Opponents of voter ID requirements like to cite disenfrachisement as their main concern but there's no evidence that such laws disenfranchise anyone except people trying to commit fraud. Plaintiffs in anti-ID cases in both Indiana and Georgia could not produce a single registered voter who would be unable to vote because of the new laws. The population of the two states combined exceeds 10.5 million yet opponents, including the Georgia NAACP, could not find a single person who would be adversely affected by the new voting requirements.
Further, this alleged disenfrachisement is generally accepted as a conservative ploy to suppress the will of vulnerable groups in our society but in reality, minority votes have significantly increased in states with strict voter ID laws. The increase may be attributed to more confidence in the voting system. Or perhaps minorities, concerned by the liberal buzz that "the man" is trying to prevent them from voting, are mobilized en masse to make sure they vote. Maybe there is some other reason altogether but the bottom line is that minorities are voting in record numbers in states with strict voter ID requirements, for whatever reason. Do we really care why? Probably not. The important thing is that more Americans are exercising their right to vote, which is always a good thing, and that those votes can be validated as honest and authentic thanks to the new laws in those states.
Critics also like to claim that such laws are unnecessary because fraud rarely ever happens. They cite a lack of proven cases as evidence that no problem exists but in reality, we don't know how much fraud is happening because there's no way to prevent or identify most instances under our current system. Since we're simply taking everyone at their word that they are who they claim to be and are only casting one ballot, there's absolutely no way to know if votes are valid or fraudulent. Only by instituting a voter ID requirement will we ever be able to identify fraudulent votes.
Think of it this way: a patient goes to the doctor for a physical and the doctor pronounces him as healthy without doing any exam simply because the patient looks healthy. Had the physician performed a few simple tests, she would have seen that the patient has diabetes, cancer or heart disease. Voter ID is a simple test -- and the only way -- to detect debilitating disease in our voting system. Without it, we have no way to know it's happening thus no way to quantify it. The patient is sick whether he receives the test or not, the only variable is whether or not he knows he is sick. Likewise, our voting system may be diseased but we can't assess it's health (i.e., integrity) without running a simple test.
The current system is rife with opportunities for fraud but whether or not it's happening, we can't know. There is no logical or rational argument against voter ID requirements. There is no downside to safeguarding this critical American freedom. In addition to no downside, the positive results of strict voter ID laws have been significant and instantaneous. It's a win-win for all Americans and the only ones left out in the cold will be the frauds and those being electing by fraudulent votes.
Further, this alleged disenfrachisement is generally accepted as a conservative ploy to suppress the will of vulnerable groups in our society but in reality, minority votes have significantly increased in states with strict voter ID laws. The increase may be attributed to more confidence in the voting system. Or perhaps minorities, concerned by the liberal buzz that "the man" is trying to prevent them from voting, are mobilized en masse to make sure they vote. Maybe there is some other reason altogether but the bottom line is that minorities are voting in record numbers in states with strict voter ID requirements, for whatever reason. Do we really care why? Probably not. The important thing is that more Americans are exercising their right to vote, which is always a good thing, and that those votes can be validated as honest and authentic thanks to the new laws in those states.
Critics also like to claim that such laws are unnecessary because fraud rarely ever happens. They cite a lack of proven cases as evidence that no problem exists but in reality, we don't know how much fraud is happening because there's no way to prevent or identify most instances under our current system. Since we're simply taking everyone at their word that they are who they claim to be and are only casting one ballot, there's absolutely no way to know if votes are valid or fraudulent. Only by instituting a voter ID requirement will we ever be able to identify fraudulent votes.
Think of it this way: a patient goes to the doctor for a physical and the doctor pronounces him as healthy without doing any exam simply because the patient looks healthy. Had the physician performed a few simple tests, she would have seen that the patient has diabetes, cancer or heart disease. Voter ID is a simple test -- and the only way -- to detect debilitating disease in our voting system. Without it, we have no way to know it's happening thus no way to quantify it. The patient is sick whether he receives the test or not, the only variable is whether or not he knows he is sick. Likewise, our voting system may be diseased but we can't assess it's health (i.e., integrity) without running a simple test.
The current system is rife with opportunities for fraud but whether or not it's happening, we can't know. There is no logical or rational argument against voter ID requirements. There is no downside to safeguarding this critical American freedom. In addition to no downside, the positive results of strict voter ID laws have been significant and instantaneous. It's a win-win for all Americans and the only ones left out in the cold will be the frauds and those being electing by fraudulent votes.
1 comment:
Please do not construe my statement of a theoretical female physician slacking at her job as any indication that I don't believe women can be competent physicians. It was just brought to my attention that my hypothetical scenario may encourage additional crazy lefty attacks :) :) :)
Post a Comment