As we are all aware by now, the USA is in the midst of a heated primary season. Politicians are at each other’s throats, and their constituents are going tooth-and-nail as well. Voting has become a risky thing and with the recent cases of voter fraud and suspected hacking, people are becoming more discouraged to make their voices heard.
Fraud comes in all shapes and sizes, but the most popular of late is voter suppression. During its primary, Arizona citizens were complaining that there were “a limited number of polling places, extended wait times and issues with the ballots.” The plaintiff, John Brakey, brought the case to the local court and it was ultimately decided that while his evidence was taken as true, there was not enough to prove true fault anywhere. Unfortunately, this issue is not uncommon, as inconsistencies in voting apparatuses and laws between counties and states are making it increasingly difficult to cast a ballot.
I can’t decisively say who is to blame for these acts of suppression. Is it the voters who have been “hacking” the system? Not really, because the chances of this happening are actually incredibly slim. I also can’t say that we should blame the government entirely for this, considering that voter turnout took a sharp downturn in 2012, showing a decrease in interest. I do agree, though, that the way voting has laid out for this year’s primaries, it truly does seem unfair and restricted.
For the generation of young students who are just becoming eligible to vote, 2016 is certainly an exciting year. Yet, even for experienced voters, the current array of candidates has promoted an increased awareness in politics. As the possibility of two extreme candidates likens, so does the possibility that foul play in the voting booths could be at work. In Katrina Berthold’s commentary, she discusses one possible instance of voter fraud in Arizona. I agree with Berthold that the behavior at hand is definitely suspicious, but it wasn’t until additional research had been done that I came to this conclusion.
ReplyDeleteBerthold starts her argument by examining the idea of voter suppression. She notes that Arizona had issues with voting during its primary, and citizens were complaining about the lack of polling places, wait times, and problems with ballots. The complaints were even taken to court where judges ruled that not enough evidence had been produced.
At first glance, I assumed that the alleged voter suppression was due to outdated technology and a lack of funds to allow for more polling places. After further research on the issue, I discovered that voters were forced to wait in lines for hours and many remained even after winners had been announced. Arizona is a closed primary and some voters complained that they were given provisional ballots despite being registered with a specific party. These are details that were left out in the original commentary, and would have shown themselves to be highly effective in convincing readers.
Berthold concludes her argument by considering who is to blame for the thousands of Arizona citizens who missed their opportunity to vote. She writes that voter turnout in the state decreased in 2012, possibly accounting for the lack of polling places, and therefore the government may not have intentionally restricted voters.
Berthold makes it clear that Arizona’s primary voting this past year was “unfair and restricted.” This, I agree with. However, I feel that with additional information, her argument could have been strengthened. Nevertheless, Arizona should consider the importance of the upcoming election and respond accordingly.