The Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, expects the state government to automate voter registration by the 2024 election. This will “save taxpayers time and money.”
Unless they opt out, prospective voters are to be enrolled when they get a state ID or a driver’s license at the DMV.
According to the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania, it will also make it easier for “uninterested, uninformed people to wield political power.” And perhaps also make it easier for ineligible noncitizens to vote — folks whom most Democrats, at least, strongly suspect would be more likely to vote Democrat were they somehow enabled.
It’s not fair to noncitizens, however, to register them without their consent and to send them the instruments of casting a ballot, when doing so is illegal and could ruin their chance to become citizens.
And registering and confusing immigrants has been happening in Pennsylvania — under a less lax system.
Shapiro pretends that security will be improved thereby, too. Automating voter registration adds “important levels of verification to the voter registration process.” But Pennsylvania doesn’t need to register people automatically to require a photo ID for registration or voting. (Which it doesn’t, currently; a paycheck or utility bill suffices.)
Political figures often complain about the expenses involved in special elections, recall elections, citizen initiatives, and other paraphernalia of democracy that cater to motivated, informed, active citizens — it is almost as if they regard this kind of voting as coming at their expense. It does not take long dealing with incumbent politicians to intuit that they would rather we just accept everything that they do without demur.
Freedom, democratic institutions and their safeguards, sound electoral procedures, voting machines, getting to the voting booth — even acquiring, filling out and mailing absentee ballots — all such things cost time and money.
We’d save time and money by not eating, too. But that’s hardly a triumph of economy.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with PicFinder.ai
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
5 replies on “Time and Money”
The mainstream narrative has for decades insinuated that the right to vote is fundamental and is indeed really the only fundamental right, because the outcome of a plurality vote is sanctifying, so that any other ostensible rights at the mercy of the desires of a plurality. In the context of this notion, even to discourage any adult resident from voting is seen as evil.
If one does not see democracy as sanctifying, but as merely a least-bad means of making political decisions, then one wants only those who won’t make a hash of things to participate. Of course, gate-keeping can be extremely dangerous here. History has shown us, for example, that property requirements and literacy tests will be abused. But being very wary of filtering is one thing, actively drawing irresponsible voters is quite another.
Automatically breaking the law and automatically disenfranchising state citizens, by requiring additional action from folks who have already broken the law to be there.
In for a dime. In for a dollar.
How is your libertarian friend going to determine whether a prospective voter is interested or informed? And furthermore, how is it her business? People whose reflex is to make the gate to the voting booth more narrow are suspicious to me. Why? Why should there be a gate at all? There’s a part of me that would like to see a poll test. Name the first, and 16th president of the United States. What year did the Civil War begin? What side were we on in World War 1? Now obviously there’s not going to be a poll test. Or will there be? I think if we leave it up to some people, there would be a poll test, a pull tax and some just plain disenfranchisement. My position on voting is, let people vote!
I guess that you would have had nothing to say unless you ignored what was already noted above.
You should try the “non eating”!