Title: Voting Restriction Politics in Minnesota and Wisconsin
Abstract: IntroductionMinnesota and Wisconsin are known throughout country as being two of more progressive in Midwest and indeed nation. While part of this reputation is based on liberal social policies, it also comes out of an understanding that both have exhibited many of ingredients of since early in their histories. Because of their traditions of open government and participatory politics, major push in both to enact photo identification requirements for voters has puzzled many observers.What explains such a paradox? Why would 2 of only 9 in nation which allow Election Day Registration (EDR),1 and which have some of highest turnout rates in nation, enact photo ID legislation? And more importantly, regardless of motivations of political elites who are pushing such bills, how are these elites able to convince public that such a move in opposite direction from previous tradition fits with political cultures of two states?This paper will address these questions through an examination of Minnesota's and Wisconsin's political cultures. We begin with a review of scholarly literature on political cultures in United States associated with Daniel Elazar, and a description of how Minnesota and Wisconsin's political cultures have been characterized within that literature. Next, an overview of both states' recent legislature and judicial actions regarding photo ID will be provided, along with discussion of how issue was framed by proponents. Finally, we will attempt an explanation of seeming popularity of photo ID in two with a strong tradition of political participation. With regard to political culture of two states, our findings are two-fold. First, there does not appear to have been a consensus around all elements associated with moralistic political culture in Minnesota and Wisconsin when Elazar came up with his formulation. In addition, we suggest that there has been an erosion of moralistic political culture in both since he first developed his typology.American Political SubculturesThe classic formulation of political subcultures in United States was developed by Daniel Elazar. He identified 3 distinct subcultures which serve as historical source of ...difference in habits, concerns, and attitudes that exist to influence political life in various states (1966, 80). The three subcultures discussed by Elazar include individualistic, moralistic, and traditionalistic (1966, 86-94; 1970, 258-266).The individualistic political culture's emphasis is on the conception of democratic order as a marketplace (1970, 259). Community intervention into private activities should be limited. Most political activity is leftto professionals acting within political parties which organize complex system of mutual obligations in a quid pro quo system of favors for political support. A certain amount of corruption in politics does not surprise public, and they accept it as long as they receive services expected. The moralistic political culture's emphasis is on idea of a commonwealth and politics is seen as a noble activity. Government should promote common welfare and shared interests of public. All citizens are expected to be active participants in politics. Loyalty to a particular political party is not a high priority and indeed nonpartisan political structures and activities are seen as legitimate outlets for political engagement. There is a high expectation that government officials will be honest and work for good of society as a whole rather than private personal gain. Finally, traditionalistic political culture's emphasis is on maintaining status quo hierarchy in a society. The elite are expected to serve as elected officials. Those not part of self-perpetuating elite are often not even expected to vote, or, in some cases, allowed to vote. …
Publication Year: 2012
Publication Date: 2012-07-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot