore, for instance. The amazing Badlands. The bizarre Corn Palace. The Black Hills. Herds of bison. It’s a beautiful state. While you’re there, head down to the voter registration office. Register to vote. Then come home and as election time draws near, request an absentee ballot from the comfort of your own home.

POTENTIAL DRAWBACKS

1. For one election cycle you won’t legally be able to vote in your own state. However, if you live in an area that votes overwhelmingly Democratic (or for that matter overwhelmingly Republican) you can give your vote much larger impact in South Dakota.

2. The Republicans may expand the program they have going already. If so, let the best party win. They’ve got the bucks, but we’ve got the numbers.

3. The Republicans in South Dakota may decide to change the law. Well, if they do, we still may get one more election cycle out of it before it goes into effect. And, ultimately, doing so would wipe out their own RV voting efforts. Still, it might be best to keep this quiet. Pass this on to only a few hundred of your closest friends. We only need 90,000.

See you this summer in South Dakota!

Does such a law (in their mind, a “loophole”) exist? I have no idea. But the idea that they must affect legislation in another state persists. Why? That’s why there are fifty different states. If you don’t like South Dakota’s laws, YOU DON’T HAVE TO LIVE THERE.

To all Democrats wishing to be successful in their endeavors to put more Democrats in the government: this is not the way to do it. Offending moderates, or conservatives for that matter, by disparaging them and relegating them to the ilk of the “boneheads” will not win you votes. Sure, it makes you feel better about yourself, but you’re ultimately causing great damage to your cause.

* I find it hard to use terms like “liberal,” “progressive,” “conservative” and the like with out adding quotation marks. As I’ve mentioned before, I hate such terms. They generally lead to inaccurate stereotyping, mass generalizations, and polarization. Not sure what to use instead, so I feel they must always be used with qualifications
** I’m aware that not all “liberals” or “blue staters” feel this way. But there is a large group of political-minded people who continue their pervasive use of arrogance and condescension to deal with differences in political views.