In addition to the recent elections, I had an incident at a grocery store that prompted me to think about election controversies. The whole issue is too complex for a column-length piece, so I’ll just put down a few random thoughts.
District Lines and Gerrymandering
I earned my undergraduate degree in Political Science in 1968. I’ve followed many controversies over district lines in the almost sixty years since then. I have learned one scientific fact. There is a marked difference between politically neutral redistricting and borderline criminal gerrymandering. When my party draws the lines, it is redistricting. When those evil guys do it, it is gerrymandering.
Before we moved to North Carolina, my wife and I lived in the third district of Maryland. Here is the map of that district.
Unless you’re a Democrat, it is a shining example of gerrymandering. You can rant, rave, and holler, or understand that it is a standard part of the political process.
Voter ID
I will be eighty on my next birthday. I bought wine in a grocery store the other day and had to show my driver’s license. There have been various lawsuits, but I was comfortable showing my license when I voted this month. It made more sense than having an old man show an ID to buy wine.
Polls of voters, including minorities, show heavy approval of voter ID. The arguments against it are both insulting and obviously mischievous. Many of my fellow shoppers were Black people who had no problem showing an ID when purchasing any of the items that required one. If a very senior white man must show an ID to buy wine, there is nothing racist about it. The claim that minorities are incapable of getting an ID is a grave insult to the intelligence and capacity of the people being “protected.”
Voter ID is a procedure designed to prevent fraud. Countries with a low literacy rate use an ink-stained thumb to show that someone has already voted. We use voter ID to verify the identity of individuals claiming to be voters in a specific location. To be blunt, the lack of voter ID makes it easier to have someone vote in someone else’s name.
“Count Every Vote”
There is a difference between counting “every vote” and determining the opinion of every legal voter. A completed piece of paper is not necessarily the honest expression of the opinion of an actual voter. There are many sarcastic ways people describe this.
“My uncle consistently voted Republican, but he started voting for Democrats after he died.” “It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts that votes!”
There have been cases where the assumed winner of a congressional seat found out weeks later that he lost because the “counting” continued, and “votes” were still being found. Sometimes they were “found in car trunks.
Fait Accompli
There is always disappointment after an election. Sometimes there is reason to doubt the results. I constantly hear that Al Gore was the true winner in 2000. I am also asked what I believe about 2020. There are two thoughts about every election. Do I like the result, and am I satisfied that it was conducted fairly? In a runaway election, both answers usually agree. In a close election, those on the losing side often hold contradictory opinions. They may believe their side lost an unfair election.
In a democracy, everyone is expected to accept the fait accompli and work to win the next time. When a “resistance” is the response, or multiple impeachments are attempted, the winners of that cycle start to wonder if they should accept the results when they lose.
Early Voting
Early voting is a reasonable idea if it starts a week or two before the election. Things happen every day during an election. A long early voting period means that momentous events might occur after voting starts. Debates can be postponed in hopes of reducing their impact. A brief period of early voting accommodates voter schedules. When voting is done in person using standard procedures and voting booths, it has all the security and solemnity of Election Day.
Voting By Mail or Computer
I understand that there are cases where voters can’t get to the polling place and must vote by mail. There are several reasons why this should be minimized. Those serving overseas, both military and civilian, obviously need to vote by mail. There are many other reasons. But it shouldn’t be just for convenience. Also, there is no reason to delay the count beyond election day to wait for mail-in ballots.
There are two reasons for keeping this to a minimum. The first is to reduce the chances of fraud. It is obviously challenging to guarantee the identity of someone who does not vote in person. There have also been cases of interference with mailed ballots to block votes from groups whose votes are likely to favor a candidate someone wants to see lose.
Secret Ballot
A more important reason for voting in person is that it is the only way to be sure everyone has a secret ballot. It is easy to overlook the importance of having the ability to vote without letting those who have power over your life know your choices.
Thomas Sowell discussed the impact of the secret vote in Wales. If you’ve ever been in an open group vote, you know what I mean. A union, HOA, or other vote done by a show of hands is not a free vote. There is a heavy pressure to “go along” with the group. Sowell noted that when votes in Wales were not secret, employees, fearing job loss, had to vote the way their employers wanted. Once they had the secret ballot, they could vote in their own interest.
Even if mail or electronic votes are honest, there is a temptation to accept subtle pressure and let someone look over your shoulder and know how you vote.
The secret ballot is too important to put at risk.