It would be ridiculous to attribute fraud to just one party. Some people simply have no conscience, and that's just one of the reasons for which criminal judicial systems exist. That's true in practically any democracy, and it's just as true in the US. The same also goes for organized disenfranchisement efforts, at whichever scale or level.

As I said earlier deliberately, voting disenfranchise *tends* to affect one way more than the other; it's not necessarily in that direction indicated earlier. I still insist in calling it reprehensible and immoral, in whichever way it is aimed.

However, the outcry over those "voter guides" distributed through some churches cannot and should not be considered "disenfranchisement". The "problem" there was another: there is a very sensitive and contentious issue in the separation of religious and political matters, of "church and state". So, organized distribution of political propaganda matter through (or by) churches rakes up controversy. But that's not voter disenfranchisement at all; in fact, one might argue the contrary, namely that such propaganda efforts actually encourage people to participate in elections.

Still, the circumstance that churches engage in politics is a politically a highly controversial matter in the US, and not only in the US. For example, in my country of birth, Spain, during the recent general elections campaign, we saw some highly controversial public statements made by (Catholic) church officials, that were a hardly veiled endorsement of one party. That, too, led to very outspoken criticism - for the same reasons as those "voter guides" a decade ago in the US.

As you rightly point out, it's absurd to attribute a given political orientation to the mere condition of being a "religious" person. Another thing is that it is generally fair to observe that persons with a more orthodox interpretation tend to lean proportionally more to the right, than to the left.

However, that has very little to do with the issue of voter disenfranchisement, certainly not with organized disenfranchisement efforts. I'm not too sure myself that initiatives like motor voter and other "on the spot" types of voter registration are an adequate answer, though, as that widens up possibilities of fraud and error. Personally, I see no problem in insisting on proof of ID so as to "check off" voters against a previously qualified voter list available to the local election official (at the voting station itself), as is done for example in Spain.

The thing is that, in the case of the US, there are two complications with that: on the one hand, a great sensitivity toward privacy (as such unified voter lists require a central, national voter census) and secondly, there is no nationally mandated ID requirement, contrary to many countries in Europe. Therefore, the cost and effort involved for someone to obtain an adequate ID document impacts unevenly on different demographics (whether by geography, for example rural areas, or by income, in disadvantaged neighborhoods). The harder it is to get an ID, the less likely it is that you'll go vote.

Still, that's a more broad issue that I believe ought to be addressed in a larger public conversation in the US. Whichever way you look at the data, the participation in elections by people eligible to vote is appallingly low in the US, compared to other countries. For an advanced, powerful and large democracy I believe that should be considered an issue of great importance, a major priority to resolve, above and beyond petty and silly partisan considerations. To promote voter participation in general is, in my opinion, a testament to patriotism.

It's certainly laudable to slay faux conspiracies and dragons alike, but if one makes comparisons among figures of turnout of eligible voters, one should stick to the same definition, instead of comparing, um, rap artists and intelligence agencies. It's certainly striking that sixty-four percent is considered "high" in the US.

With all due respect, the issue presented here is not about an individual's absolute and sovereign discretion to exercise one's right to vote as deemed fit, including the option of not exercising it. That is what political freedom is about. But when a surprisingly low percentage of eligible citizens of a "mature" democracy effectively exercises that right, not coincidentally but in a trend confirmed in election cycle after election cycle, it would behoove any committed citizen, of any political stripe, to ponder on its significance. Especially when signs of systemic roadblocks start showing up, depressing what is a sovereign citizenry's right, that is at the very least a signal of legitimate cause for concern over the state of health of the democracy. Seen more in a more positive light, it is an excellent opportunity to leave silly politics aside and focus on the common, bigger picture. To shuffle such an opportunity aside for a merely more convenient alternative of inertia is not only conclusive proof that something is amiss; it is above all an appalling testament to citizenship gone awry. That has nothing to do with silly party politics, and everything with conscientiously earning citizenship, in the process doing the community a service.

Evidently, there's no obligation to vote, just as there's no obligation to act judiciously; it simply works better for society as a whole if at least a significant portion does so.

So no, "the left" doesn't think that "not voting is a sin". Any responsible citizen believes that a deliberate effort to throw obstacles in other people's right to exercise their right to vote is a capital sin in any self-respecting, free and mature democracy. I.e., this is not a "left" or "right" issue; it's a general, good citizenship concern.

By the by: goodness knows what Senator Obama or the color of tea in China has to do with this issue, other than as a categorical distraction, as much as I acknowledge that we now live in the middle of silly season. To project an ability into one person to change political participation, even assuming for argument's sake that that person will indeed be elected to the highest office, is hardly a token of a "mature democracy". It's called wishful thinking. And that is precisely that which I believe lies at the root of the bigger problem here. And I say this without detracting one iota from the Senator's many qualities. Hope is what one needs to accompany belief in the larger common enterprise, which unfortunately only comes once you have a solid plan and a collective commitment to stick to it in the first place. Starting in the reverse direction may be an appealing proposition perhaps, but it's hardly a trustworthy path to deliverance.

As I've had the immense privilege of savoring the defects and merits of democracy on both sides of the Atlantic, I feel confident in stating that a combined dose of reality-based skepticism and less emotional attachment will work wonders. Democracy may be quite mature in the USA, I'm no so quite certain about its citizenry on the whole. Again: balance is the key.

I believe the following article, although a bit older, is a good introduction to the issues involved in mandatory disenfranchisement for convicted felons, with nigh impossibly steep reinstatement conditions:

[url=http://www.hrw.org/reports98/vote/usvot98o.htm]http://www.hrw.org/reports98/vote/usvot98o.htm[/url]