 |
EMIL
FRANZI |
|
Voting by mail sends
people the wrong message |
This month, Oro
Valley once again holds a vote-at-home-only
election. Once more, here is why that’s bad
public policy.
There are many claims about its merits, most disproved. It doesn’t save any money. The cost of polling places and temporary poll workers is replaced by more printing and mailing and postage both ways to eliminate lawsuits over a de facto poll tax. It doesn’t increase voter turnout, it just moves the same voters into a different pile. It doesn’t decrease the chances for voter fraud, it increases it. Both major parties are concerned about voter fraud but in different ways. Republicans want voter IDs stiffened to reduce fraud at the polls, but aren’t concerned about ballots mailed with a simple telephone request. Democrats worry about counting room fraud, but fail to recognize that increased mail voting makes the process less transparent and easier to manipulate. One of the worst things it does is destroy the secret ballot. Some cultures defer to patriarchs and matriarchs who are now able to again enforce their will. That was one reason for the secret ballot in the first place. It also re-empowers other local “leaders” like union bosses or those running long-term care homes. Even those comfortably ensconced in gated communities might not want to show a spouse their final ballot. It makes it more difficult for an honest medium to give candidates a fair hearing. With a month-long election day, coverage must be greatly stretched out less information not be given in time. By making election day a month long, it also increases campaign costs. Early voting also eliminates the opportunity to change your mind based on new information. This is nowhere more evident than in the recent presidential preference election, where events change almost daily. Many keep their ballots until the last moment, some for too long. Many will be discarded in Arizona for being returned too late, reducing total turnout. The fundamental premise underlying support for early voting is increasing turnout. Why is this such a vital factor? It’s clearly good for the bureaucrats who administer elections, a conflict of interest rarely factored in. It also salves the ego of many insecure politicians by allowing them to imagine that higher turnouts mean greater acceptance of the system and also themselves, but does democracy and society really gain from the message given? “We know you’re busy and really don’t care much about your country or your society. And that’s OK with us, we wouldn’t want to burden you by asking you to give up a little of your time for something as low on your priority list as voting. So just mail us back the enclosed postage paid card and we’ll send you back a ballot you can return to us at your leisure. No big deal — hey, we understand.” That’s the message regardless of how hard you spin it. And it has failed miserably, precisely because it tells slackers that being slack is socially, and worse morally, acceptable. Forget the lives lost over the centuries to ensure we as a free people can continue to have elections in the first place. Forget the concepts called “duty” and “obligation,” let alone the one called “patriotism.” It’s asking very little from those living in a free country where not that long ago every male was expected to sacrifice a minimum of two years as a military obligation defending it to get off their butts and sacrifice a couple of hours at a polling place. Those choosing not to vote shouldn’t be begged or cajoled to participate in a process they clearly do not value. Making it “easier” and pandering to them does not benefit the electoral process, it debases it.
|
BUT WATCH WHAT YOU SAY! |
|
|
|||
