Hey, there! Log in / Register
Imagine if Adrian Walker's column were translated into another language, then translated back into English
By adamg on Tue, 05/20/2008 - 10:32am
Not a clue why somebody would do that, but somebody did - with his column from today. Can you notice a difference?
The column itself is a plea for the legislature to pass a same-day registration bill for voters. Sounds good to me, although does anybody know what the president of the League of Women Voters was studying in grad school back in 1986? Because I'm finding it difficult to believe somebody who'd gotten to grad school would not realize that if you're registered to vote in Amherst, you can't just show up and vote in Cambridge (at least, not yet). If it's anything related to political science, or sociology or any other field that requires some working knowledge of our political system, she might want to find another example to use to push the bill.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
there's something else at play here...
"The credible pressure of same-day matriculation is ginormous."
Vote by Mail
I've had to chuckle at statements like "When Oregonians go to the polls today ...".
Oregon has had vote by mail for a number of years. Not only does it drive up participation, it takes care of the "just moved" problem rather nicely.
I don't think it would fly here ... too much is put on the ability to hold a sign in somebody's face.
"I felt sad..." Apparently,
"I felt sad..."
Apparently, it didn't occur to her to feel like a dumbass. If you're registered in Amherst, you vote in Amherst. But I'm expecting too much from a grad student from Amherst, no?
Voters should have to
Voters should have to produce a valid ID, to protect against any fraudulent voting. We fought a war to guarantee our rights of representaion. It is not too much to ask someone to properly register to vote and produce identification.
"Our" rights of representation?
By "our," I assume you're referring to middle-class folks without disabilities? Because when I worked with DMH consumers, there were dozens of folks who couldn't get an ID because they weren't sure where they were born, didn't have the money to send away for the birth certificate, and so forth. These folks absolutely deserve to be represented. I'd venture to say that most legislation affects them more than it affects you or me. I don't currently have to worry that laws will be passed that will mean I no longer have housing or a way to spend my day or a way to get my basic personal needs met.
Two separate issues?
I think mail-in voter registration is a good idea. But that's not the same thing as being registered in one city and then trying to vote in another. If you move, you need to re-register in your new place of residence. I saw voter fraud first hand when someone who owned a condo in my building, but did not live there, repeatedly voted in Cambridge despite the fact that she lives in Fairhaven. I went to vote one day, and saw her name directly underneath mine on the voter list. I told the poll worker that that person didn't live in Cambridge and shouldn't be voting there; I was instructed to tell the Election Commission. I did, and they brought her in for a hearing and removed her from the Cambridge voting rolls. These things make me lean toward requiring an ID to vote. I don't think it's a terrible hardship for most people--the state issues a non-driving ID and most people can usually come up with some form of ID. I don't see it as an attempt to keep people away from the polls, rather it's just an attempt to make sure tht you are indeed eligible to vote in a particular location.
Two separate issues indeed
Can you think of a reason the woman you cited would have been unable to present identification? I can't. She was just who she said she was, and if she could register to vote in Cambridge, she could get a driver's license there too.
So the solution you propose doesn't solve the problem you noted.
Two separate issues: you're right
In this case, you're right, at least in part. She had been gaming the system in Cambridge for a long time--something that was discovered after I went to the Election Commission about her. Because she was a condo owner in Cambridge, she (illegally) obtained a resident parking sticker. She was able to do that because she had select pieces of mail (utility bills, etc) mailed to her Cambridge condo. She also (illegally) insured her car in Cambridge. So when she continued to vote it all looked legitimate, despite the fact that she had moved from Cambridge nearly eight years before. I think IDs are needed at the polls, but what is also needed is a way to cross-check across cities and towns; that is, make sure someone isn't voting twice or isn't on the rolls in another town. While I don't think that will happen any time soon, I still think asking for basic identification is not unreasonable.
The problem
The problem with posing a solution that doesn't address the identified problem is that the solution may pose problems of its own. In the end you have more problems, not fewer.
Voter fraud is pretty rare. Polls have lists of the people registered to vote against neighborhood addresses, and they check them off as people vote. There are two ways vote fraud can be committed in this system: get your name on the polls fraudulently, or identify yourself fraudulently as a person legitimately on the list.
If you can get yourself on the list fraudulently, you can get ID, as this woman did, and checking that ID won't help prevent the fraud. If you are actually impersonating a registered voter, then checking ID would help, but then again this is a more difficult way to do it, because you have to not only know the name and address of a registered voter, but you have to be sure that person is not voting and is not known to the poll workers. I doubt that happens very often. In fact, almost all reports of vote fraud boil down to clerical errors.
The good expected from a law - in this case, very little - must be balanced against the harm. There are plenty of decent folks here in America who don't have driver's licenses or the equivalent, and shouldn't have to go get one just so they can keep voting. Placing such a requirement on them, especially at the poll itself, is more likely to keep people from voting than to reduce fraud at the poll.