Political Philosophy

Remove all ads!

Ok, I wanted to make this a poll, but I've got two questions and at least one of them will be long, so let's make this a general discussion. I've heard two questions recently that supposedly set up whether you're a Republican, Democrat, conservative, or liberal, and I wanted your takes and responses to them.

1.)Which is more important in a modern election, to make sure all who are eligable to vote actually can, or to make sure only those who are eligable to vote can? In other words, which is a bigger problem today, the disenfranchisement of legitimate voters or the inclusion of illegitimate votes (illegals, repeat voting, the 'dead vote', etc.)?

2.)Concerning a random representative poor person (60% female, 40% male ), is it more likely that he/she is poor due to their own actions (poor job performance, no job hunting, no reason to be hired, etc.) or due to a lack of possibilities (no jobs to take, racism, sexism, no money for education, etc.)?

Personally, I think voter fraud is a bigger problem in America than voter disenfranchisement. Not to say that both aren't present, but the one seems far more common than the other. As for the second, I'd say it's probably a toss-up, but I'd weigh slightly on the side of their own actions.

 

1: I think that people who are legally not entitled to vote should be shot if they try it. Seriously. I see that as a much bigger problem than losers who can't bother to vote when they have the right. People who don't exercise their rights don't deserve huge "rock the vote" capmaigns to convince them to grow up and vote.

2: Random poor person -- if they are truly destitute, I believe that in most cases its the fault of the person -- at least in North America. There's lots of jobs if you can swallow your pride and do something that isn't exactly what you planned for in life.

 

1: In Canada, there is a law that states that if you are convicted of electoral farud, you lose the right to vote for the rest of your life. That would solve the fraud problem, assuming that the fraud could be proven. If someone can't be bothered to vote, that's their problem. Politicians try to get them out to vote in hopes of those extra voted for them, but otherwise, if they don't care, then they are stuck with whoever got elected...

2: Circumstance plays a heavy role, but not everything. In tight economic times, there is incre4ased competition for employment, and thus the employer has more candidates to choose from. While Circumstance may put them behind the 8-ball (lower education, lack of relevent experience, disability), they need to be able to look more effectively and learn to market themselves better. Any training they could get would also help...

 

In this upcoming election a major concern will be "voter registration fraud". Just do a search on "acorn voter fraud". I pity the Secretary of State's that have to manage this.

 

In a solid democracy fraud should be negligble problem and if it isn't then your democracy has some serious issues. Generally I would say that people not voting is a big problem, it leads to some groups having an unproportionate amount of influence and the people who do not vote drift further and further away from society which is a very bad thing. Would it really be a democracy if less than 50% of the population feels there is any reason to vote?

On an individual level it is all about personal responsibility. If person X is a failure he has the oppurtunity in our western world to improve his lot. If you look at from a more macro perspective you can see the patterns though. Why do women make less money than men? Are they worse people than men? Why are more children of poor poor than children of rich people? Do poor people lack character and are stupid? Each individual is responsible for his fate but it is ours as a society responsibility to even the playing field as much as possible. A black man from the project has the oppurtunity to be a doctor but his way is much longer and much harder than a white man from suburbia with academic parents. I have been out as a temp in a few different schools in my area and the differences are staggering. The schools in the wealthy areas have many and dedicated teachers, they have nice buildings and all the equipment they could want and any "trouble" kid gets lots of attention and help. While the schools in the poorer areas are overcrowded, with few and unmotivated teachers in many cases teachers who can't get jobs in the nicer neighbourhoods with a few truly dedicated educators who burn themselves out trying to make a difference. Sure, a kid from one of these poor schools has the oppurtunity and responsibility to make something of himself but it is a lot easier for a kid from the nice school.

 

Ok, on the voter disenfranchisement, I'm thinking of things like voter ID laws that prevent legitimate people that don't have IDs from voting or (less common in the US) the kind of voter intimidation that's been seen in Africa and the like.

For poverty, I agree that there's usually a job that a motivated person can get, regardless of education, but what if that job, or even two of them, don't pay enough? What's minimum wave multiplied by 80 hours a week? Is it enough for a single mother with three children to live off of? Now, the three children are almost certainly her fault (and another's, but her's too), but the minimum wage may not be. As for the children of poor being poor, how much of it is issues like education, bias and the like and how much of it is upbringing? How many welfare children grow up to be welfare adults?

Joacqin, why do you think voter fraud wouldn't be an issue in a 'solid democracy'? Is there no reason? Would it be too hard? In many places in the US, it isn't very difficult at all, and the benefit from doing it, especially in an organized fassion, is undeniable. Many democrats felt that Bush stole at least the 2000 election, while many republicans believe the dems tried and failed (i.e. that Florida wouldn't have been nearly as close if only living Floridians had voted once each). If you look at investigations into 'dead votes' (votes being cast in the name of the deceased, recent or long dead), most of them vote Dem. Those that don't almost always vote Republican. I guess the Independants don't see enough reason to try.

 

Simply because if voter fraud is an issue then it isn't a solid democracy.

 

Highly educated and devious people will try to come up with all sorts of methods of voter fraud to further their own political agenda. That's not indicitive of a sick democracy, that's just indicitive of the fact that evil is a trait that can be found in all human beings. Voting the graveyard, voting twice at two different polling stations, rigging voting machines, even creating ballots that are not as clear as humanly possible, all of these things have been happening since the beginning of democracy. They need to be disallowed.

I heard a filthy liberal yapping once on the radio about how evil Republicans were seeking to disenfranchise innocent rural Negroes by trying to make a law that requires EVERYONE to produce a birth certificate, drivers license, or other piece of ID to prove their identity before voting. I almost had a seizure. It is not racist to ask people to prove they are citizens before they vote. This dorky woman was saying "urban dwellers might not think it's a problem, but many rural people don't have such ID." Well, whose fault is that? Get some bloody ID -- it's not rocket science! I mean, without SOME sort of regulation that at least TRIES to ensure that each citizen gets the opportunity to vote once, the possibility for corruption is staggering. And the law, I hasten to add, applied to everyone, regardless of skin color. Perhaps if liberals stopped trying to paint "common sense" as "racism" they would achieve more success.

 

Hmmm... I don't think I can make an educated guess for which is more common for either question, and I don't think it would particularly matter anyway.

I think that both voter disenfranchisement and voter fraud happen, but neither of them are so prevalent that they are massive problems significant enough to alter the results of most elections. (I will concede that this may not be true for local elections as you need a much smaller number of people to make up a signifcant portion of the population, but I do not think that it would be a problem on a state or national level.) I also think that the demographics of the population and the geographic location would have a major influence as to whether fraud or disenfranchisement represents the larger problem. So I think the answer to the first question is it depends on where you're talking about. I'd imagine fraud may be more prevalent in NYC, but disenfrancisement is probably more common in areas that have a large population of legal hispanics.

I feel much the same way about the second question as well. Certainly some people are in the position they are in because of their own poor decisions, and it's their own damn fault that they are in the mess they are in. Other people never had much of a chance from the start, and because of poor education opportunities maybe a minimum wage job is the best they can do. (It's actually not unlike the current mortgage crisis - some people got suckered in, others were just being greedy trying to make a quick buck. You can have pity on the former, but say tough luck to the latter.) I think it really comes down to a case by case basis.

The reason why I feel it doesn't matter - for either question - is because I do not think that one answer is so much more prevelant than the other that you would be able to tailor policy decisions one way or the other. For example, if voter fraud were 10 times as common as voter disenfranchisement, it would make sense to have policies that cracked down more on fruad. The problem is I don't think that's true in all cases or places. This is a variable problem that requires different solutions in different places. Similarly if there were 10 times as many people who were poor because they didn't get a fair shake as compared to those who messed up on their own, then you could make an arguement that more needs to be done for these people. But again, I don't think that's true either. Here the problem is identifying those who genuinely need help from those who squandered opportunity - not that I have any idea how one would do that.

 

Since voter fraud is nonexistant around here I can't see it as too important. Voter disenfranchisement it somewhat of a problem but it's their own choice not to use their influence. If they wish they are free to vote for some of the smaller parties that protest against the established parties. Usually though they just leave at home because they either don't feel that their vote matters or just feel politics as too unimportant to bother to vote. My father as an example usually does not vote at all because he feels that he has it quite good as it is and doubts that any politicians can much affect his situation to one way or the other.

 

It would appear that you and I are using different definitions for "voter disenfranchisement." When I use it, I am referring to people who wish to vote but are somehow prohibited from doing so by an outside force. For example, some people see "disenfranchising" criminals as a bad thing, whereas I think they should be not only "disenfranchised" but "de-testicled."

Your example of your father is, in my lexicon, "voter apathy", which is also a serious problem.

 

morgoroth, how do you mean voter fraud is non-existant were you are at? I mean, specifically how do they prevent it.
On a seperate note, how can some states still be using paper ballots? Here in NC, even the smaller, not very well off counties have touchscreen voting machines. How can Florida still be using paper ballets?? It just absolutely blows my mind.

As far as voter fraud goes, the voting locations i have used in my life have NEVER asked for any kind of I.D.. Just get in line,tell them your name & address at the front & get your electronic card to use in the voting booth.

 

Paper ballots work fine, with technology based voting there is always the fear of "hacking" whether it is a realistic fear or not. Paper ballots have worked fine in Sweden since we started voting and I have yet to even hear about any kind of voter fraud let alone any of any larger kind.

I also interpreted voter disenfranchment as voter apathy. Here you get your voter card sent home to you a week or so before the election if you are eligible to vote and you are eligible if you are a citizen. You bring your such card and ID with you to your local voting booth, slide the slip of the party of your choosing into the box and then go and hand in your card and show your ID so they can check you off for voting.

 

But joa, that Swedish approach requires a national ID card, which is either the sign of the beast or whatever, but certainly is some sort of devilry that conservative Americans apparently find abhorrent.

Now there are reasons to be sceptical of that, just read this, but they have much more to do with which data are being recorded for a national ID card and what the government is allowed to do with them (or does anyway, be it through outsourcing or lawbreaking) than with a national ID card itself. One thing I agree on, is that it is probably useless for is preventing terrorism.

 

Especially considering what happened in 2000, you'd think that Florida would definitely have switched over to touchscreen voting machines. That is an interesting point though overall: On a national level how prevalent are touchscreen voting machines compared to the traditional paper ballots? I would think that what type is used is determined by the state (in the sense that all precincts in the state use touchscreens or all precincts use paper ballots). Here in Maryland they use touchscreens. The didn't have them in Pennsylvania when I lived there, but the last time I voted in PA was 2000, so they certainly could have switched over in the eight years since then.

This brings up another interesting point. Here in the US, you have to go to a very specific location to vote, usually very close by to where you live. I work about 40 miles away from where I live, but I cannot go to vote on my lunch break at one of the local polling stations. I must go to my local precinct about a mile away from where I live to vote.

This is the reason that most polling stations don't require you to bring an ID with you. When you register to vote, they put your name on the list at your local precinct. When you go to vote, they check your name on the list and let you vote. Obviously, if you go anywhere other than your local precinct, your name won't be on the list, and you won't be able to vote. It would not surprise me at all if some level of voter disenfranchisement occurs because people go to the wrong polling station and are denied because their name isn't on the list. Your local government is suppose to send out fliers the week before the election telling everyone in their precinct where and when to vote, but I'm sure some people don't read them and show up at the wrong polling station.

 

Or, (and this REALLY boils my blood) the citizen CAN'T read them and so goes to the voting station. They often * can't read them because they are high school dropouts who COULD have stayed in school, but chose to quit so they could make money NOW (by means legal or illegal). Huge amounts of money and other resources are thrown at this problem, but these idiots don't care. They drop out, and then a few years down the road instead of taking responsiility for their stupid choices, they take the pathetic easy way out and blame "society" for not spoon feeding them the information. This really grinds my gears. Middle class people like myself can only listen to lame excuses and blame shifting for so long before we get tired of it and start demanding people take responsibility for their own actions.

*note that I am very aware that some people had no choice in the matter -- it was either quit or starve, and others have learning disabilities. But there are a lot of people like I described in the main body of my post.

 

You are supposed to vote in specific places here as well but first the information is sent to you and as I said you get a voting card you need to bring and on that card is the correct adress to vote. Secondly these voting stations are never far away, don't think there are many kilometres between them. You will have a voting station within walking distance from your home and well, we vote on Sundays so most people are off work and those that aren't can either go before work or after work. There is time. I guess you get blind to your own system but it does seem to work like a charm never heard any complaints and the issue of voter fraud is *unheard* of, no accusations no nothing.

As Martaug wrote, voting without having somekind of proof that you are eligible to vote seems pretty shaky. Basically you could have voted as many times as you wished just going to different places and giving different adresses?

 

No. When you register to vote you are assigned to a precinct, and your name is submitted to that precinct. When you show up to the polling station, you give your name, and they look your name up on the list. If your name isn't on the list (which it won't be if you show up to any other polling station than the one you are assigned), they ask for a photo ID with proof of address before you are allowed to vote. So unless you had multiple Drivers' Licenses with different addresses, this wouldn't work.

 

Let's look at how it's going in Canada. You have three options:

1: You can show one piece of government issue photo ID.

2: You can shor two documents that verify your identity and address

3: You can be vouched for by someone else who meets either option 1 or 2.

Now, I'm a lazy bugger and I haven't yet changed my Driver's Licence* to reflect my new address, which is in a different constituency than where I used to live. So I'm going to be using option 3 -- my wife will vouch for me.

That said, I still think it's stupid for them to have option 3 -- If I were a dishonest bastard like my brother in law, I could go around to all the polling stations in the city where I have friends who live there -- they could vouch for me and I could vote as many times as I have dishonest friends. It's utterly ridiculous. But the sad truth is that there are not very many people here in Canada who care enough to vote once, let alone to go around and do it many times. Our average turnout rate is under 45%, IIRC.

*it's been 9 months -- I suppose I should do this considering that it's an offense to leave the licence enchanged for more than 3 weeks.