Wednesday, October 17, 2012

The Inequity Of Finally Voting

Fast forward to November 6.  We've listened to the debates, we've read all the analysis and hopefully sorted out all the misinformation. Now it's time to vote.

There has been a lot of controversy about how we should go about this.  Frankly, if the Federal Government wants to do something for the people, they should come up with a voting procedure applicable to the nation, implement it and enforce it.  It is, however, no easy matter.

A lot of the controversy revolves around voter identification.  One fear is it might lead to a national identification card.  Actually I have no problem with that if it would also serve as a national driver's license among other things.  But I digress.  With the over abundance of illegals in the country siphoning off our tax dollars and abusing what should be citizen only privileges, it is suspected that many also vote.  In some states they are actually allowed to vote in local elections.  I don't agree with that practice, voting should be for legal citizens only.  How do we accomplish that without a concrete form of identification and at what stage must it be produced? At registration would seem to be the most reasonable but then when you actually vote would be an added safeguard.

There is a wide range of voter I.D. laws across the country. Everything from photo to none at all. To go even further, it's not even consistent within many states as to how you register, vote absentee or in person. What sense does it make to have to show I.D. when you vote in person but not have to when you mail in your ballot or when you register?

The video shows not only how easy if is to register in Minnesota, but how utterly without concern the election workers seem to be. One worker admitted any fraud discovered would be after the fact and caveated that after all they are not the police.

A lot of states have only mail in voting.  Others resist the method for fear it will lead to fraud.  I wonder what safeguards are in place for those states that have it?  Even for those who don't, but where one can still vote absentee by merely asking for a ballot by mail certainly aren't immune from shenanigans.

Considering all the time, money and effort that is poured into the campaigns,  all the voter has to put up with and sift through to make an informed decision, I'd like to think that whoever ultimately wins does so in a fair election process.

We worry about it so much with emerging nations that we often send observers to make sure everything is fair and square.  Why don't we do the same here?  Or is this when we say, "Do as we say, not as we do"?


1 comment:

Tommy said...

Mari, I find it interesting that no one has chimed in on this one.

Maybe the truth hurts...