news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

OPINION

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Voter registration lists need to be modernized

Wednesday, October 28, 2009
(Updated 3:00 am)

The Sept. 26 article, “Election boards wonder if military ballots are too costly,” is prime evidence of the need to modernize our outdated voter registration system.

In these tough economic times, it is appropriate for election officials to ask whether they are spending taxpayers’ money wisely.

However, unreturned or undeliverable military and overseas ballots are not the problem.

They are a costly symptom of an outdated, inefficient and inaccurate registration system that doesn’t work well, particularly for these highly mobile individuals.

Congress is considering reforms to send ballots earlier and faster to military and overseas voters, but this will be of little help for ballots that continue to be misdirected because of inaccurate voter rolls.

Leveraging technology to build and maintain voter lists would potentially save millions of dollars every year. The Pew Center on the States is working with election officials across the nation to build a modernized registration system that is more accurate, cost-effective and efficient.

Together, we can protect taxpayers “all the while protecting the right to vote for all eligible Americans, both at home and abroad.”

Doug Chapin
Washington
 




Normal
0


false
false
false







MicrosoftInternetExplorer4




/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

The writer is director, Election Initiatives for The Pew Charitable Trusts.

 

Comments

This letter has been closed to new comments. Comments on letters to the editor are only accepted for 24 hours.

Inappropriate content? Please notify us.

J D R

October 28, 2009 - 9:29 am EDT

I assumed this LTE would have all kindsa opinion-spears thrown at ACORN.

==

Anyway, for Neo and from page two of
http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/10/26/article/climate_legislatio...

1 - "Do you think rahrah incapable of answering?"

Not at all .. but the answer I gave is not to the question you asked, which was "Modern Liberalsim".

=

2 - "Where have I heard [a navy maintained by the government to protect American trading vessels] lately?

Madison had the idea. The problem is the costs to maintain that Navy are not borne as they were in his day. From the founding of this nation until the turn of the last century, the Federal government was mostly paid for by Tarriffs .. a tax on imported goods .. so the cost of the Navy .. the cost to protect American trading vessels .. was paid fairly directly by the users of those imported goods. That is no longer the case since the cost to protect American trading vessels now comes mostly from wage and salary taxes .. which are ....

1) Borne primarily by the middle class, not by those skimming the first cut of profits.
2) Disconnected from the actual user. If I chose to ride a bicycle I still pay for the oil tankers.
3) Disconnected from the actual cost. 'nuff said.
4) Does not included the added cost of ground troups in other counties (unheard of in Madison's era)
5) Does not included the added cost of Mercenaries (at one time we had in Iraq more civilians doing traditional military work than we had soldiers and sailors & all the other branches)

For those reasons I promote having the Exxon's pay their way directly (much closer to Madison's writings)... or at least having an open discussion and understanding of the situation.

I also find it fascinating that there is no general acceptance by "conservatives" of this [not an original] idea. Actually I understand, 'cause todays so-called "conservatives" are nothin' like the ideal one would infer from the historic movement or the traditional nor dictionary use of the word.

danagain

October 28, 2009 - 10:13 am EDT

I don't think ACORN is involved with voter registration activities in the military. After all people in the military actually work for a living and don't need community organizers, nor do they stand in lines waiting for "Obama money".

J D R

October 28, 2009 - 10:20 am EDT

I thought ACORN was responsible for all evil in America including pimps and ho's and Credit Default Swaps as well as Liberal voting trends.

my bad.

danagain

October 28, 2009 - 10:33 am EDT

Good point JDR, but I don't think ACORN has infiltrated the military. I was at Ft. Stewart, GA two weeks ago and didn't notice any community organizers advising soldiers on how to set up prostitution rings with underage girls from foreign countries and then avoid taxes. Not a one. It was a good feeling.

TheSeeker

October 28, 2009 - 3:51 pm EDT

What ACORN is responsible for is cancelling out the votes of our military members with every "Mickey Mouse" and vagrant they registered and had vote.
We need voter registration laws that state that a voter must show a valid ID and proof that they are a resident of the community where they're attempting to vote. Where would the Dems be without their institutionalized voter fraud?

J D R

October 28, 2009 - 4:23 pm EDT

I've not read of much "voter fraud" ... institutionalized or otherwise ... nor from either side of the isle ... at least not since the Chicago-Machine Political Days of R.J. Daley ... (Daley being a clear shoot-to-kill Law & Order Antisemitic Republican-In-[all-but]-Name-Only)

JGALT

October 28, 2009 - 10:54 am EDT

Protecting Exxon tankers is hardly the main strategic or tactical role of aircraft carriers, missile defense ships (now replacing a proposed land based system), cruise missile ships, troop carrieers, intelligence gathering ships, and nuclear submarines. The bulk of expense serves to protect our nation and our strategic interests-- part of which is assuring energy supply but more importantly protecting deserving recipients of options.

J D R

October 28, 2009 - 11:49 am EDT

Exxon is just one example .. we have all those freighters crossing the Pacific too ...

Regardless - I'm not sure I see the difference between "protect[ing] our strategic interests", "assuring supply" and "protecting recipients"

... and frankly, a lot of military money is spent protecting the strategic interests and assuring supply to Non American recipients .. most of Europe, Large Chunks of Africa and Central / South America and .. heck let's just admit it: we pick up the tab for most of the rest of the world

J D R

October 29, 2009 - 3:57 am EDT

Galt: ... thank you for the in-depth analysis and feedback - That's Sarcasm btw, fof lack of follow-up by Galt.

Your image of the Military reminds me of the Well Equipped Soldier ... pressed uniform, fully locked and loaded .. who get's his ass kicked by the bare footed Ninja ... think that scene on Officer and a Gentleman where "Mayonnaise" is leaving the bar and is accosted by a bunch soldiers ( I forget the reason) .. but he takes off his shoes and singlehanded kicks po' out of 'em all.

J D R

October 28, 2009 - 7:22 pm EDT

Here's another image:

Canada. Similar size the the USA, similar natural resources to the USA, a much smaller population, and few HATE them .. because they are not peeing away their Military being the world's self-rightous policemen.

J D R

October 28, 2009 - 9:42 am EDT

http://www.pgpf.org/about/

A Real Conservative.

truth

October 28, 2009 - 9:48 am EDT

I'd be a little peeved if my letter was followed by: Normal 0, false false false.

catfish

October 28, 2009 - 10:07 am EDT

I liked your post re: Navy, JDR.

Re: balloting overseas: I'm all for getting the ballots to all overseas Americans civil and military efficiently, with a modern system.. it can't really be all that expensive. Guilford County has been better about it the last few years though.

Re: ballots in general: I say let's change the ballots. All ballots should have a NONE OF THE ABOVE option. [The top 'yea' vote getter would still get office.] I think this would encourage all candidates of the Great American Political Duopoly to act better, across the board. Voter participation would probably increase too. Also it could eventually make room for more opposition parties, of all persuasions. I can imagine either of the Two Big 'Uns in the US break into two, or maybe three, constituent parties each.. Methinks the Tents are too Big for modern America.. Remember, political parties are NOT in the constitution. Let's nix the Electoral College too...

catfish

October 28, 2009 - 10:11 am EDT

To clarify a point above: The None of the Above option would let winners know the exact size of their mandate... and rein them in.. assuming the option increases participation.

J D R

October 28, 2009 - 10:25 am EDT

thanks for the kind words ..

as for voting .. I can't see folks standing in the rain just to cast a vote for "No one"

truth

October 28, 2009 - 11:13 am EDT

I dunno, JDR, they did it in 2004.

danagain

October 28, 2009 - 12:19 pm EDT

Ditto '76 and '08

truth

October 28, 2009 - 1:13 pm EDT

In '08, a whole bunch of folks who wouldn't have stood in line on a 70-degree, cloudless day made it a point to stand in line to elect someone who they thought would represent.

danagain

October 28, 2009 - 1:59 pm EDT

We're seeing how that's panning out.

J D R

October 28, 2009 - 2:50 pm EDT

Dan Dan
The partisan man
Forever the rhetorical
Partisan Man.

danagain

October 28, 2009 - 5:16 pm EDT

Tisn't just me JDR, many libs are frustrated with hope and change. Ask Donna Brazile:

http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x1914248665/Donna-Brazile-What-s-the-matter...

Gays are upset too as Obama hasn't done anything about Don't Ask Don't Tell much less gay marriage. He did toss them a bone recently adding sexual orientation to the hate crimes legislation. Know how that got passed? It was tossed into a defense spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Cole Pinkers and other anti-war groups are upset because he added troops to Afghanistan and may do so again.

The govt. health care advocates are upset because he hasn't taken a strong stand on the public option....errrr...consumer option in Pelosispeak. There he was praising Olympia Snowe for being the lone R vote in a committee on a proposal that didn't even have the public option. Now Dirty Harry comes out with a convoluted public option version of states opting out and Snowe was on ABC News last night saying she wouldn't support it. Lieberman and some moderate D's aren't on board either.

So it's not panning out as intended.

Basically nothing is being accomplished but they sure are spending a lot of Chinese money in the process.

BTW, I am partisan towards conservatism and proud of it.

J D R

October 28, 2009 - 7:18 pm EDT

I'd have a lot more respect for your "conservative" rhetoric if it were not compromised by your rarely proffered but always liberal solutions ... and at the risk of saying "BUT BUT ... " .. when you talk about "spending a lot of Chinese money ... " you need to look at icon, Reagan, and your "least bad" choice, Shrub.

Seriously, Dude .. a little basis on reality would be a good thing. Here's a good book to start: Running On Empty: How The Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It (Hardcover). Practlcally Free on Amazon.

danagain

October 28, 2009 - 8:26 pm EDT

"I'd have a lot more respect"

Was I asking for it?

"... for your "conservative" rhetoric if it were not compromised by your rarely proffered but always liberal solutions..."

Always? Meaning 100%? Examples?

" ... and at the risk of saying "BUT BUT ... " .. when you talk about "spending a lot of Chinese money ... " you need to look at icon, Reagan, and your "least bad" choice, Shrub."

Tone deaf eh? How many times over the years have I mentioned my displeasure for excessive growth of govt., along with the associated spending and waste, regardless of R or D behind the name.

If you are not concerned about precipitous spending and resultant debt of this admin. then it shows your true stripes.

China is concerned and this is from last March, it's gotten worse since then.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/13/world/main4863509.shtml

"Seriously, Dude .. a little basis on reality would be a good thing."

A bit of smug elitism? The debt is a reality, so is the fact that some lefties are pissed off at "Bama" for not bringing home the bacon, so is the fact that this health care reform is a mess.

"Here's a good book to start: Running On Empty: How The Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It (Hardcover). Practlcally Free on Amazon."

I'll take a look at it, yep they both have been pathetic but the level of spending this year and proposed over the next years will bankrupt our future and our future generations.

J D R

October 29, 2009 - 3:41 am EDT

"... for your "conservative" rhetoric if it were not compromised by your rarely proffered but always liberal solutions..."
“Always? Meaning 100%? Examples?”
==
How about Near Always … maybe 99-44/100%. I don’t “save” examples ... and frankly you do not offer a lot of solutions … but your recent “solution” to the situation with Dead Family Friend Kimberly was 100% liberal ... and I remember another time when after weeks of prodding you finally came up with a list .. 100% of which was government interventional solutions.

J D R

October 29, 2009 - 3:55 am EDT

Yes you “have for years mentioned displeasure for ... govt. … spending and waste … “ ... but I do not yet see the “precipitous spending and resultant debt of this admin.” Help me out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR200903...

Why is the huge plunge from 2008 to 2009?

“The 2009 deficit includes the cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program ($247 billion in 2009) … Who owns that?

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ($202 billion in 2009, $353 billion in 2010, and $232 billion in 2011 forward), and the 2009 Omnibus spending bill ($410 billion) … all stimulus owned by Obama ... and a great many (majority?) agree need stimulus was needed.

Does Obama “own” the costs of war conveniently left out for the past seven years and FINALLY put in the budget?

==

I (like Peter Peterson) do not agree with tax-cut for the sake of tax-cuts (Bush43, Reagan) …. but part of the deficit projection is “President Obama's ambitious plans to cut middle-class taxes ...” come-on Reagan-ites .. keep dissin’ that tax cut !

Obama does own “overhaul[ing] health care and expand[ed] access to college“ as well as “clean energy” and infrastructure priorities ..

... but does Obama own the “Deteriorating economic conditions [that] are a major cause of the darkening fiscal picture according to the CBO.”

Also by CBO estimates: “The $700 billion financial-system bailout is now expected to cost taxpayers at least $350 billion ... because the investments the Treasury Department has made in banks and other financial institutions are worth considerably less than when the bailout was approved.”

Bailout approved WHEN ?

“In addition, Obama proposes to use a portion of the money to buy down troubled mortgages, a program that will provide no return to the taxpayer.” Obama owns that .. but who owns “The government takeover of mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is also proving more costly than expected, the CBO reports.”

=

All I’m really saying is the economy is a mess and Obama may or may not be doing well … but the blame seems conveniently placed in partisan corners.

Here’s what may be a fair budget picture

http://www.onlineforextrading.com/blog/federal-budget-broken-down/

J D R

October 28, 2009 - 7:21 pm EDT

P.S. ... one would think that 'bama's lack of rapid movement towards the things your "team" HATES would be taken as a positive sign .. but no, it is apparently hate just because ... note also your "team" puts forth no alternatives.

danagain

October 28, 2009 - 8:06 pm EDT

Lack of rapid movement is fine with me, the longer they quibble over taking over the health care system the better. Remember they thought they could cram this thru before the Aug. recess?

Yvonne

October 28, 2009 - 9:16 pm EDT

Dan,

You are in serious denial if you think your words do not reflect repub first, then anti anything that is not repub, then conservative, then American. Take the article you posted about Donna Brazile. You implied she was upset with Obama when she clearly voiced her concern about democrats running the show but not accomplishing reform. She never spoke a criticism of the president, yet criticism of the "hope and change" president is what you got from the article. Why? Because you are so anxious to prove you are right about Obama that you will mislead and spin the words of others to suit your agenda.

danagain

October 28, 2009 - 9:44 pm EDT

"You are in serious denial if you think your words do not reflect repub first, then anti anything that is not repub, then conservative, then American."

With the exception of illegal immigration, only because that has personally affected you, I would say the same of you regarding Democrat first Yvonne. Disagree?

"Take the article you posted about Donna Brazile. You implied she was upset with Obama when she clearly voiced her concern about democrats running the show but not accomplishing reform"

Ahem, who is supposed to be running the show?

"She never spoke a criticism of the president..."

Ahem..."According to a recent ABC/Washington Post poll, approval of the Obama administration’s handling of health-care reform, among Democrats, is down about 15 percent since the election. The administration simply cannot afford to lose its base."

I know you are an intelligent woman but, ahem, "the administration" means Obama. Happy to be of service.

", yet criticism of the "hope and change" president is what you got from the article. Why? Because you are so anxious to prove you are right about Obama that you will mislead and spin the words of others to suit your agenda."

Yeah but Yvonne is always fair and balanced. I'm impressed.

danagain

October 28, 2009 - 9:55 pm EDT

But being the fair guy I am, I'll give some praise to Obama. His children, beautiful kids btw, had their swine flu vaccinations, Obama and Michelle declined their vaccinations until there are more available to others.

12next ›last »

eMail Updates

Learn More
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

Triad Weather

  • Current Condition: RAIN
  • Current Temperature: 37°
  • UV Idx: 0
  • Forecast High/Low: H: 37° L: 24°

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search