The Voting Of The Electoral Process

The idea of obtaining a voter ID and presenting it at polls to vote is a concern amongst Republicans and Democrats. Republicans believe that a voter ID should be required at polling areas and create laws in support of this notion, however Democrats believe that by passing these laws we deny the constitutional right of citizens to vote, therefore rendering these laws unconstitutional. I for one believe that we should have voter ID laws which required people show a form of ID at polling stations to ensure that votes registered for a poll are that of a citizen and that of the one who is voting. Based on the three articles from The Enduring Debate, debating whether we should have Voter ID laws, we can see as to how voting fraud can be committed and how it’s only use may possibly be used to push the Republican agenda and disrupt the Democrats agenda.

Voter ID laws in the United States have begun to create controversy since the beginning of its adaptations in the early 2000’s. Voter ID laws in the United States is a law that requires U.S. citizens to have a special form of identification in order to vote in an election. The idea with Voter ID laws is that the state must make sure that the laws do not pose any sort of burden on the voters. These laws have been proposed in order to stop voting fraud. However, the institution of Voter ID laws have made trouble in states, including Texas, regarding to the various amount of identification requirements needed.

The Electoral College, unique to the United States, is where presidential electors from each state meet up after the popular election and cast ballots for the president and vice president (40). The Electoral College is essentially a compromise for the presidential election between the popular vote and the vote by congress. The United States election works through indirect elections; Americans go to the polls and voters will chose among slates of electors who are selected by the states party leadership. In the majority of states, the party candidate who obtains the popular vote will win all electoral college votes for that state, this is often called the “winner-take all” system. Electors in the Electoral College is comprised of 538 electors

Voting has not always been as easy as it is today. It is interesting to examine how far America has progressed in its process of allowing different types of people to be able to vote. Voting was once aimed at a particular group of people, which were white males that owned their own property. Today, most people over the age of eighteen can vote, except for the mentally incompetent or people who have been convicted of major felonies in some states. The decline of voter participation has always been a debate in the public arena. According to McDonald and Popkin, it is “the most important, most familiar, most analyzed, and most conjectured trend in recent American political history (2001, 963)” The question is, how important is voter

the framers of the constitution debated many options for determining how the President of the

Republican proponents claim that voter identification laws do not discourage those who are most likely to vote from turning out to the polls. They also believe voter identification laws are vitally essential to discourage voter fraud and to strengthen public trust in the electoral system (Gerken 40). Looking closer at both sides of this continuing controversy will help to clarify each sides claims and reveal any misinformation.

Whether protecting and expanding voting rights through permitting more valid vote identifications is a controversial topic during the presidential election of 2016. Many people believe that the current voter ID law makes young, women, minority groups, and seniors hard to access to the ballot box, and thus, should be revised to broaden lists of acceptable forms of voter ID. On the other hand, the supporters of the Voter ID law argue that the law is effective to eliminate undocumented immigrants and noncitizens to make a fraud when voting. Janell Ross, in her article “Hillary Clinton declares war on Voter ID,” uses examples and professional language to demonstrate the negative sides of the Voter ID law in a polished manner. In the article, “Here’s what Donald Trump thinks about Voting,” Zachary Roth uses strong reasons to make a clear argument on the necessity of implementation of the Voter ID law. A valid and persuasive argument should be able to appear to reason, writer’s character, and emotion. Therefore, although Ross and Roth both clearly present their opinions in a professional manner for the audience, they lack validity in providing credible sources to back up some of their ideas.

In contrast Midwestern states, as well as New Hampshire and Rhode Island are more likely to have white populations at or above the national average of 79% as well as higher GDP per state than their Southern counterparts as seen in Appendixes 4 and 5. Unlike Southern states, Midwestern states, plus New Hampshire and Rhode Island, have less need to keep minority and poorer populations, who are less likely to have a form of voter Id, from the voting booth because they do not hold as much sway in elections as they do in the south. In addition, a few of these states are Democratic strongholds negating any need to disenfranchise these populations as they make up the majority of the Democratic voting base. While political culture and region, race, and poverty level appear to be strong indicators of voter ID laws in the south, the Midwest alongside New

Our Voting System is clearly being corrupted. Problems identifying legitimate voters is much more serious than anyone is acknowledging. With identity scams on the rise, states are getting tougher on the identification requirements needed to vote. In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that a provision of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional and those counties and states previously subjected to these laws did not need approval to make changes to their voter ID laws. Eight states passed voter ID laws that year. Since then three states Georgia, Indiana and Florida require photo ID’s, eighteen other states now require some form of identification (National Conference of State Legislatures), with the other 25 only requiring signatures. In lieu of all the voter ID fraud, is it imperative for states to put in place a Voter ID Law? Will these laws put a burden on the states citizens or will they become disenfranchised if they don’t have the proper ID (Rodriguez, US. Election Assistant Commission), and is it just another hurdle that voters will have to leap over to vote for who or what they believe in?

While the main purpose for voter ID is to eliminate fraud and corruption in the American voting system, it has brought with it consequences that discourage and even prohibit eligible voters to vote. The 2012 election, a vast number of state required a government-issued photo ID. Even the state Indiana required this even though “state GOP officials couldn 't provide a single instance of a voter committing the type of fraud the new ID law was supposed to stop” (Berman). Surprisingly, in Wisconsin, they will only except ID’s containing “a current address, birth date, signature and two-year expiration date” that so far

In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s law despite lack of evidence of voter fraud. In Texas, however, voter fraud is a real concern. In a column by Greg Abbott, the Texas Attorney General, he states, “In recent years, my office has secured more than 50 voter fraud convictions. Those include a woman who voted in place of her dead mother, a political operative who cast ballots for two people, and a city councilmember who registered foreign nationals to vote in an election decided by 19 votes. Voter fraud is hard to detect, so cases like these are just the tip of the iceberg.” Texas legislature believes that requiring photo identification is a simply way to prevent these fraud issues from occurring. Not everyone agrees with the motives of the

Throughout the history of the United States, the right to vote is one of the most important

States have utilized their discretion over the time, place, and manner to alienate large segments of the voting population in the pass. From the Jim Crow era literacy tests and poll taxes, to modern-day voter ID laws, representatives have attempted to disenfranchise voters at every turn. Thought the Voting Rights Act of 1965 would have ideally rid America of these obstacles by this point, vestiges of the manipulation remain. The passage of years has brought a large degree of uniformity to election laws. For example, all states except Louisiana permit election by plurality in general elections. But several key distinctions prevail, and the desire for federalism here has created issues with suffrage. Voter ID laws are perhaps the most visible

The U.S Constitution gives the states considerable latitude in the way of conducting elections. The American citizens have many opportunities to vote. However, a turnout in American elections has dramatically decreased over the past several decades. In order to address this issue, majority of states have allowed absentee voting reforms. These convenient reforms are thought to increase the voter turnout in the elections, as well as to reduce administrative costs.

But, as of today there is no solid way of knowing if someone is or is not trying to sneak in more than one ballot. “I don’t know if anybody knows how prevalent it is, because the only time you find out is when somebody gets caught.” (Guzman, 1) And the statistics of that happening is .00000013 percent or 26 out of every 197 million cases. Because there are multiple techniques that can and have been used time after time again. Although this is the case there has been some attempt to prevent it. Voter ID law are one example, but it is far from the perfect solution. First, it prevents only one type of voter’s fraud, voter impersonation. And, second, the voter’s ID laws has been ruled as discrimination; so the rule is not enforced everywhere and the public can vote without