A
lot of people think voter registration efforts are a good thing. After
all, shouldn’t every American participate in the electoral process that
is such an important part of our nation and what makes it special?
A
voter registration drive seeks to register to vote those who are
eligible but not registered. Such drives are sometimes undertaken by
non-partisan groups and are aimed at the general population.
Sometimes,
however, they are undertaken for partisan purposes, and are aimed at
specific demographic groups that are likely to vote for a particular
candidate. One such effort so ubiquitously in the news lately is that
of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.
The goal of ACORN and its Project Vote voter registration drives is “to
empower low-income and minority communities by giving them a voice in
the political process” and “working to increase public participation in
our democratic process,” according to the organization’s Web site.
ACORN also says that it “hopes that expanding the electorate will
result in more candidates who appeal to historically underrepresented
voting populations.”
Although
it has a highly partisan edge, ACORN’s motive seems to be aiming to
help people who are outside the mainstream of society by bringing them
into the election process. But as you likely have read and heard, the
foul stain on ACORN’s image goes much deeper and is far more sinister
than mere partisanship.
In the past few years, eight of the organization’s employees pleaded guilty to federal election fraud in Missouri, and five others in Washington State.
Reports of phony registration forms are legion: ACORN often turns in
hundreds or thousands of fraudulent registrations during its drives,
overloading state election officials who must sort the good registrants
from the bad. ACORN’s efforts represent all that’s wrong with voter
registration drives.
We
might argue that those organizations that register legitimate and
eligible voters without sparking a criminal investigation are doing
good work, but we must realize that there is far more to exercising
one’s right to vote than merely registering to vote and going to the
polls.
Voting
is a right, but like all rights it carries with it responsibility and
people who vote must put out the effort to be sufficiently informed to
make a reasoned decision about candidates and issues. One can argue
that they might also be expected to take the initiative to register on
their own if they are truly interested in participating in the election
process. So, if people who are otherwise able don’t care enough about
voting to register themselves and go to the polls, they probably
shouldn’t be encouraged to vote.
This
may be especially true for young people, many of whose abysmal
ignorance of the candidates and issues should disqualify them from
voting. This phenomenon has been recently demonstrated by John Stossel
of ABC News. He went to a college campus and asked young people there
basic questions about the United States
government. Some showed substantial knowledge about their country, but
most did not know basic information like how many states are in the
union, how many U.S. Senators represent each state, and how many
Senators are in the U.S. Senate. Do we want people with so little basic
knowledge about their country helping to pick its president?
Thinking
that perhaps a college campus was not the best place to find educated
voters, with all that implies, Mr. Stossel moved to Washington, DC, and
did a man-on-the-street survey showing photographs of prominent people
to participants, most of whom were young people. The photographs were
of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, candidates Barack Obama,
Joe Biden, John McCain, and Sarah Palin, and also Judge Judy of
television fame.
Senators
Obama and McCain were routinely recognized; Gov. Palin and Sen. Biden
less so, and some confused Mr. Biden with Mr. McCain. None recognized
Justice Ginsberg, but most recognized Judge Judy.
Mr.
Stossel spoke with Marc Brownstein and Andy Bernstein, the co-chairs of
HeadCount, an organization that registers voters, and suggested that
perhaps people who are uninformed really ought not to be voting. Mr.
Brownstein called that “an argument that really, really smacks against
everything we hold dear as Americans.” “Democracy,” opined Mr.
Bernstein, “is not about taking the most educated portion of society
and having them decide.” Presumably, he thinks those who recognize
Judge Judy or think there are 12 U.S. Senators from each state are as able as educated voters to make good decisions at the ballot box.
However,
despite the myopic view of Mr. Brownstein and Mr. Bernstein, being
knowledgeable about candidates and issues is an essential element in an
electoral system that truly reflects the will of the populace, and is
so transparently obvious that it ought to be unnecessary to mention it.
Uninformed
voters are easily manipulated, and as likely to make a bad choice as a
good one. These people are more than just uninformed, they are
dangerous.
People
must demonstrate that they know how to drive a car before they get a
drivers license. Should we do less for something as important as voting?