There's been a lot of talk in Wisconsin about voter fraud and what needs to be done to prevent voter fraud. I'd like to address what the real voter fraud is and what it is not.
There has been no substantial voter fraud proven in this state in recent memory. No statistically significant voter fraud has even been alleged. The accusations that are tossed around have more to do with someone standing too close to a polling station when they hand out literature than
with someone actually voting in an illigitimate way. One couple in a recent election voted by absentee, then again at the polling station. They were caught easily. The system worked. The fraud that is used to justify so-called voter reform is not a problem.
It's not just fear of getting caught that deters voter fraud today. In modern America, voter fraud is by-and-large a very inefficient way to influence an election. You have to find a group of people who are willing to commit crimes, you have to subvert the system and the law, you have
to cover your tracks from the government and the media. Not to mention: someone will want to know why the outcome didn't match the polling data. If you have some time and money to throw around, why would you go through all that trouble? There are much better ways of influencing elections. Send out a simple postcard filled with awful half-truths about the opponent, and your time and money will be better spent. Political operatives understand that, and voter fraud is rare.
Let's take a moment to consider the definition of voter fraud. If you really believe in democracy, voter fraud is anything artificial that puts distance between the true will of the voters and the outcome of the election. If rules and restrictions allow one group to vote moreso than another, it creates a fraudulent outcome.
I am most concerned about fraud related to the cost of voting. What is the cost of voting?
A comfortably retired person who has their own transporation and lives in a middle or upper class neighborhood has a low cost of voting. The only crucial decision is "Would I like to vote?" Waiting times in affluent areas tend to be reasonable. Even if there's a long line, it's a small inconvenience for the typical retiree. I'm not saying retiree's aren't busy, but I am saying that a couple hours in line won't threaten their livelihood.
Now slide down the socio-economic ladder to a single mother who works two jobs to make ends meet. She's not salaried, so she doesn't get to make her own schedule. Perhaps she works retail, or in a call center, or on an assembly line. It is challenging to juggle her childcare with her job. She watches her attendance record carefully--when the kids are sick, she takes time off, so can't afford irregularities for much else. In her neighborhood, the lines at the polls often stretch half a block or more.
In a tough-love world, either of these people appears to have the same 'right' to vote. But any fool can see that they don't have the same cost of voting. Republicans have caught on to this idea and push an agenda that maintains or increases the cost of voting. They don't need to send thugs down to the polling stations to intimidate poor folks. They just need to enact laws that make it harder for poor folks to vote. Many poor people, like that poor single mother, have already given up on voting due to the high cost. Every inconvenience or discomfort that is added increases the number of voters, especially poor voters, who opt out of their Constitutional right to vote.
The idea that all voting must take place on a single day increases the cost of voting unnecessarily, not to mention that voting days are typically work days.
Now, in Wisconsin, voters will need an ID. It's another layer of cost, stacked between us and the vote that is our right. The proponents of voter ID say that if a person values their vote, they'll make sure they have the ID. But it is not the voter who owes his government something in order to deserve a vote. It is the government who owes the citizen a vote.
There has been no substantial voter fraud proven in this state in recent memory. No statistically significant voter fraud has even been alleged. The accusations that are tossed around have more to do with someone standing too close to a polling station when they hand out literature than
with someone actually voting in an illigitimate way. One couple in a recent election voted by absentee, then again at the polling station. They were caught easily. The system worked. The fraud that is used to justify so-called voter reform is not a problem.
It's not just fear of getting caught that deters voter fraud today. In modern America, voter fraud is by-and-large a very inefficient way to influence an election. You have to find a group of people who are willing to commit crimes, you have to subvert the system and the law, you have
to cover your tracks from the government and the media. Not to mention: someone will want to know why the outcome didn't match the polling data. If you have some time and money to throw around, why would you go through all that trouble? There are much better ways of influencing elections. Send out a simple postcard filled with awful half-truths about the opponent, and your time and money will be better spent. Political operatives understand that, and voter fraud is rare.
Let's take a moment to consider the definition of voter fraud. If you really believe in democracy, voter fraud is anything artificial that puts distance between the true will of the voters and the outcome of the election. If rules and restrictions allow one group to vote moreso than another, it creates a fraudulent outcome.
I am most concerned about fraud related to the cost of voting. What is the cost of voting?
A comfortably retired person who has their own transporation and lives in a middle or upper class neighborhood has a low cost of voting. The only crucial decision is "Would I like to vote?" Waiting times in affluent areas tend to be reasonable. Even if there's a long line, it's a small inconvenience for the typical retiree. I'm not saying retiree's aren't busy, but I am saying that a couple hours in line won't threaten their livelihood.
Now slide down the socio-economic ladder to a single mother who works two jobs to make ends meet. She's not salaried, so she doesn't get to make her own schedule. Perhaps she works retail, or in a call center, or on an assembly line. It is challenging to juggle her childcare with her job. She watches her attendance record carefully--when the kids are sick, she takes time off, so can't afford irregularities for much else. In her neighborhood, the lines at the polls often stretch half a block or more.
In a tough-love world, either of these people appears to have the same 'right' to vote. But any fool can see that they don't have the same cost of voting. Republicans have caught on to this idea and push an agenda that maintains or increases the cost of voting. They don't need to send thugs down to the polling stations to intimidate poor folks. They just need to enact laws that make it harder for poor folks to vote. Many poor people, like that poor single mother, have already given up on voting due to the high cost. Every inconvenience or discomfort that is added increases the number of voters, especially poor voters, who opt out of their Constitutional right to vote.
The idea that all voting must take place on a single day increases the cost of voting unnecessarily, not to mention that voting days are typically work days.
Now, in Wisconsin, voters will need an ID. It's another layer of cost, stacked between us and the vote that is our right. The proponents of voter ID say that if a person values their vote, they'll make sure they have the ID. But it is not the voter who owes his government something in order to deserve a vote. It is the government who owes the citizen a vote.
Comments