If one asks ten Republicans to opine on the subject of gun-free zones, at least nine will agree they don’t work. The reason is open and obvious: those intent on breaking the law simply don’t care about the wording on signage and other notices around the perimeter.
Two months ago, Republicans stood united against Governor McAullife’s anti-Second Amendment executive order banning guns from most state buildings. Again, the reason is simple: law-abiding citizens will obey the sign and leave their guns at home, whereas those who have no intention of following the law will also disregard McAuliffe’s silly signs posted on the doors.
Throughout our daily lives, notices of the rules only influence those who intend to obey them. This applies to major rules such as criminal laws, to the more mundane such as posted speed limits.
Has anyone ever found their car unable to accelerate past 70 miles per hour on Virgina’s interstates? Of course not – a speed limit sign merely advises drivers intending to obey the posted limit for each stretch of road. For those intent on rulebreaking, police wait with a ticket book in hand to maintain compliance. The former constitutes notice, whereas the latter provides the enforcement mechanism.
Why, then, would any Republican have the slightest faith in the recently-unveiled loyalty oath which RPV intends to distribute at polling places during Virginia’s 2016 Presidential Primary?
Make no mistake: Democrats intending to cause mischief in the Republican primary by crossing over to vote for weaker presidential candidates will be wholly undeterred by RPV’s proposed loyalty oath, which represents little more than an attempt to declare the Republican primary a “Democrat-free zone”, absent any enforcement mechanism such as party registration.
Let’s be clear: crossover voting doesn’t rise to the same level as breaking gun laws – or even speeding – but the principle remains the same. Notices of rules only apply to those intending to follow the rules, remaining ineffective without a practical enforcement mechanism.
Without any enforcement mechanism, such as party registration, mischievous Democrats will happily sign and promptly disregard the silly loyalty oath. Meanwhile, voters who participate in good faith by supporting the Republican candidate of their choice may find themselves turned away for refusing to sign a piece of paper uncommon to elections in Virginia.
Some of those voting in good faith will object to what appears to be a membership form, for reasons of concern over its consequences. Others will turn their back on the polls over an objection based in principle. Whatever the reason, the objections do exist, and RPV will be unable to staff enough polls with enough volunteers to explain to primary voters that the form carries with it no obligation, no membership fee, no consequence, and therefore, no purpose.
While reasons may vary, the consequences are clear: fewer Republicans and fewer conservatives will vote in the primary, thus depriving the party of valuable participation data and a meaningful mechanism for increasing voter enthusiasm among Virginia’s grassroots.
Contrary to the claims of party leadership, the data collected from these loyalty oaths will not be particularly valuable. While party leadership heralds the value of the included telephone number and email fields, both remain optional, and are likely to be ignored by those protective of their privacy or simply in a hurry to vote.
This email and telephone data is hardly being lost absent the imposition of a mandatory loyalty oath. Political data vendors have amassed enormous volumes of voter contact information. Voters willing to give their email address or telephone number to one facet of the political process have likely given it out before, and thus, it likely exists for purchase.
Obtaining even a partial email or telephone list from primary participants does the party little good, as it will still need to pay for a full list append on all voters of concern, even if only to verify existing data against a second or third source.
Let’s be clear: only Republicans and those intending on supporting Republicans should be voting in Republican primary elections. This expectation is clearly codified in Virginia law.
However, without an effective enforcement mechanism such as party registration, RPV’s loyalty oath cannot function as intended. Those desirous of mischief will sign and promptly ignore it, while many of those voting in good faith will be turned away from the process and head home in disgust.
RPV’s ill-advised loyalty oath will prove detrimental to party building efforts. Already, RPV has squandered much of the goodwill it generated by choosing an inclusive state-run primary for the benefit of all Republicans, including those unable to attend a convention.
Meanwhile, RPV’s efforts to prevent Democrats from voting in Republican primaries will prove no more effective than Governor McAuliffe’s silly signs, for giving notice of the rules only matters to those intent on following said rules.
For additional problems with RPV’s proposal, and to view the loyalty oath in question, please read the previous coverage of this issue by Bearing Drift’s own D. J. Spiker.
