Thursday, September 27, 2012
Political Mayhem Thursday: The Fraud of Voter Fraud
I'm always suspicious of solutions without a problem, because usually that means that the supposed "solution" is actually motivated by something else. Such is the case with the Republican-promoted voter ID movement. It turns out that there is surprisingly little voter fraud out there.
Yet, the alarm over voter fraud is still being promoted by big money backers of these initiatives to require ID when voting. The problem I have with this is two-fold.
First, aren't conservatives AGAINST onerous new government regulations, especially when they don't do much beyond extend government control? Here, there is a real cost and inconvenience created, too. For example, consider (former) voters in nursing homes. They don't have a driver's license, because they haven't driven for years. They don't need a state ID for anything, so they don't have one. The expectation, I suppose, is that they will somehow get to the Secretary of State's office so they can get a new state ID. Really? That kind of government imposition is defensible based on the rare instances of voting fraud that can be verified?
Second, this initiative runs against a central tenet of citizenship: That voting is a civic virtue, and that it should be encouraged, not discouraged. I still believe that, and it saddens me that when Voter ID enthusiasts rail for more government regulation, they don't hear the voice of their high school civics teacher whispering in their ear "voting is good."
Comments:
<< Home
I agree 100 percent with what you wrote in this post. However, since you introduced the nursing home example, I do have a question. How do you feel about the people who pick up nursing home residents (not family members but groups) from the facilities and take them to vote? Do you feel they may sway them toward a particular candidate? This is a bipartisan issue but is it appropriate? Please note I did not ask if it is legal.
PTC
PTC
# posted by 
: 12:14 AM
: 12:14 AM
I have no idea what you wrote. But I did laugh hard and repost that silly picture. crazy nose gettters.
As I have written before, there are two extreme & illogical positions here that can only be explained by partisan advantage. Voting without any real verification is an invitation to fraud. Going to crisis mode without evidence of significant fraud is an overreaction. What explains this? Democrats & Repiblicans are following the calculation that yields the most votes. No principles involved.
Well said, Waco Farmer.
This is one issue (among many) where the crux of the debate--on both sides--veils itself behind principle. I do not support rigid voter ID laws for many of the reasons posited by Prof. Osler. But I do expect my government to protect the integrity of the ballot box.
For example, I recently registered to vote in a new state. As far as I can tell, there is nothing but my personal scruples to stop me from voting in both my current state and my home state. I realize that my situation is not representative of the average voter, but it seems like there should be a better mechanism to prevent double-voting.
This is one issue (among many) where the crux of the debate--on both sides--veils itself behind principle. I do not support rigid voter ID laws for many of the reasons posited by Prof. Osler. But I do expect my government to protect the integrity of the ballot box.
For example, I recently registered to vote in a new state. As far as I can tell, there is nothing but my personal scruples to stop me from voting in both my current state and my home state. I realize that my situation is not representative of the average voter, but it seems like there should be a better mechanism to prevent double-voting.
To piggyback on CTL, a principled position would include serious consideration of these two shared values: one person one vote & the integrity of the ballot box.
Farmer--
How is it that the Democratic position (the status quo) is "extreme and illogical" if there is no evidence of a significant problem?
How is it that the Democratic position (the status quo) is "extreme and illogical" if there is no evidence of a significant problem?
PTC-- I don't see a problem with giving people in nursing homes a ride to the polls. What's wrong with that?
The right to vote was not mentioned in the constitution. Our democracy was built without a foundation because the states had different ideas what defined a voter. Slave states did not believe in one man = one vote.
It was left up to the states. The states have left it up to partisan politics. It's a mess. Dad
It was left up to the states. The states have left it up to partisan politics. It's a mess. Dad
I agree with Mr. Osler. American democracy was not an original intention. On the other hand, one person one vote is a modern shared value--just as state control of voting is an ancient value. I also agree that things are something of a mess.
In re Mark's question: it is extreme to protect the status quo when there are obvious cracks in the system, and the only reason to pretend that there are not is for partisan gain. BTW: what Kansas has done (followed closely by the Heritage Foundation) is worth looking at:
I think the bush v. gore election and the franken senate win speak to the importance of ballot integrity. Without franken, obama would not have had 60 votes to pass his healthcare bill. ID is required for almost everything these days. And if you have to drive someone to the voting booth, you can drive them to get an ID.
There is an id issue in NC - specific to the ultra--rural areas (probably any state). Many older voters were born at home with mid-wives. Back in the day the birth was recorded in the family bible and not with some county agency. Many of these people don't have sufficient documents to go to the local state office to get a photo id.
my question to a campaign worker who was interning in Tampa this summer and stayed at our house was... when you canvas for voter registration you should be asking if they have the appropriate id. They were waiting to hear how court cases were resolved which in my mind was too late. But then I have a logic gene and that is why I am not in politics.
Election day works are mostly volunteers, so there really isn't a cost burden to the elections office and the poor volunteers are going to have to take the brunt of complaints when they have to ask someone to cast a provisional ballot.
Election day works are mostly volunteers, so there really isn't a cost burden to the elections office and the poor volunteers are going to have to take the brunt of complaints when they have to ask someone to cast a provisional ballot.
As we have accepted 6 month to yearly renewal dates for everything from car, home, health insurance, etc... to four year renewals (Minnesota) for a drivers license - could we not agree to create and implement a voter ID program that would be in place by the next presidential election (a four year window to inform and implement)?
If 'urgency of the moment' (seeking advantage during an anticipated closely contested election) was replaced by "principled intent," a process and time frame could be embraced by all sides that would strengthen 'virtue of the vote'...
If 'urgency of the moment' (seeking advantage during an anticipated closely contested election) was replaced by "principled intent," a process and time frame could be embraced by all sides that would strengthen 'virtue of the vote'...
# posted by : 7:21 PM
: 7:21 PM
I like New Christine's idea.
And yes, the integrity of the ballot box is a real issue. Dead people voting in Chicago is not an urban myth.
Still, I must say, because I believe, this very strongly, and I get quite emotional about it, that the Republican Voter ID Push is disgraceful, given the history of disenfranchising minorities and poor people.
It is simply disgraceful.
Scott Davis
Post a Comment
And yes, the integrity of the ballot box is a real issue. Dead people voting in Chicago is not an urban myth.
Still, I must say, because I believe, this very strongly, and I get quite emotional about it, that the Republican Voter ID Push is disgraceful, given the history of disenfranchising minorities and poor people.
It is simply disgraceful.
Scott Davis
<< Home
