GOOD MORNING FLINT! 10/07/12- POLITICIANS STOP FUSSING!
I THINK MAKING TOO MUCH OF A FUSS AND DOUBT ABOUT THE RIGHT TO VOTE WILL KEEP VOTERS HOME.
THE REAL PROBLEM :Republicans taking to the airway talking about illusionary voter fraud and CLAMP DOWNs combined with Democrats taking to the airways making a big deal about minimal barriers pronouncing their election day war to stop the taking away of your right to vote equally creates psychological barriers causing voters, Ma and Pa kettle to not vote because IT IS JUST TOO MUCH FUSS.
This article assembled and commented on by Flint Divorce / Bankruptcy Attorney Terry Bankert 235-1970. I am an election protection volunteer and former Flint Municipal City Clerk.
OR IS THE FUSS WORTH IT?
[W]e're in 2012, and the Republicans are resurrecting the same tactics used in far less enlightened times. Under the threat of voter fraud -- something that again and again has been proven almost nonexistent -- they have proposed draconian laws requiring voters to have certain kinds of ID, that restrict early voting, and restrict the hours polls are open.[[8]]
Since the beginning of 2011, at least 180 restrictive bills have been introduced in 41 states. The vast majority of them were designed by Republicans and would disproportionately affect blacks, Latinos, working-class and low-income voters. In other words, voters who vote for Democrats.[[8]]
VOTER SUPPRESSION IS NOT OKAY
...voter suppression... a mortal threat to American democracy.[[6]]
IF YOU DECIDE NOT TO VOTE THATS OKAY!
If a United States Citizens Decides to not register to vote that is their right.
If a registered voter in the United States decides not to vote in a particular election that is their right.
Intentional voter suppression is not okay!
MY WORKING DEFINITION OF VOTER SUPPRESSION- POLITICS OR THE SYSTEM ITSELF CREATING BARRIERS EXPLICITLY OR IMPLICITLY, REAL OR IMAGINED THAT MOTIVATES A VOTER TO NOT VOTE BASED ON FEAR, INTIMIDATION OR JUST MAKING IT TOO MUCH OF A FUSS TO VOTE.
Democrats should be telling voters how easy we will make it TO VOTE. That we will be there to help, not to worry about these bad Republicans. We must convince the voter nothing is going to happen to keep them from voting. These Tea Party Elite Romney Republicans are just talking political stuff. But what are Democrats doing ? We are gearing for election day battle to stop Republican suppression and communicating this to voters creating imagery of election day conflict which in itself will keep voters home from all that fuss. Just what are we thinking?
NOTES FOLLOW FOR YOU TO FOR YOU OWN OPINION
Voter suppression is a strategy to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing people from exercising their right to vote.[[1]]
It is distinguished from political campaigning in that campaigning attempts to change likely voting behavior by changing the opinions of potential voters through persuasion and organization. [[1]]
Voter suppression instead attempts to reduce the number of voters who might vote against the candidate or proposition advocated by the suppressors.[[1]]
The tactics of voter suppression can range from minor "dirty tricks" that make voting inconvenient, up to blatantly illegal activities that physically intimidate prospective voters to prevent them from casting ballots. [[1]]
Voter suppression could be particularly effective if a significant amount of voters are intimidated individually because the voter might not consider his or her single vote important.[citation needed] [[1]]
REAL COURT BATTLES ARE NECESSARY AND ONGOING TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth circuit restored early voting in Ohio on Friday. The court decision restores voting for the 3-day period before Election Day. The court decision is a win for voter rights and a win for Obama.[[3]]
Bob Bauer, general counsel for Obama for America, said “With today’s decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Ohio joins Wisconsin, Florida, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania as states that turned back restrictions on voter access and limitations on voter participation.”[[3]]
Bloomberg News reported there are at least 15 cases pending nationally over voter restriction issues including early voting, registration and photo identification requirements in the run-up to the November 6 election. [[3]]
"There is no right more fundamental to our republic than the right to vote," Louis-Dreyfus wrote in his message. "And yet there is a countrywide effort to prevent hundreds of thousands of people from voting. Many supporters of that suppression effort have admitted or implied that its purpose is to win an election by preventing voters thought to be of a different political persuasion from voting at all." [[6]]
Indeed, Republicans around the country have passed legislation and encouraged moves to require voters to provide photo ID, restrict voter registration, eliminate early voting, purge voter rolls and send pollwatchers into minority precincts. These measures are all ostensibly intended to prevent voter fraud, which is objectively a nonissue.[[6]]
HYPOTHESIS =TOO MUCH FUSS =VOTER SUPPRESSION=LOWER VOTER TURNOUT .
Voter turnout is the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in an election. (Who is eligible varies by country, and should not be confused with the total adult population. For example, some countries discriminate based on sex, race, and/or religion. Age and citizenship are usually among the criteria.) After increasing for many decades, there has been a trend of decreasing voter turnout in most established democracies since the 1960s.[1] [[2]]
In general, low turnout may be due to disenchantment, indifference, or contentment. Low turnout is often considered to be undesirable, and there is much debate over the factors that affect turnout and how to increase it. In spite of significant study into the issue, scholars are divided on reasons for the decline. Its cause has been attributed to a wide array ofeconomic, demographic, cultural, technological, and institutional factors. There have been many efforts to increase turnout and encourage voting.[[2]]
We have a rich history of creating barriers to voting.
many Republican lawmakers have focused on making it harder to vote. The GOP takeover of several state houses in 2010 was followed by 19 new laws requiring votersto show photo IDs at the polls, rolling back early voting, and impeding the registration of new voters. Similarly, Republicans have pushed to purge voter rollsand are preparing to send pollwatchers to certain precincts.[[9]]
Photo ID laws require voters to present a government-approved photo ID before they may cast their ballots. Countries including Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, Malta,[3] and seven US states have such laws, including Indiana and Georgia.[4][dead link] [[1]]
Unlike in the United States, national identification is commonplace in these European nations and a longstanding infrastructure exists to ensure all voters are issued identification at no cost.[3][[1]]
Supporters of photo ID laws contend that the photographic IDs (such as driver's licenses or student IDs (in some states) from state schools) are nearly universal, and that presenting them is a minor inconvenience when weighed against the possibility of ineligible voters affecting elections.[[1]]
Opponents argue that photo ID requirements disproportionately affect minority, handicapped and elderly voters who don't normally maintain driver's licenses, and therefore that requiring such groups to obtain and keep track of photo IDs that are otherwise unneeded is a suppression tactic aimed at those groups.[5] [[1]]
Indiana's photo ID law barred twelve retired nuns in South Bend, Indiana from voting in that state's 2008 Democratic primary election. The women lacked the photo IDs required under a state law that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2008. John Borkowski, a South Bend lawyer volunteering as an election watchdog for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said, "This law was passed supposedly to prevent and deter voter fraud, even though there was no real record of serious voter fraud in Indiana."[6][7] [[1]]
Proponents of a similar law proposed for Texas in March 2009 also argued that photo identification was necessary to prevent widespread voter fraud. Opponents respond that there is no evidence of such voter fraud in Texas, so no remedy is required, especially if such a remedy would decrease voting by senior citizens, the disabled, and lower-income residents. Opponents cited a study asserting that 1 million of the state's 13.5 million registered voters do not have a photo ID.[4][dead link][[1]]
State Sen. Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay) said, "Voter fraud not only is alive and well in the U.S., but also alive and well in Texas. The danger of voter fraud threatens the integrity of the entire electoral process." Democratic Caucus Chairwoman Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio) said the proposed law "is not about voter fraud. There is no voter fraud. This is about voter suppression." Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) spent $1.4 million investigating voter fraud and from 2002 - 2012 brought 311 accusations of voter fraud to the attorney general's office. 57 cases have been resolved, and among the many convictions were four cases of voter impersonation - arguably the type of fraud that photo ID laws would prevent.[8][9] [[1]]
Legislation to impose restrictive photo ID requirements has been prepared by the conservative organization ALEC and circulated to conservative state legislators.[5] This legislation includes provisions to provide photo IDs free of charge for those who do not currently have them.
In 2011, more than 100 Democratic members of Congress urged the Department of Justice to oppose such legislation, arguing that it "has the potential to block millions of eligible American voters, and thus suppress the right to vote."[10] [[1]]
In 2011, Texas enacted a photo-identification requirement modeled after Indiana's, and provides voter ID cards free of charge so no Texan's voting rights will be affected.[11] [[1]]
PREDICTORS: Lower educated more likely to not vote because of voter suppression. Too much fuss.
Socioeconomic factors significantly affect whether or not individuals develop the habit of voting. The most important socioeconomic factor affecting voter turnout is education.[[2]]
The more educated a person is, the more likely he or she is to vote, even controlling for other factors that are closely associated with education level, such as income and class. Income has some effect independently: wealthier people are more likely to vote, regardless of their educational background. There is some debate over the effects of ethnicity, race, and gender. In the past, these factors unquestionably influenced turnout in many nations, but nowadays the consensus among political scientists is that these factors have little effect in Western democracies when education and income differences are taken into account.[23] [[2]]
However, since different ethnic groups typically have different levels of education and income, there are important differences in turnout between such groups in many societies. Other demographic factors have an important influence: young people are far less likely to vote than the elderly; and single people are less likely to vote than those who are married.[citation needed] Occupation has little effect on turnout, with the notable exception of higher voting rates among government employees in many countries.[23] [[2]]
Prior to the 2008 United States Presidential Election, on September 16, 2008, Obama legal counsel announced that they would be seeking an injunction to stop an alleged caging scheme in Michigan wherein the state Republican party would use home foreclosure lists to challenge voters still using their foreclosed home as a primary address at the polls.[38] Michigan GOP officials called the suit "desperate."[39] A Federal Appeals court ordered the reinstatement of 5,500 voters wrongly purged from the voter rolls by the State:[37] [[1]]
High voter turnout is often considered to be desirable, though among political scientists and economists specialising in public choice, the issue is still debated.[14] A high turnout is generally seen as evidence of the legitimacy of the current system. Dictators have often fabricated high turnouts in showcase elections for this purpose. For instance, Saddam Hussein's 2002 referendum was claimed to have had 100% participation.[15] [[2]]
Personally I do not want 100% voter registration and 100%turnout. Let the population select its own equilibrium. We are better off for it. But thats another story.
Opposition parties sometimes boycott votes they feel are unfair or illegitimate, or if the election is for a government that is considered illegitimate. For example, the Holy See instructed Italian Catholics to boycott national elections for several decades after the creation of the State of Italy.[16] In some countries, there are threats of violence against those who vote, such as during the 2005 Iraq elections, an example of voter suppression. However, some political scientists question the view that high turnout is an implicit endorsement of the system. Mark N. Franklin contends that in European Union elections opponents of the federation, and of its legitimacy, are just as likely to vote as proponents.[17][[2]]
Many countries have looked into internet voting as a possible solution for low voter turnout. Some countries like France and Switzerland use internet voting. However, it has only been used sparingly by a few states in the US. This is due largely to security concerns, although the US Department of Defense has been looking into making internet voting secure. The idea would be that voter turnout would increase because people could cast their vote from the comfort of their own homes. The United States is looking into implementing this plan slowly, and it would happen state by state.[48] [[2]
As we learned in 2000, we need boots on the ground to make sure that voters are allowed to vote. Day-of-election suppression was rampant in 2000, and might be again this year, especially in battleground states -- and battleground counties.[[8]]
I am doing my part as an attorney in three elections I have taken the day off and worked at a voting precinct for Election Protection. I will do the same in 2008.
I hope that my actions will help show those passing voter-suppression laws, that Americans believe in a fair and just system much more than gaming this great gift, the vote, we inherited from our ancestors.[[SEE 8]]
ITS WORTH THE FUSS!
SOURCES
[[1]]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression
[[2]]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout
[[3]]
http://www.policymic.com/articles/16009/voter-suppression-laws-overturned-in-battleground-states-a-win-for-the-american-people-and-obama
[[4]]
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-05/obama-campaign-wins-at-appeals-court-on-ohio-early-voting
[[5]]
http://067.housedems.com/news/article/house-dems-oppose-bills-aimed-at-suppressing-voter-turnout
[[6]]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/william-louis-dreyfus-rich-voter-suppression_n_1932878.html
[[7]]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/voting-rights
[[8]]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/majora-carter/vote-for-obamabecause-the_b_1943819.html?utm_hp_ref=voting-rights
[[9]]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/voter-suppression-william-louis-dreyfus_n_1936966.html?utm_hp_ref=voting-rights
Sphere: Related Content
I THINK MAKING TOO MUCH OF A FUSS AND DOUBT ABOUT THE RIGHT TO VOTE WILL KEEP VOTERS HOME.
THE REAL PROBLEM :Republicans taking to the airway talking about illusionary voter fraud and CLAMP DOWNs combined with Democrats taking to the airways making a big deal about minimal barriers pronouncing their election day war to stop the taking away of your right to vote equally creates psychological barriers causing voters, Ma and Pa kettle to not vote because IT IS JUST TOO MUCH FUSS.
This article assembled and commented on by Flint Divorce / Bankruptcy Attorney Terry Bankert 235-1970. I am an election protection volunteer and former Flint Municipal City Clerk.
OR IS THE FUSS WORTH IT?
[W]e're in 2012, and the Republicans are resurrecting the same tactics used in far less enlightened times. Under the threat of voter fraud -- something that again and again has been proven almost nonexistent -- they have proposed draconian laws requiring voters to have certain kinds of ID, that restrict early voting, and restrict the hours polls are open.[[8]]
Since the beginning of 2011, at least 180 restrictive bills have been introduced in 41 states. The vast majority of them were designed by Republicans and would disproportionately affect blacks, Latinos, working-class and low-income voters. In other words, voters who vote for Democrats.[[8]]
VOTER SUPPRESSION IS NOT OKAY
...voter suppression... a mortal threat to American democracy.[[6]]
IF YOU DECIDE NOT TO VOTE THATS OKAY!
If a United States Citizens Decides to not register to vote that is their right.
If a registered voter in the United States decides not to vote in a particular election that is their right.
Intentional voter suppression is not okay!
MY WORKING DEFINITION OF VOTER SUPPRESSION- POLITICS OR THE SYSTEM ITSELF CREATING BARRIERS EXPLICITLY OR IMPLICITLY, REAL OR IMAGINED THAT MOTIVATES A VOTER TO NOT VOTE BASED ON FEAR, INTIMIDATION OR JUST MAKING IT TOO MUCH OF A FUSS TO VOTE.
Democrats should be telling voters how easy we will make it TO VOTE. That we will be there to help, not to worry about these bad Republicans. We must convince the voter nothing is going to happen to keep them from voting. These Tea Party Elite Romney Republicans are just talking political stuff. But what are Democrats doing ? We are gearing for election day battle to stop Republican suppression and communicating this to voters creating imagery of election day conflict which in itself will keep voters home from all that fuss. Just what are we thinking?
NOTES FOLLOW FOR YOU TO FOR YOU OWN OPINION
Voter suppression is a strategy to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing people from exercising their right to vote.[[1]]
It is distinguished from political campaigning in that campaigning attempts to change likely voting behavior by changing the opinions of potential voters through persuasion and organization. [[1]]
Voter suppression instead attempts to reduce the number of voters who might vote against the candidate or proposition advocated by the suppressors.[[1]]
The tactics of voter suppression can range from minor "dirty tricks" that make voting inconvenient, up to blatantly illegal activities that physically intimidate prospective voters to prevent them from casting ballots. [[1]]
Voter suppression could be particularly effective if a significant amount of voters are intimidated individually because the voter might not consider his or her single vote important.[citation needed] [[1]]
REAL COURT BATTLES ARE NECESSARY AND ONGOING TO PROTECT YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth circuit restored early voting in Ohio on Friday. The court decision restores voting for the 3-day period before Election Day. The court decision is a win for voter rights and a win for Obama.[[3]]
Bob Bauer, general counsel for Obama for America, said “With today’s decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Ohio joins Wisconsin, Florida, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania as states that turned back restrictions on voter access and limitations on voter participation.”[[3]]
Bloomberg News reported there are at least 15 cases pending nationally over voter restriction issues including early voting, registration and photo identification requirements in the run-up to the November 6 election. [[3]]
"There is no right more fundamental to our republic than the right to vote," Louis-Dreyfus wrote in his message. "And yet there is a countrywide effort to prevent hundreds of thousands of people from voting. Many supporters of that suppression effort have admitted or implied that its purpose is to win an election by preventing voters thought to be of a different political persuasion from voting at all." [[6]]
Indeed, Republicans around the country have passed legislation and encouraged moves to require voters to provide photo ID, restrict voter registration, eliminate early voting, purge voter rolls and send pollwatchers into minority precincts. These measures are all ostensibly intended to prevent voter fraud, which is objectively a nonissue.[[6]]
HYPOTHESIS =TOO MUCH FUSS =VOTER SUPPRESSION=LOWER VOTER TURNOUT .
Voter turnout is the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot in an election. (Who is eligible varies by country, and should not be confused with the total adult population. For example, some countries discriminate based on sex, race, and/or religion. Age and citizenship are usually among the criteria.) After increasing for many decades, there has been a trend of decreasing voter turnout in most established democracies since the 1960s.[1] [[2]]
In general, low turnout may be due to disenchantment, indifference, or contentment. Low turnout is often considered to be undesirable, and there is much debate over the factors that affect turnout and how to increase it. In spite of significant study into the issue, scholars are divided on reasons for the decline. Its cause has been attributed to a wide array ofeconomic, demographic, cultural, technological, and institutional factors. There have been many efforts to increase turnout and encourage voting.[[2]]
We have a rich history of creating barriers to voting.
many Republican lawmakers have focused on making it harder to vote. The GOP takeover of several state houses in 2010 was followed by 19 new laws requiring votersto show photo IDs at the polls, rolling back early voting, and impeding the registration of new voters. Similarly, Republicans have pushed to purge voter rollsand are preparing to send pollwatchers to certain precincts.[[9]]
Impediments to voter registration
Laws or administrative practices have made it more difficult for people to register to vote. In 2011, the state of Florida imposed a short deadline for the submission of voter registration forms, with stiff penalties for late filing.[1] The bill led to the end of voter registration work by one organization, the League of Women Voters, whose spokesperson said, "Despite the fact that the League of Women Voters is one of the nation’s most respected civic organizations, with a 91-year history of registering and educating voters, we will be unable to comply with the egregious provisions contained in [this bill]."[2][[1]]Here we will look at Photo ID laws
Photo ID laws require voters to present a government-approved photo ID before they may cast their ballots. Countries including Belgium, Spain, Greece, Italy, Malta,[3] and seven US states have such laws, including Indiana and Georgia.[4][dead link] [[1]]
Unlike in the United States, national identification is commonplace in these European nations and a longstanding infrastructure exists to ensure all voters are issued identification at no cost.[3][[1]]
Supporters of photo ID laws contend that the photographic IDs (such as driver's licenses or student IDs (in some states) from state schools) are nearly universal, and that presenting them is a minor inconvenience when weighed against the possibility of ineligible voters affecting elections.[[1]]
Opponents argue that photo ID requirements disproportionately affect minority, handicapped and elderly voters who don't normally maintain driver's licenses, and therefore that requiring such groups to obtain and keep track of photo IDs that are otherwise unneeded is a suppression tactic aimed at those groups.[5] [[1]]
Indiana's photo ID law barred twelve retired nuns in South Bend, Indiana from voting in that state's 2008 Democratic primary election. The women lacked the photo IDs required under a state law that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in April 2008. John Borkowski, a South Bend lawyer volunteering as an election watchdog for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said, "This law was passed supposedly to prevent and deter voter fraud, even though there was no real record of serious voter fraud in Indiana."[6][7] [[1]]
Proponents of a similar law proposed for Texas in March 2009 also argued that photo identification was necessary to prevent widespread voter fraud. Opponents respond that there is no evidence of such voter fraud in Texas, so no remedy is required, especially if such a remedy would decrease voting by senior citizens, the disabled, and lower-income residents. Opponents cited a study asserting that 1 million of the state's 13.5 million registered voters do not have a photo ID.[4][dead link][[1]]
State Sen. Troy Fraser (R-Horseshoe Bay) said, "Voter fraud not only is alive and well in the U.S., but also alive and well in Texas. The danger of voter fraud threatens the integrity of the entire electoral process." Democratic Caucus Chairwoman Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio) said the proposed law "is not about voter fraud. There is no voter fraud. This is about voter suppression." Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) spent $1.4 million investigating voter fraud and from 2002 - 2012 brought 311 accusations of voter fraud to the attorney general's office. 57 cases have been resolved, and among the many convictions were four cases of voter impersonation - arguably the type of fraud that photo ID laws would prevent.[8][9] [[1]]
Legislation to impose restrictive photo ID requirements has been prepared by the conservative organization ALEC and circulated to conservative state legislators.[5] This legislation includes provisions to provide photo IDs free of charge for those who do not currently have them.
In 2011, more than 100 Democratic members of Congress urged the Department of Justice to oppose such legislation, arguing that it "has the potential to block millions of eligible American voters, and thus suppress the right to vote."[10] [[1]]
In 2011, Texas enacted a photo-identification requirement modeled after Indiana's, and provides voter ID cards free of charge so no Texan's voting rights will be affected.[11] [[1]]
PREDICTORS: Lower educated more likely to not vote because of voter suppression. Too much fuss.
Socioeconomic factors significantly affect whether or not individuals develop the habit of voting. The most important socioeconomic factor affecting voter turnout is education.[[2]]
The more educated a person is, the more likely he or she is to vote, even controlling for other factors that are closely associated with education level, such as income and class. Income has some effect independently: wealthier people are more likely to vote, regardless of their educational background. There is some debate over the effects of ethnicity, race, and gender. In the past, these factors unquestionably influenced turnout in many nations, but nowadays the consensus among political scientists is that these factors have little effect in Western democracies when education and income differences are taken into account.[23] [[2]]
However, since different ethnic groups typically have different levels of education and income, there are important differences in turnout between such groups in many societies. Other demographic factors have an important influence: young people are far less likely to vote than the elderly; and single people are less likely to vote than those who are married.[citation needed] Occupation has little effect on turnout, with the notable exception of higher voting rates among government employees in many countries.[23] [[2]]
Michigan 2008 VOTER SUPPRESSION REVERSED IN COURT
Prior to the 2008 United States Presidential Election, on September 16, 2008, Obama legal counsel announced that they would be seeking an injunction to stop an alleged caging scheme in Michigan wherein the state Republican party would use home foreclosure lists to challenge voters still using their foreclosed home as a primary address at the polls.[38] Michigan GOP officials called the suit "desperate."[39] A Federal Appeals court ordered the reinstatement of 5,500 voters wrongly purged from the voter rolls by the State:[37] [[1]]
High voter turnout is often considered to be desirable, though among political scientists and economists specialising in public choice, the issue is still debated.[14] A high turnout is generally seen as evidence of the legitimacy of the current system. Dictators have often fabricated high turnouts in showcase elections for this purpose. For instance, Saddam Hussein's 2002 referendum was claimed to have had 100% participation.[15] [[2]]
Personally I do not want 100% voter registration and 100%turnout. Let the population select its own equilibrium. We are better off for it. But thats another story.
Opposition parties sometimes boycott votes they feel are unfair or illegitimate, or if the election is for a government that is considered illegitimate. For example, the Holy See instructed Italian Catholics to boycott national elections for several decades after the creation of the State of Italy.[16] In some countries, there are threats of violence against those who vote, such as during the 2005 Iraq elections, an example of voter suppression. However, some political scientists question the view that high turnout is an implicit endorsement of the system. Mark N. Franklin contends that in European Union elections opponents of the federation, and of its legitimacy, are just as likely to vote as proponents.[17][[2]]
Ease of voting
Ease of voting is a factor in rates of turnout. In the United States and most Latin American nations, voters must go through separate voter registration procedures before they are allowed to vote. This two-step process quite clearly decreases turnout. U.S. states with no, or easier, registration requirements have larger turnouts.[47] Other methods of improving turnout include making voting easier through more available absentee polling and improved access to polls, such as increasing the number of possible voting locations, lowering the average time voters have to spend waiting in line, or requiring companies to give workers some time off on voting day[which?]. In some areas, generally those where some polling centres are relatively inaccessible, such as India, elections often take several days. Some countries have considered internet voting as a possible solution. In other countries, like France, voting is held on the weekend, when most voters are away from work. Therefore, the need for time off from work as a factor in voter turnout is greatly reduced.[[2]Many countries have looked into internet voting as a possible solution for low voter turnout. Some countries like France and Switzerland use internet voting. However, it has only been used sparingly by a few states in the US. This is due largely to security concerns, although the US Department of Defense has been looking into making internet voting secure. The idea would be that voter turnout would increase because people could cast their vote from the comfort of their own homes. The United States is looking into implementing this plan slowly, and it would happen state by state.[48] [[2]
As we learned in 2000, we need boots on the ground to make sure that voters are allowed to vote. Day-of-election suppression was rampant in 2000, and might be again this year, especially in battleground states -- and battleground counties.[[8]]
I am doing my part as an attorney in three elections I have taken the day off and worked at a voting precinct for Election Protection. I will do the same in 2008.
I hope that my actions will help show those passing voter-suppression laws, that Americans believe in a fair and just system much more than gaming this great gift, the vote, we inherited from our ancestors.[[SEE 8]]
ITS WORTH THE FUSS!
SOURCES
[[1]]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression
[[2]]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout
[[3]]
http://www.policymic.com/articles/16009/voter-suppression-laws-overturned-in-battleground-states-a-win-for-the-american-people-and-obama
[[4]]
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-05/obama-campaign-wins-at-appeals-court-on-ohio-early-voting
[[5]]
http://067.housedems.com/news/article/house-dems-oppose-bills-aimed-at-suppressing-voter-turnout
[[6]]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/william-louis-dreyfus-rich-voter-suppression_n_1932878.html
[[7]]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/voting-rights
[[8]]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/majora-carter/vote-for-obamabecause-the_b_1943819.html?utm_hp_ref=voting-rights
[[9]]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/voter-suppression-william-louis-dreyfus_n_1936966.html?utm_hp_ref=voting-rights
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment