Comments on: Voting Restrictions Racist?

By: Gclectic

Gclectic — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Sorry, Eric, but I've got to call you on this one. I *don't* know how many dead people vote every year, and you've given no evidence that they constitute a problem. I've always been inclined to believe that (outside of party machine locales like Chicago) graveyard votes are mostly urban myths. However, I'm always glad to be convinced by actual research, if you could point me to anything reputable.

I could go either way on the ID issue, but always get worried when I hear of people finding ways to prevent folks from voting. Maybe we should instead go with the indelible ink approach that we applauded so loudly in Aghanistan and Iraq. You could still get an ineligible voter pretending to be a dead man (if he did his research, and the voting district was careless in maintaining its voting rolls, and he didn't mind going to jail if the district wasn't as careless as he expected) but only once per election. With the current system, he could presumably vote as many times as he could prepare fake IDs (subject to the same caveats as above).

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Well, to be honest, I was feeling flippant when I wrote that. My point, though, was that voter fraud is a real problem. I don't think anyone denies that.

You're right that there are likely better solutions than use of photo IDs for curbing it. Actually, I really like the indellible ink idea. In fact, I'm going to amend this article to reflect your suggestions. Thanks.

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I love the ink idea. I'd be proud to walk around with that ink stain.

You'd probably get discounts at restaurants and bars, too!

By: Steve Nicoloso

Steve Nicoloso — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Do we really want to increase voter turnout? Do we really want people voting to make a fashion statement? (For that matter, do we really want people attending Ash Wed Mass so that they may be seen of men as "good Catholics"?) I say anything that keeps the marginally apathetic home on election day (or Ash Wed) is a good thing.

I have to admit the requirement of a photo ID which cannot be obtained freely does fall quite clearly as a "poll tax"… however nominal the fee might be. Simply relax the law to let people present other convincing forms of ID, which may be obtained for free or that ID-less people might already have (bank statement, utility bill, SS card, in various combinations). Or, better, add a provision to the statute that state (non-driver) photo IDs be free.

Always the faithful curmudgeon…

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I'm not arguing that the Ash Weds phenomenon is a good thing. However, if it could be exploited to get people voting, I think it'd be a good thing. There are too many Monday-morning quarterbacks in this country. People talk about governmental matters like they're discussing the weather. When one compares the number of people complaining about government to voter turnout (even just anecdotally), it's seems that there are likely a number of non-voters amongst them (though I admit I can't prove it).

I like Australia's solution. Every citizen must check in at a polling place. There's no compulsion to vote, but if you're there, why not?

By: Adam Graham

Adam Graham — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Well, I think the idea of the ink is interesting. It doesn't prevent one of the biggest types of frauds and that is people who aren't citizens legally voting. That's been a huge issue out West.

By: Steve Nicoloso

Steve Nicoloso — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Again Funky, why specifically (other than a bumper sticker) is it a good thing to get more people (who would otherwise be too lazy or apathetic or unwilling to pay a $25 fine) out there to vote. Do you really want that vote to count the same as yours, i.e., that of a person who would presumably crawl 3 miles on broken glass to vote? I absolutely agree it's a good thing to eliminate voter fraud, but forcing uninterested, apathetic, lazy people to vote just gives uninterested, apathetic, lazy people a bigger voice... they don't deserve it. Let them stay home and watch Oprah or play Gamecube. Bitching about results on Wednesday AM is relatively harmless, and surely worth putting up with if paired with the net social benefit of morons not bothering to vote.

And why, Adam, is having non-citizens vote such a fraud? I can see that it might be illegal, but does that make it fraud? Ought it be illegal? Why not give resident aliens the right to vote? They have as much stake as citizens (many if not most of whom don't bother themselves to vote anyway) do. They pay taxes (including FICA), purchase homes, bank, shop, cart kids to soccer practice, and engage in all the other civic things that "citizens" do.

...

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

A couple of things:

I have actually been poor enough in my life that I wouldn't drop a sawbuck on anything that wasn't an absolutely necessary expense, such as food or rent. Had I been forced to spend that to vote, I might not have voted. And I'm a pretty determined voter. And I was never as poor as many of the people I've met in my life.

Second: I like the indelible ink idea, but I would modify it to put the ink on people's foreheads. For the aesthetic reason that it would look more mysterious, and for the practical reason that putting ink on people's fingers–I don't care how indelible it is–will lead to lots of inky fingerprints everywhere: on clothes, keyboards, hands, etc. Bad idea…really bad idea.

Thirdly: it's your blog. You get to be flippant if you want.

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

1) Thanks for offering that perspective. However, I'd counter that regardless of your limited funds, you'd probably have a driver's license, which is adequate ID. Of course, those without a license and insufficient funds to get a photo ID might still be likely to choose food over voting. Then again, there's still the option of a subsidy. I just don't see reason for the NAACP to be totally against this idea. Is it flawed? Yes. Should it be totally scrapped? Not necessarily.

2) That would certainly fit well with the Ash Weds motif.

3) This is true, but I try to keep high standards for myself. I also appreciate constructive feedback and try to act on it when I think it's reasonable. I have no problem with blogs being highly biases and full of from-the-hip opinions - in fact, I think it's actually an asset - but if we get too comfortable with unsubstantiated claims and accusations, the medium will devolve into meaningless noise. As it stands, there are already a lot of people indiscriminantly parroting rhetoric and propaganda from both sides and butchering statistics (when they use it at all). I'd rather not contribute to the problem.

By: john

john — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

It's not a matter that the rule is innately racist, it's that provides potentially racist authorities with powers they can easily abuse.

They'll tell black people that their IDs look fake, and tell them to leave or be arrested, and most people in that situation will aquiesce.

This is just like the reading requirements where white people were given THe cat runs and black people were given shakespeare and failed regardless of whether they coudl read it.