|
 |
Should fewer people
be voting?
By Jim Surber
Democracy is a system of government where the people are responsible
for determining the course and actions their nation will take. This
can, in theory, happen through direct democracy where the people vote
on nearly every issue that arises.
However, as no pure direct democracy exists in the world, the other
alternative is indirect democracy, where people vote to elect
representatives, who then in turn make the majority of decisions for
the country.
Democracy may indeed be about “every individual having a voice,” but
America’s founders never intended this country to be a pure democracy,
which they equated with mob rule. Since its founding, the United States
has been the indirect type of democracy, and has taken pride in the
fact that its citizens are able to vote for its leaders, particularly
the President.
This nation is a self-proclaimed beacon of hope and freedom for the
world, and holds itself as the model for how democratic nations should
be run. But an interesting situation exists. The proportion of our
citizens that actually vote in elections has decreased dramatically
over the past several decades, raising two important questions. How can
a country claim to be the role-model for democracies in the world, and
yet have declining participation in one of the key elements of
democratic rule, namely voting? Is less voter participation good or
bad, and should voting be limited further?
One idea that has been around since the founding fathers is that voting
should be restricted to the “right” people, or the people who “deserve”
to have a say in how government functions. Some would probably like to
return to this practice of giving the power of the vote to only white,
land-owning, middle-aged and older men. It seems that some people are
still doing their damnedest to figure out how to make this happen.
Instead of the voters picking the leaders, there are actions which will
allow the leaders to pick the voters.
The latest case in point is Ohio HB 194, known by some as the “photo ID
bill,” and by others as the “voter suppression act.” Like the
controversial SB 5, this was passed by the majority political party in
Columbus and will become the law of Ohio in October, unless a specified
number of signatures are filed to place it in referendum for the 2012
election.
One aspect of this bill is the requirement for a government-issued
photo ID card before a person can vote. This provision either ignores,
or takes advantage of, the number of citizens who do not have one,
since it would not recognize an employer-issued card and does not
provide for a Board of Elections or other agency to issue one upon
request. Never mind the irony of the “rights vs. privileges” crowd who
passed this law requiring that some people would have to purchase a
card at their own expense, just to exercise their right to vote. But
that is not all this law would restrict.
The mail-in period for absentee ballots would decrease from the current
35 days to 21. The number of days that people can vote early at their
boards of elections would shrink from the current 35 to 14. It also
cuts out the three busiest days for in-person voting: the Saturday,
Sunday and Monday before Election Day. At polling places with multiple
precincts, it relieves poll workers of the obligation to redirect
people who come to the wrong precinct table to vote. It further ends
the practice of some counties that mail an absentee ballot application
to every registered voter.
Like in Ohio, many GOP-controlled state legislatures have recently
passed “voter ID” laws which will disenfranchise thousands of elderly,
disabled and low-income voters. They typically justify these laws by
claiming that they are necessary to combat voter fraud at the polls;
but in-person voter fraud is only slightly more common than unicorns.
In some countries, wealthy people can buy elections the honest way; by
bribing election officials to stuff the ballot boxes, or to discard the
votes of uncooperative citizens. That does not happen in the US, or at
least not often. More likely the voters regularly “sell” their votes to
the candidate with the most expensive campaign.
Supporters of HB 194 either honestly or craftily believe that we need
to minimize the participation of some voters. Many believe we have so
many uninformed voters because our educational system has failed us,
the entire nation has been “dumbed-down,” and our sense of values has
practically disappeared.
There are other relevant beliefs and observations. Some argue that
while most people work for their living; others only vote for theirs.
It is noted that politicians who promise less government, usually
deliver bad government after getting elected. Still others contend that
the other party “steals” elections when more people vote; never mind
that whole democracy thing.
The only certainties are that those running for office, regardless of
party, take advantage of and manipulate all voters to varying degrees,
depending on the skills and personality of the candidates, funding, and
the cleverness of their handlers.
Regardless of anyone’s political affiliation, they should be informed
about HB 194 because it limits the progress (or mistake?) Ohio has made
to make voting more easy, convenient and accessible. Unless of course
they believe that fewer people should be voting and specifically those
people that this law would affect.
It has been said, “Democracy is not about taking the most educated
portion of the society and having them decide who’s going to run the
entire society. Democracy is about every individual having a voice.”
All people know their own lives better than anyone else, so should they
vote based upon what they DO know? It may not be how you or I
would vote, but they have a right and duty to do so.
It is now up to Ohio’s people to either allow HB 194 to become law in a
few weeks; or like SB 5, to bring the decision to the people in the
democratic process of an election.
|
|
|
|
