I totally get and agree with your thoughts on this. However (there is always going to be a "however" on this topic)... I just don't understand why we make voting harder than it has to be or should be. On the surface, it would seem to be a pretty straight-forward process. I'm no expert but my gut tells me that there are two big areas of "suspicion" that need to be fixed to restore full reliability and trust in the voting process .... at least at the Federal level: 1) any time human hands are involved, there is ample opportunity for error and/or outright fraud that is not party dependent. It can, and probably has, happened both ways over time. And 2) machines are equally open to error / fraud via cyber intrusions, calibration, functionality, etc. So where does that leave us? I don't have that answer.
I am firmly in the camp of one "ELIGIBLE" person, one vote. The States are all over the map (literally) with their voting rules and processes for State and local level voting which doesn't help. North Dakota doesn't even require voter registration. From USA.gov... you can vote in Federal elections if:
- you are a U.S. citizen
- you meet your State's residency requirements (this is another problem area State to State)
- you are 18 years old on or before Election day
- you are registered to vote by your State's voter registration deadline (except N. Dakota)
You can't vote in Federal elections if:
- you're a non-citizen
- you've been convicted of a felony (rules are different in each state - more ambiguity)
- you have a mental disability (rules vary by state - more ambiguity)
- you are a U.S. citizen residing in a U.S. territory (you can't vote in the Presidential election)
Not mentioned on the website but assumed that to vote, you must also be a living breathing person. Although there are documented cases of votes being cast from the great beyond.
As indicated, the various State rules impact this greatly and cause a lot of consternation. That, when added to the two areas of potential error / fraud combine to make what should be an easy thing very complicated and open to all sorts of accusations regarding validity.
I have always failed to understand why there is so much angst against having to show identification that proves you are a U.S. citizen and/or a valid voter registered in a specific area. I know this statement gets into all the arguments about those who aren't able to get identification, etc. which in-turn would preclude a valid U.S. citizen their chance to vote. However, if we're going to fix this mess, we need to draw a definitive line somewhere that's enforceable and immune to error and fraud.
While most of our Presidential transitions of power have been smooth and relatively uneventful (not unemotional) we have a history of not getting this perfectly correct. In 1860 / 1861, the transfer between President Buchanan to newly elected President Lincoln was anything but smooth. There were serious challenges to the validity of the Electoral College votes putting Lincoln in the seat. A month after the election, S. Carolina held a statewide convention and unanimously voted to secede from the Union. Six more Southern states followed. We know where that led.
In 1932 / 1933 President Hoover's transition to President F.D. Roosevelt was pretty ugly. Hoover reportedly "did everything in his power to stand in the way of Roosevelt's New Deal." Roosevelt refused to collaborate with Hoover after blaming Hoover for the Great Depression.
More recently, 2000 / 2001, President Clinton's transition to President George W. Bush began our more contested election results. Who will ever forget the "hanging chads" in Florida and numerous challenges to the election results by Al Gore even after he had conceded to Bush. It took the Supreme Court to stop the Florida recount and Gore eventually conceded...again. There were many reports (substantiated) of an angry Clinton staff who left the White House in shambles to include ripping phones out of the walls, defacing bathrooms and removing the letter "W" from White House computer keyboards. The General Accounting Office determined over $15K worth of damage was done.
And of course the Obama / Trump transition and Jan 6th issues. We haven't gotten any better. No, our elections are not pretty. And this one will be no different... and possibly worse. It may take bi-partisan engagement to the level of effort it took to draft our Constitution to fix this in some meaningful way if we really want to protect our democracy and free-voting process going forward. And we need to do it. For centuries, we've stood on that one principal to define us as a Nation and separate us from dictatorships across the world. How can we continue to push that message if our own house is in disorder? Purple-inked thumbs from formerly oppressed countries will mean nothing if we can't be that beacon of hope to those who have never experienced true freedom.
I totally get and agree with your thoughts on this. However (there is always going to be a "however" on this topic)... I just don't understand why we make voting harder than it has to be or should be. On the surface, it would seem to be a pretty straight-forward process. I'm no expert but my gut tells me that there are two big areas of "suspicion" that need to be fixed to restore full reliability and trust in the voting process .... at least at the Federal level: 1) any time human hands are involved, there is ample opportunity for error and/or outright fraud that is not party dependent. It can, and probably has, happened both ways over time. And 2) machines are equally open to error / fraud via cyber intrusions, calibration, functionality, etc. So where does that leave us? I don't have that answer.
I am firmly in the camp of one "ELIGIBLE" person, one vote. The States are all over the map (literally) with their voting rules and processes for State and local level voting which doesn't help. North Dakota doesn't even require voter registration. From USA.gov... you can vote in Federal elections if:
- you are a U.S. citizen
- you meet your State's residency requirements (this is another problem area State to State)
- you are 18 years old on or before Election day
- you are registered to vote by your State's voter registration deadline (except N. Dakota)
You can't vote in Federal elections if:
- you're a non-citizen
- you've been convicted of a felony (rules are different in each state - more ambiguity)
- you have a mental disability (rules vary by state - more ambiguity)
- you are a U.S. citizen residing in a U.S. territory (you can't vote in the Presidential election)
Not mentioned on the website but assumed that to vote, you must also be a living breathing person. Although there are documented cases of votes being cast from the great beyond.
As indicated, the various State rules impact this greatly and cause a lot of consternation. That, when added to the two areas of potential error / fraud combine to make what should be an easy thing very complicated and open to all sorts of accusations regarding validity.
I have always failed to understand why there is so much angst against having to show identification that proves you are a U.S. citizen and/or a valid voter registered in a specific area. I know this statement gets into all the arguments about those who aren't able to get identification, etc. which in-turn would preclude a valid U.S. citizen their chance to vote. However, if we're going to fix this mess, we need to draw a definitive line somewhere that's enforceable and immune to error and fraud.
While most of our Presidential transitions of power have been smooth and relatively uneventful (not unemotional) we have a history of not getting this perfectly correct. In 1860 / 1861, the transfer between President Buchanan to newly elected President Lincoln was anything but smooth. There were serious challenges to the validity of the Electoral College votes putting Lincoln in the seat. A month after the election, S. Carolina held a statewide convention and unanimously voted to secede from the Union. Six more Southern states followed. We know where that led.
In 1932 / 1933 President Hoover's transition to President F.D. Roosevelt was pretty ugly. Hoover reportedly "did everything in his power to stand in the way of Roosevelt's New Deal." Roosevelt refused to collaborate with Hoover after blaming Hoover for the Great Depression.
More recently, 2000 / 2001, President Clinton's transition to President George W. Bush began our more contested election results. Who will ever forget the "hanging chads" in Florida and numerous challenges to the election results by Al Gore even after he had conceded to Bush. It took the Supreme Court to stop the Florida recount and Gore eventually conceded...again. There were many reports (substantiated) of an angry Clinton staff who left the White House in shambles to include ripping phones out of the walls, defacing bathrooms and removing the letter "W" from White House computer keyboards. The General Accounting Office determined over $15K worth of damage was done.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/17/opinions/terrible-presidential-transitions-hurt-america-balcerski/index.html
And of course the Obama / Trump transition and Jan 6th issues. We haven't gotten any better. No, our elections are not pretty. And this one will be no different... and possibly worse. It may take bi-partisan engagement to the level of effort it took to draft our Constitution to fix this in some meaningful way if we really want to protect our democracy and free-voting process going forward. And we need to do it. For centuries, we've stood on that one principal to define us as a Nation and separate us from dictatorships across the world. How can we continue to push that message if our own house is in disorder? Purple-inked thumbs from formerly oppressed countries will mean nothing if we can't be that beacon of hope to those who have never experienced true freedom.