Different Perspectives
Wisconsin's election debacle has been chronicled on blogs, the radio, and (finally) the local mainstream media. I don't think that anyone can seriously argue that we don't have severe problems with our electoral system.
Some of the problems with our electoral system has to do with the way that it is structured. Rules like same-day registration and the lack of a photo ID requirement make it easy for anyone short of an imbecile to fraud our system. Beyond these rules, many of the rules that do exist around our electoral system are either ignored, enforced improperly, or not known by election officials.
In the coming weeks and months, more outrages will be uncovered. More people will come forward with horror stories about election day. As we parse through the mountain of evidence of the failure of Wisconsin to hold a fair and free vote, we must look to corrective action.
There will be proposals that come forward, like a photo ID requirement, that will cause a flurry of fiery rhetoric. Off of the front pages, many people will begin working hard to make sure that the rules that were ignored are finally followed.
With all of the arguments that will come forth from this scandal, most of the debate will center on two different perspectives of how our electoral system should be structured.
On the one side, championed by the Democrats, the goal of our electoral laws should be to provide maximum access to the polls. They are willing to accept the fact that the system is open to fraud in order to make sure that as many people can exercise their franchise as possible.
On the other side, championed by the Republicans, the goal of our electoral system should be to ensure that each vote is secure so that the vote is the correct reflection of the will of the people.
They are willing to accept that it will be more difficult for people to vote in order to ensure that each vote is actually cast by the person to whom it belongs.
In the end, we are both talking about disenfranchisement.
The position of the Democrats was summed up in this statement from a recent story:
I would argue that our current system is disenfranchising voters. What does it matter if I go to the polls and cast my vote legally, if a bus load of criminals cast their vote illegally in Appleton? How can I have faith that my government reflects the will of the people of Wisconsin when I don't have faith that the vote is secure?
I fully support ballot access. We should make it as easily as reasonable possible for every eligible citizen to cast hos or her vote. The key word in that sentence is "reasonable." Let's talk about a few specifics to illustrate my position.
Democrats oppose photo ID verification at the polls because, they argue, some people who do not have ready access to get an ID would be disenfranchised. OK. Fine. I am willing to spend tax dollars to provide a mobile ID office for those who can't get one on their own. We can send around a van to make IDs if the person has a valid reason that they can't do it themselves. It's a small expense for the integrity of our vote.
Many people support same-day registration because they argue that if people are legally authorized to vote, then they should be able to on elections day even if they failed to properly register beforehand. Given how easy it is to register, I find this argument weak, but I'll take them at their word. Can we at least make the same-day registration process more secure? How about this: let's make it a criminal offense for a poll worker to verify a registration without a photo ID. This would mean limiting the acceptable forms of identification to a few standard documents. Currently, a poll worker has to sign off on the registration form. They did so in this past election for forms where all of the fields were not filled out, or where the address was obviously fake. Let's require a copy of the photo ID to be attached to the registration form and prosecute poll workers who sign fraudulent forms.
Legal voters will not be disenfranchised by either of these measures.
We must also not lose sight of the fact that Wisconsin does not operate in a vacuum. There are 49 other states and dozens of other countries that vote. We can look to other examples of how people conduct elections. I would venture to guess that if we look to other states that require a photo ID to vote, that we would find no more than a handful of people who could reasonably claim to be disenfranchised. Compare those handful to the thousands of unverifiable votes cast in Milwaukee alone. Each one of those thousands represents a legal voter who was disenfranchised.
Let us look to states that do not allow same-day registration. Has anyone been disenfranchised? How do those numbers compare to the thousands of same-day registrants in Wisconsin for whom no actual voter can be produced?
I think that all honest people want the same thing. We want for our electoral system to be free and fair. There will always be some fraud. There will always be people for whom the impediments to voting are too strong to get them to the polls. Let us strive to minimize both of those factors so that we can proudly point to Wisconsin's electoral system as a model for the rest of the world.
(Cross posted at Boots & Sabers)
Some of the problems with our electoral system has to do with the way that it is structured. Rules like same-day registration and the lack of a photo ID requirement make it easy for anyone short of an imbecile to fraud our system. Beyond these rules, many of the rules that do exist around our electoral system are either ignored, enforced improperly, or not known by election officials.
In the coming weeks and months, more outrages will be uncovered. More people will come forward with horror stories about election day. As we parse through the mountain of evidence of the failure of Wisconsin to hold a fair and free vote, we must look to corrective action.
There will be proposals that come forward, like a photo ID requirement, that will cause a flurry of fiery rhetoric. Off of the front pages, many people will begin working hard to make sure that the rules that were ignored are finally followed.
With all of the arguments that will come forth from this scandal, most of the debate will center on two different perspectives of how our electoral system should be structured.
On the one side, championed by the Democrats, the goal of our electoral laws should be to provide maximum access to the polls. They are willing to accept the fact that the system is open to fraud in order to make sure that as many people can exercise their franchise as possible.
On the other side, championed by the Republicans, the goal of our electoral system should be to ensure that each vote is secure so that the vote is the correct reflection of the will of the people.
They are willing to accept that it will be more difficult for people to vote in order to ensure that each vote is actually cast by the person to whom it belongs.
In the end, we are both talking about disenfranchisement.
The position of the Democrats was summed up in this statement from a recent story:
"The problems of the system are better than the alternative, which is to disenfranchise voters," D'Amato said.
I would argue that our current system is disenfranchising voters. What does it matter if I go to the polls and cast my vote legally, if a bus load of criminals cast their vote illegally in Appleton? How can I have faith that my government reflects the will of the people of Wisconsin when I don't have faith that the vote is secure?
I fully support ballot access. We should make it as easily as reasonable possible for every eligible citizen to cast hos or her vote. The key word in that sentence is "reasonable." Let's talk about a few specifics to illustrate my position.
Democrats oppose photo ID verification at the polls because, they argue, some people who do not have ready access to get an ID would be disenfranchised. OK. Fine. I am willing to spend tax dollars to provide a mobile ID office for those who can't get one on their own. We can send around a van to make IDs if the person has a valid reason that they can't do it themselves. It's a small expense for the integrity of our vote.
Many people support same-day registration because they argue that if people are legally authorized to vote, then they should be able to on elections day even if they failed to properly register beforehand. Given how easy it is to register, I find this argument weak, but I'll take them at their word. Can we at least make the same-day registration process more secure? How about this: let's make it a criminal offense for a poll worker to verify a registration without a photo ID. This would mean limiting the acceptable forms of identification to a few standard documents. Currently, a poll worker has to sign off on the registration form. They did so in this past election for forms where all of the fields were not filled out, or where the address was obviously fake. Let's require a copy of the photo ID to be attached to the registration form and prosecute poll workers who sign fraudulent forms.
Legal voters will not be disenfranchised by either of these measures.
We must also not lose sight of the fact that Wisconsin does not operate in a vacuum. There are 49 other states and dozens of other countries that vote. We can look to other examples of how people conduct elections. I would venture to guess that if we look to other states that require a photo ID to vote, that we would find no more than a handful of people who could reasonably claim to be disenfranchised. Compare those handful to the thousands of unverifiable votes cast in Milwaukee alone. Each one of those thousands represents a legal voter who was disenfranchised.
Let us look to states that do not allow same-day registration. Has anyone been disenfranchised? How do those numbers compare to the thousands of same-day registrants in Wisconsin for whom no actual voter can be produced?
I think that all honest people want the same thing. We want for our electoral system to be free and fair. There will always be some fraud. There will always be people for whom the impediments to voting are too strong to get them to the polls. Let us strive to minimize both of those factors so that we can proudly point to Wisconsin's electoral system as a model for the rest of the world.
(Cross posted at Boots & Sabers)
posted by Owen @ 5:03 PM
<< Home