The art of voter turnout
If America had compulsory voting, would Democrats win every election?
Article in The Economist, Sept 28, 2012
Quote:
It's not even debatable that certain individuals in society have an entitlement mentality, and think they should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of their neighbours' labours. If they are too lazy to do what they have to do to secure that ID, that is not the state's responsibility. The state can't fix lazy.
Context:
Daryl Metcalfe serves as the prime sponsor of a bill in Pennsylvania to require certain types of ID in order to vote. I do not know why the article is using British spellings.
The quote came in response to a question during a television interview.
Assertion: not debatable that individuals have entitlement mentality.
Is it debatable? What is debatable is his definition of the word entitlement. Does he claim all social security and medicare payments as entitlements? Are those elderly people and those who are sidelined for physical or mental disabilities guilty of wanting freebies? The statement is clearly in need of a little qualification. It goes after the ethics of the assertion he is making. Is unemployment an entitlement? What about other government programs? By isolating some programs, maybe the public would agree with him. Is a government subsidy to a business and entitlement? The word is so problematic, that his assertion becomes meaningless because it is black and white fallacy in a ad hominem attack.
Assertion: They (want) to enjoy the fruits of their neighbour's labours.
This assertion is tied to the first assertion. It drives the ad hominem even deeper. So the elderly nursing home patient is enjoying her stay, especially since the neighbors are paying for it. False cause and effect.
Assertion: They are to lazy to get ID.
Has name calling added to his use of ad hominem. There are more reasons for a lack of an ID than laziness, although laziness could certainly be one of the reasons. It could be elderly people born at home without a birth certificate, for instance. It could be someone who doesn't know about rule changes because of a break down in educating the populace. Are there already laws dealing with acceptable voter ID? The allegation in the assertion is simplistic and does not spell out how it works. It may be true, but it may be false. It needs evidence. Opinion over fact--needs fact checker.
Assertion: Not the state's responsibility.
I want to know what the state's responsibility is, according to Metcalfe.
Assertion: State can't fix lazy.
Has his argument really strayed this far? He goes along a rambling path and ends up here?
My Conclusions:
I doubt anyone would challenge the notion of someone misusing taxes by giving the revenue to lazy people. The concept is definitely repugnant and reprehensible. Mr. Metcalfe has done nothing to really prove his point that this is occuring--with voting. He does not convince that the voter too lazy to get an ID. Evidently that same lazy guy is motivated to vote, however.
I have no problem with presenting picture ID to vote, or to get on voting rolls. The laws need to be fair and just, allowing for voters who have every right to vote. Because of the complexity, legislators must demonstrate the need for certain requirements, and the appearance of trying to target certain voters is wrong, unless it is proven that they should not be there--for example, voter fraud. This allegation against laziness stinks and does not belong in the discussion.
I think a careful reading and analysis of this kind of argument might actually help states, if they want to improve voter laws to discard the types of reforms that harm rather than fix the potential voter problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment