Is the goal to keep people from voting?
I get really upset when I read about how we need to tighten laws concerning voting. So many people seem to want to make it more difficult to vote. They feel that people could be voting more than once or that someone is voting who shouldn't be. So what?
We need to worry about the 65% - or more - of our population that isn't voting. We need to make it easier to vote: Same-day registration is a must. We need to allow more than one day for voting and perhaps consider voting by phone or computer. If we get 80% or more voting, one or two voting in error are inconsequential.
We also need to be assured that our votes are being accurately counted - having a paper trail and uniform voting practices. A democracy requires trust in our elective processes.
A democracy requires no fear or confusion about voting. The alternative? The fear of someone voting who "shouldn't"? Perhaps those who want to make it harder to vote fear someone who is homeless voting. Or someone who has less education. Maybe we should only allow college graduates to vote. Maybe if people earn more than $100,000, they should be able to vote twice.
To have a democracy, we need to encourage all to vote and to feel a part of this country, not a forgotten disenfranchised minority.
Kathleen Ulbricht, Franklin
I wonder if this wasn't a high school student writing this letter. It reads like a piece cobbled together with "talking points" against Voter ID, which when put together reveals either the hypocrisy or naivete of the opponents of voter ID. There are also inconsistencies and contradictions.
We need to make it easier to vote: Same-day registration is a must. We need to allow more than one day for voting and perhaps consider voting by phone or computer.Then later says:
We also need to be assured that our votes are being accurately counted - having a paper trail and uniform voting practices.Pray tell, how do we get a "paper trail" from voting on the phone or on-line? How do we ensure people don't vote TWICE on-line? Oh, wait, that's "inconsequential." Better to get the numbers up than to have a valid, fair, and responsible voting process.
Oh, wait, the goal is to get that percentage of voters voting up? Well, how about if I come back just before the polls close, look up which of my neighbors haven't voted, and vote for them? Doesn't matter, right? I'm sure my neighbor is all for me voting for a Republican on his/her behalf.
Kathleen, here's a thought. Why didn't Al Gore want the military vote counted in 2000? The goal is that everyone gets a vote, right? Of course liberals like "do-overs"--Floridians claim they mistakenly voted for a candidate other than Al Gore so we study all those chads to divine "intent." The Democratic Party warned states they would lose delegates if they didn't adhere to the primary schedule--but now they want a "do-over" of the Michigan and Florida primaries (at tax-payer expense, no less).
And why is the "anti-tobacco" party passing out cigarettes for votes anyway?
But we know liberal Democrats do not want fair and free elections and honest voting. They want votes that go their way. Notice how Hillary is trying the rig the system? And what is all that "super-delegate" garbage anyway? And how does an undergraduate at Marquette become a super-delegate?