On any given day, you can be sure I'll pick up the Badger Herald over the Daily Cardinal. Not because of the news content of course, but because the Herald offers me Sudoku and my beloved Kakuro puzzles to get me through the longest of days. Besides, I can read both campus dailies online.
Anyway, the Gods of opinion writing decided to give us quite a haul yesterday, touching everything from concealed weapons in classrooms to health care (props to our own Suchita Shah). Even polygamy got a mention. But as Suchita has already touched upon Ms. Mikolajczak's preoccupation with concealed weapons in light of far more pressing issues, I'll draw your attention to Ryan Masse's insistence that we must prevent even a single instance of voter fraud, no matter the cost:
Long voting queues in urban areas were a visible and tangible problem in November '06, but the body of evidence suggesting fraud to be a significant issue is weak, at best. If you ask Democrats about this issue, they will tell you that there are trade-offs and costs associated with every policy aimed to improve voting integrity, and we will not be quick to deny 20 million voting-age Americans a chance to vote, without even any indication that we'll solve the entirety of the fraud "problem". After all, such crimes may very well be perpetrated by election administrators as well – ask any Republican about the Florida recount to understand why.
Next, Masse claims not to know which side is right in this debate. Then he goes on to depict voter fraud as the "significant and prevalent concern" that Republicans describe it to be – clearly he does know. His lack of understanding of the subject as a whole leads to his further proclamation of voting as a fundamental right. It is the lack of a defined and fundamental right to vote that allows such policies as this one. My anonymous comment that made it into today's issue tells him why. And of course, it's Democrats who are working to change that.
But of course, Masse goes on to claim, the court decision over Indiana's voter ID law proves that nobody is harmed by these laws, because Democrats couldn't find anyone that was harmed by the law! In fact, according to the Washington Post, the Democratic plaintiffs were denied the chance to substantiate their claims. Masse's legal analysis of the "problem" of voting fraud falls short of even his semantic appeal to the sanctity of voting rights. Democrats are working hard to ensure the integrity of our democratic process, and Masse's partisan rhetoric only serves to limit the prospects of intelligent debate on this subject. Disenfranchisement is not the solution to this problem, and I recommend Ryan Masse spend his time investigating bigger issues – those only Democrats seem content to deal with.
Anyway, the Gods of opinion writing decided to give us quite a haul yesterday, touching everything from concealed weapons in classrooms to health care (props to our own Suchita Shah). Even polygamy got a mention. But as Suchita has already touched upon Ms. Mikolajczak's preoccupation with concealed weapons in light of far more pressing issues, I'll draw your attention to Ryan Masse's insistence that we must prevent even a single instance of voter fraud, no matter the cost:
If you ask the average Democrat about voting fraud, you’ll almost certainly be told it’s not a big problem.Masse touches upon many important points in his piece, but some issues with his analysis cause me to question both his motives and his capacity to analyze this issue. First of all, Democrats will tell you that voting fraud is a problem, but that we also have concerns with disenfranchisement, the integrity of voting technology, and a host of other impediments to our democratic process. It just so happens that actual voter fraud has a less-significant impact on the integrity of our voting practices than other issues. Our first priority is to ensure that honest, hard-working Americans may vote easily.
Ask the same question to a Republican and chances are you’ll find out it’s a significant and prevalent concern.
Which side is right? I don’t know. Nor do I need to know, when contemplating the propriety of voter ID laws. Any voter fraud is a problem. The casting of a single fraudulent vote necessarily renders moot the casting of a legitimate one. Considering how fundamental a right voting is, don’t we owe it to ourselves to take steps to ensure the integrity of our elections?
Long voting queues in urban areas were a visible and tangible problem in November '06, but the body of evidence suggesting fraud to be a significant issue is weak, at best. If you ask Democrats about this issue, they will tell you that there are trade-offs and costs associated with every policy aimed to improve voting integrity, and we will not be quick to deny 20 million voting-age Americans a chance to vote, without even any indication that we'll solve the entirety of the fraud "problem". After all, such crimes may very well be perpetrated by election administrators as well – ask any Republican about the Florida recount to understand why.
Next, Masse claims not to know which side is right in this debate. Then he goes on to depict voter fraud as the "significant and prevalent concern" that Republicans describe it to be – clearly he does know. His lack of understanding of the subject as a whole leads to his further proclamation of voting as a fundamental right. It is the lack of a defined and fundamental right to vote that allows such policies as this one. My anonymous comment that made it into today's issue tells him why. And of course, it's Democrats who are working to change that.
But of course, Masse goes on to claim, the court decision over Indiana's voter ID law proves that nobody is harmed by these laws, because Democrats couldn't find anyone that was harmed by the law! In fact, according to the Washington Post, the Democratic plaintiffs were denied the chance to substantiate their claims. Masse's legal analysis of the "problem" of voting fraud falls short of even his semantic appeal to the sanctity of voting rights. Democrats are working hard to ensure the integrity of our democratic process, and Masse's partisan rhetoric only serves to limit the prospects of intelligent debate on this subject. Disenfranchisement is not the solution to this problem, and I recommend Ryan Masse spend his time investigating bigger issues – those only Democrats seem content to deal with.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home