The Lincoln Douglas Debates: Who War Right (with sources)

The Lincoln Douglas Debates:

Who Was Right

POSI 3331 American Political Thought

Submitted on April 19, 2010

The 1858 debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in the election for Senator of Illinois are perhaps the most famous and controversial in American history. They are important because they highlight the conflicting political perspectives of two parties, and in a broader sense, the regional differences as a result of culture between the North and South. Of additional note, these debates underscore the strong ideologies and rhetoric that would ignite the Civil War several years later.

Before one can fully comprehend the meaning behind Lincoln’s and Douglas’s speeches as regards to slavery, it is necessary to (briefly) review the political conditions of the time; first, the Dred Scott case. This Supreme Court decision handed down in 1857 declared that slaves and their descendents, former or otherwise, were not US citizens and thus not protected by the Constitution. It also stated that the US Congress had no right to prohibit slavery in federal territories such as those found in the Louisiana Purchase.

Moreover, cotton was king in the southern US, and such an agrarian economy required a cheap labor force. The slave system was thus seen as vital to the continuing growth of southern states. Although slavery had been a notorious subject since the country’s creation, the Constitution was constantly circumlocutory concerning the curiosity of this “peculiar institution.” This resulted in a lack of clear, guiding legislation, which left the topic open for moral discussion, and consequently, conflicting methods of thinking. Debates about such matters would often cause talk of secession among the states, which is one reason that the issue was avoided, and the few constricting laws were narrow and often unenforced.

Abraham Lincoln declared himself to be on the side of the abolitionist movement. He believed, first and foremost, that where the US Constitution read “All men are created equal,” it inherently included those of African American descent. He wanted the slaves to be freed because he felt that their obligatory servitude was inconsistent with this national document, and the continuation of the slave system made the nation appear hypocritical. Accordingly, he felt it was the duty of the federal government to prohibit and prevent the slave trade from continuing.

Through reading the Lincoln Douglas debates as found in Classics of American Political & Constitutional Thought, written by Hammond, Hardwick, and Lubert we find that Lincoln has several other reasons for breaking away from slavery. On page 1052 he reveals a belief that slavery deprives the nation, as a republic, from a portion of its influence. Factually speaking, a representative democracy is not fully functioning if it does not represent the whole of its people.

Also, he believed that slavery was not necessary in the mid 1850s, and that it only promoted self interest (Hammond et al. 1052). This lead to his greatest argument against popular sovereignty: that if one disagrees with slavery on a moral level, then the justification of popular sovereignty is negated because nothing gives people the “right to do wrong” (Hammond et al. 1069). Concerning the policy of his day, he took a strong stance against the US allowing any more states to enter the Union, or current members becoming, “slave states.”

Essential to comprehending Lincoln’s point of view is understanding how he arrived at his conclusions. The Compromise of 1850 was seen by many to have loosely established a legal precedent which allowed states south of the 36^th parallel to exercise popular sovereignty. It also contributed new fugitive slave laws which effectively negated the ability of a slave to become free by escaping to a “free state.” Lincoln disagreed with the verdicts on both accounts (Hammond et al. 1068). He garnered much of his anti-slavery arguments from the face-value and inferred meanings found in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Lincoln, like many other political thinkers of the day, studied the politics of America’s founding fathers. It is not surprising then, that his strong pro-Union views resulted in part from George Washington’s farewell address of 1796, as found in Ronald Oakerson’s The Road to Gettysburg. Washington is paraphrased as saying: “The alternative to Union…was military rivalry and war, accompanied by foreign intrigue, standing armies, and ultimately, the destruction of republican government” (Oakerson 78). Such intense assumptions forced Lincoln to write his “A house divided” speech, and reason that dreams of secession must never be fulfilled. To further this point, he stated that the signing of the Constitution represented an unbreakable, binding contract, which was impossible to renege on.

On the opposite side of the spectrum from Lincoln was Stephen Douglas, the incumbent Senator of Illinois. Douglas argued in the defense of popular sovereignty, which gave each individual states the right (and duty) to decide for themselves whether or not they would permit slavery within their borders. This was specifically important to the newly purchased Louisiana Territory because no laws yet existed to proscribe these latest areas from allowing slavery.

Douglas laid out several explanations whilst attempting to validate this belief. First, he argued that the federal government did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in a state before it was admitted to the union with a state constitution. Also, he alleged that since the Compromise of 1850 had allowed new slave states to be admitted to the union, and the subsequent fugitive slave laws mandated government assistance in the retrieval of human chattel, that it would be contradictory to this ruling if slavery was prohibited. The strengthened fugitive slave laws also made it impossible for free states to protect blacks from retrieval.

The ensuing Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 effectively repealed the Congressional rule that slavery was prohibited north of the 36^th parallel. Additionally, the recent Dred Scott case exclaimed that Congress had no rights to prohibit slavery, and the Missouri Compromise was completely overturned. The Scott case went even further by stating publicly that slaves, freedman, and their ancestors, were not protected by the Constitution because they were not proper citizens. Since there was no longer any semblance of protection for African ancestors in America, Douglas was able to assemble clear legal defenses for pro-slavery.

The historical debates produced a decisive winner, selected by the people of his state – Stephen Douglas. Not only did he produce a clearer stream of knowledge, but he used the law to his advantage, and was more effective in his campaigning. It is possible to blame Lincoln’s loss on the untested Constitution which he was defending; but his choice to stand up for a document which was in constant conflict with many state and federal rulings was a poor personal decision.

However obvious, I will proceed to assert why Douglas had the better arguments. Firstly, Douglas was in support of several popular movements in the United States. One of which was a long-standing view that the Union was a federation of separate governments, making individual states were more important than the whole, and thus granting them the power of nullification. This is illustrated by the Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland, in which a state legitimately believed it had the power to tax federal entities. Although this case was rare, Maryland was not alone its conviction, and it was supported by a great following.

Douglas was also willing to do something that Lincoln was not: Put aside his personal beliefs for the benefit of the greater good, which in this case, was American expansionism. Douglas stated during one of the debates that he was morally opposed to slavery, yet he would be willing to accept new territories who opposed that view (Hammond et al. 1065). In this sense he reminds me of Voltaire, who is often attributed the phrase “I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” In a similar twist, Douglas is the de facto spokesman for secession because his constituency supports the notion, whereas he does not (Hammond et al. 1059-1060).

Douglas also brings up an interesting point which seems to negate Lincoln’s favorite argument against slavery. How is it possible that the framers of the Constitution were advocating abolition (“All men are created equal”) when they were all representing slave-holding constituencies (Hammond et al. 1065)? The writer of the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson, was himself a slave-owner. This knowledge, combined with the actuality that the slave issue was not addressed in this document, begs questions concerning the intent of the signors.

In proving that Douglas won legitimately, it is beneficial to indicate where Lincoln was wrong. Lincoln’s biggest mistakes were his refusal to compromise, his lack of solutions, and his glaring hypocrisies. The fact that he promoted an all-or-nothing nation, as evidenced in his “house divided” speech, is disheartening. When Douglas responds to this oration, he points out that they would exist under the tyrannical rule of the majority if it was truly impossible for a split house to stand (Hammond et al. 1066).

Also, when confronted with the question of what to do about slavery, Lincoln openly admits, that he has no plan on how to eradicate it, nor what to do afterwards (Hammond et al. 1052). Such was the overall problem with the nascent Republican Party – there was very little organization, no firm platform, no solutions, and a relatively small base which hid behind various other party names, such as the Free Democracy and Lincoln Men (Hammond et al. 1064). Generally speaking, the Republican Party was not a viable alternative in the 1858 election.

The other major subject for concern is Lincoln’s hypocrisy. As the heir apparent to the Republican (abolitionist) Party, why is there no movement for black equality? Why does Lincoln say that he does not wish to reform slave-holding states, but maintain that all men are equal (Hammond et al. 1060)? Or for that matter, why not support women’s suffrage? Why does he say that “I am not nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races” (Hammond et al. 1064), yet in the same breath proclaim that blacks are “[My equal,] the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man” (Hammond et al. 1053)? Such common and horrific double standards abound in Lincoln’s campaign.

I hope that the false pretenses of unity, equality, and political justice for all, allegedly found in Lincoln’s campaign, have been successfully decimated by this point. The true effect of Lincoln’s loss was a country-wide perception that slavery held an excessively powerful pull on America, even though the election race was only for the state of Illinois. In fact, many historians and political scientists agree that slavery would have been voluntarily phased out in the near future because it was no longer as cost-effective as hiring outside immigrant labor.

Regardless, Lincoln and the Republican Party used their momentum (propaganda) to demagogue the South and increase Northern voter turnout in the upcoming presidential election. As their were four times as many electoral votes above the 36^th parallel than below, Lincoln’s seat was practically guaranteed. The well-known result was a transformation from subtle Northern aggression, to all out Civil War – and the comparably awful period of Reconstruction.

Despite what Lincoln said about being against political equality and forcing change upon the entire country, he released the Emancipation Proclamation just two years after beating out Douglas for president. The 13^th amendment was passed three years later. Perhaps Lincoln should have followed Washington’s leadership when he argued that “Only public opinion could preserve the Union” (Oakerson 79).

Works Cited

Douglas, Stephen, and Abraham Lincoln. “Selected Debates (1858).” Classics of American Political & Constitutional Thought. Vol. 1. Eds. Scott Hammond, Kevin Hardwick, and Howard Lubert. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2007. 1052-1075. Print.

Oakerson, Ronald J. “The Road to Gettysburg: Linking Equality and Union.” Keepers of the Republic. 78-86. PDF.

National Voter Registration Act 1993, aka Motor Voter Law, Has it Failed

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993

Has the Motor Voter Law Failed

Texas State University POSI 4336

Introduction

Throughout Democracy’s long, extravagant, and sometimes rebellious history, one question has remained the same: Who should vote and how? In this research based analysis I will attempt to answer just one caveat in the American form of democracy. By the addition of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, has the standard United States citizen been affected positively or negatively?

The answer is important because a positive effect means that voter registration (and likely turnout) rates should have increased since 1993, and by enacting such a law, democracy has been protected. However, if the “Motor Voter” Act has negatively impacted democratic rule, then the United States legislatures should immediately repeal it in the collective interests of its people. Regardless of any personal bias, a clear response is needed to make an informed evaluation of the overall political situation in America.

Sources and Review of the Information Used

In any research based study, the data collector will find him/herself in a position to influence readers with his/her own biases. In this section I hope to lay to rest any fears of favoritism by outlining my sources and making note of any prejudices that I detect. In doing so, I believe that I am giving the reader every possible opportunity to decide for themselves if what I am writing (or quoting) is merely propaganda, or an educated opinion.

1 Executive Summary of the Federal Election Commission Report to the Congress on the Impact of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. Primary source. This is the official Federal Election Commission’s evaluation of the Motor Voter Act. It was prepared 4 years after the Act was implemented, and contains thorough statistics on many related subjects.

2 The Star-Ledger’s article entitled New Jersey to Push More Registrations Through “Motor Voter” Bill. Secondary source. This reports the findings of the New Jersey’s Special Advocate concerning failures of DMVs to enforce the Motor Voter bill.

3 Political Behavior, Vol. 20, No. 2, is a primary source which analyses direct National Election Study data to determine the effectiveness of the Motor Voter law.

4 The Journal of Politics, Vol. 57, No. 3, is a primary source which uses state-level data to determine if Motor Voter is working.

5 Political Science and Politics, Vol. 32, No. 2, is a secondary source which attempts to answer the question of “Why was voter turnout exceptionally low, and registration levels remarkably high, in the 1996 election?”

6 Public Choice, Vol. 103, No. 1/2, is a mixed source. Some of the data has been collected personally through surveys, and then compiled with existing data, for the purpose of stating conclusively if juror selection is a deterrent to voter registration.

7 The National Center for Policy Analysis is a partisan organization. However, for this article they used data collected by the Wall Street Journal to affirm the facts surrounding certain voter fraud situations.

8 The New York Times’s article is a secondary source editorial which aims to show some of the more drastic failings of the Motor Voter law in recent times, and accuses George W. Bush for chiefly responsible for many shortcomings.

9 The Motor Voter Act and Voter Fraud is a primary source statement read to a Congressional Committee concerning the monetary and iconic failure that Samples believes defines the Motor Voter law.

10 About the National Voter Registration Act is the primary source of law on Motor Voter. It is a government maintained website which contains all the statutes and sections of the National Voter Registration Act.

11 Fox News’s article is a primary source which follows the story of Mabel Briscoe, who successfully registered her dog to vote in the state of Maryland.

12 Political Science and Politics, Vol. 34, No. 1, is a secondary source which measures the differences between different registering stations and their affects on different classes and races.

Analysis of Information

The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), or “Motor Voter Law,” was passed in 1993. The bill intended to increase voter registration with four major parts. First, by creating a semi-automatic method of registration at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). When applying for a license, or renewing an old one, an option is presented by the clerk to be automatically registered to vote. Second, the government agencies that distribute benefits such as unemployment checks and food stamps are required to also offer information on registration. Third, one section of the NVRA was dedicated to providing registration information in many different minority languages. Fourth, by creating strict guidelines for the removal of previous registrants from the voting roster.

According to the voting record held by the United States Senate (1993), the NVRA passed with 62 yeas, 36 nays, and 2 abstaining (1 Democrat and 1 Republican). Of the 62 yeas, 59 were Democrats. And of the 35 nays, all were Republicans (Untied States Senate, 1993). It can be clearly stated that since every Republican opposed the Motor Voter Law, that there would have been heavy arguments in the House. Additionally, since it passed with only 3 Republicans on board with the program, it is apparent that the debate did little to gain favor with politicians across party lines.

A similar result is seen the other House of Congress. The Office of the Clerk (1993) notes that the NVRA passed in the House of Representatives with 259 ayes (238 Democrat,) and 164 noes (150 Republican) (Office of the Clerk, 1993). Again the Democrats are able to shove the resolution through, not by working with the GOP, but by their sheer numbers.

In theory, the long-term political ramifications on support of a passed resolution should measure the same in both parties, since the bill has in fact already been approved. However, I theorize that because this law was adopted not by consent, but against the wishes of almost all Republicans in Congress, this will have a hidden negative impact on the bill. While I have not found any articles that discuss this issue, I believe the reader should consider this when attributing blame or credit to a piece of national legislation.

The question of whether or not the Motor Voter Law has helped differs from asking if the NVRA has been overall successful. Stephen Knack (1995) contends that, “In contrast to motor voter, other provisions required by the NVRA—including mail-in and agency-based registration, and limitations on the purging of voter polls—show little evidence of effectiveness in the states where they have already been implemented” (p. 798).

Enforcement of Motor Voter is a difficult task. Jason Fink (2008) reports that, “Just 11 percent of new voters in New Jersey registered at a motor vehicle agency. … The state is falling in line after the state Public Advocate found New Jersey was barely complying last year. A February 2007 study found only eight percent of people leaving motor vehicle agencies in the state had been offered the chance to register as voters” (Fink, 2008). He also notes that people acquiring a new license are not being handed registration forms, drivers seeking a change of address are not being updated on the voter list, and that registration signs are not easily visible (Fink, 2008).

In a study by Highton and Wolfinger (1998), they find that NVRA enforcement of DMV registration is different from the previous methods of implementation. Once the state had adopted the federal mandate, registration increased by four percentage points (4.7 - 8.7) – a miniscule amount compared to the NVRA’s predicted effect. Additionally, they find that the new purging system will increase turnout (as a proportion to registered voters) by only 2%; and the order to coordinate a “universal mailing system” has no effect (p. 81).

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) works to administer election campaign statutes. It provides an executive summary to Congress concerning all federally effected voting laws. In 1997 they submitted that “States reported a total of 142,995,856 registered voters nationwide for 1996, amounting to 72.77 % of the Voting Age Population (VAP). This is the highest percentage of voter registration since reliable records were first available in 1960. The report also notes that the number of Americans actually voting in 1996 declined by over 5 percentage points from 1992 -- the first presidential election since 1972, when the franchise was extended to 18-21 year olds, that voter registration rose while turnout declined” (FEC, 1997).

While the registration numbers are impressive, Knack (1999) articulated some very contradictory questions. Why did “Turnout drop in every state between 1992 and 1996[?] … [Why has] the most dramatic liberalization of voter registration procedures in American history coincided with not only the lowest level of turnout since 1924, but with the largest single four-year decline since 1920[?] … The theory that registration barriers are the chief cause of the gap … suffered a devastating blow, as turnout in North Dakota—where voters aren’t even required to register—was a mere 56% of the voting population in 1996” (p. 239).

John Samples, Director of the Center for Responsible Government at the Cato Institute, standing before the United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration (2001), testified about the concrete and representational damage caused by Motor Voter. He said that the Act “Considerably complicated the states' task of keeping the registration rolls clean. … To remove a voter who has moved … the local jurisdiction … [must] get written confirmation of the move from the citizen … [or] send a notice to the voter … The cost of these mailings is significant. In Indiana … such a mailing would have a price tag of about $2 million … twice the Election Division's entire annual budget. Given … the limited resources of most local election boards, we should not be surprised that the registration rolls throughout the nation are enormously inaccurate. Some counties … report … voting roll numbers are bigger than the voting-age population. … The clogged rolls have cost taxpayers thousands of dollars in cleanup costs and additional election expenses. For example, the Indiana Election Division has conducted its statewide duplicate program four times at a total cost of about $900,000. Officials in Indiana have increased the number of voting sites unnecessarily because the lists are so inaccurate. … Each new precinct costs county taxpayers $10,000 for two voting machines and about $500 per election for additional poll workers and supplies. Statewide in Indiana, more than 200 precincts have been added since the law went into effect … the state gets nothing in return for such spending. Such costs for the nation as a whole must be large” (Samples, 2001).

Samples continues by pointing out that in Indiana alone, “Tens of thousands of people appear on the voter rolls more than once, that more than 300 dead people were registered, and that three convicted killers and two convicted child molesters were on the rolls. In general, experts believe one in five names on the rolls in Indiana do not belong there.” Moreover, “Georgia found more than 15,000 dead people on active voting rolls,” and “Alaska [1998]… had [65,968 more registries than there were] … people of voting age were living in the state that year. Similar studies in other states would no doubt return similar data. … The inflation of the registration rolls has also clearly misled Americans about the state of their democracy. Inflated and inaccurate rolls give a false measure of voting turnout as a proportion of registered voters. … Political scientists have charted the decline in trust in government over the past four decades … ‘Motor Voter’ has been part of that problem, not part of its solution” (Samples, 2001).

The National Center for Policy Analysis (2001) elaborates on the potential for fraud in the system, stating “It's much easier to vote today if you are dead or don't exist than it was before 1993.” Due to the fact that there are over 8 million people registering with license applications, but only 5% actually voting, there is clearly an abundant supply of eligible names to steal. A lack of I.D. requirement for any type of voting only complicates matters further (NCPA, 2001).

Kathleen Wereszynski (2001), a reporter for Fox News, finds a similar hole in Motor Voter. When 82-year-old Mabel Briscoe’s 3-year-old dog received a notice for jury duty in Maryland, Ms. Briscoe contacted her Country Board of Elections. Wereszynksi reports “[Briscoe believed] Motor Voter makes it possible for just about anyone, from non-U.S. citizens, those under 18 years of age, and criminals, to register. To test her suspicion, she attempted to register her dog Holly through the Motor Voter program two years ago. … The Calvert County Board of Elections received Holly’s registration application by mail on July 2, 1999, according to registrar Charlene Sparrow. ‘In the state of Maryland, identification is not required, just the sworn signature,’ Sparrow told Fox News. … But when a Maryland resident is registered to vote, his or her name becomes available to the court system for the jury pool” (Wereszynski, 2001). Needless to say, if an 82-year-old woman can fool the Board of Elections, suspicions of voter registration fraud, and the election fraud it generally entails, are absolutely warranted.

The rare canine summons is not the only problem Motor Voter poses concerning jury duty. In a study by Knack (2000) using survey and additional data sources, he “Confirms the finding that the use of voter registration lists for jury selection purposes significantly reduces registration rates.” His study also proves that “A large percentage of Americans are aware that voter registration lists are the primary source lists for selection of jurors” (p. 50). Registering to vote quickly and easily at first appeared to have no downsides, but once registrants are aware that a potentially time consuming (and generally considered arduous) task may await, one would expect a decrease in registrations and re-enrollment.

Conclusion

Although many points of view have been analyzed during the course of this review, I believe that one voice stands out far above any other. All of my research clearly demonstrates that the NVRA has been only minimally successful, and that the monetary and symbolic costs of this burdensome system have outweighed the benefits. Motor Voter has increased expenditures, the likelihood of fraud, and is beat on every level by methods such as direct registration at polls.

One reason for this might be the lack of Republican support. Locally elected politicians have much more unsupervised power than our federal appointments. This would help explain some of the differences in the Motor Voter Law’s varying effect in each state. Allegations of DMV failures to distribute the proper paperwork for example, would be first reported on the local level. If a Republican is handed a complaint about such an issue, it is conceivable that he could write it off on the “large federal government,” and nothing more would become of the matter.

Also, each individual Secretary of State is allowed to deny voter registration applications as he/she sees fit. In which case, unless the victims have the time and resources to file a lawsuit against the state, the Secretary’s ruling will stand. Again, it is plausible that a Republican who does not support the NVRA (of which there are many,) would be able to freely reject applications from the new registration sites. The overall effect being an apparent failure of the Motor Voter Law due to superficial statistics which would show little to no increase in the number of voter registrants from newly approved NVRA locations.

The bill may also have been compromised because 6 states were exempt from the NVRA due to differences in state registration methods. Idaho, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Wyoming, and Wisconsin, did not have to follow any provision of the NVRA because they either had direct registration at the polling locations, or required no registration at all (Department of Justice, 2008).

Arguments posted by individual states concerning the constitutionality of the NVRA may also have contributed to the Motor Voter Law’s perceived failure. Even states held by Democrats contested this bill. Within the first month of the law’s enactment, California, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, New York, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia, were all sued by the federal government because of a failure to comply with the law. They believed that the legislation was unconstitutional (Department of Justice, 2008).

Unpopular and demanding statutes have also been the cause for 110 additional federal cases concerning the NVRA. Almost every state has been found to be in violation of some part of the law since 1993 (Department of Justice, 2008). With so many cases being filed, it is clear that there are multiple issues within the Motor Voter Law that make it excessively difficult for states to follow. This, combined with the low number of new voting registrants since 1993, who register within the DMV or through the newly appointed NVRA sites, lend much credibility to the argument that the Motor Voter Law has failed on multiple levels.

The question was also raised on whether or not we can trust data collected from the DMV as reliable. As Knack points out, since a drivers license must only be renewed, on average, every 6 years (or more depending on the state), it is difficult to measure the effectiveness of the Motor Voter Law. If we rely only on the attainment of new and re-enrolled registrants at the DMV as the indicator of success, then we can expect to only see results every several years. From a statistical perspective, the NVRA would appear to have failed, since the percentage of registrants will be spread out over a time span of years, causing a deceptively low proportional increase (Knack, 1995).

Another problem with Motor Voter occurred during its original conception. The NVRA was designed to ultimately increase voter turnout, specifically in national elections. The basic rationale being that registered voters will participate in the electoral process. However, political scientists find that voter turnout is separate, and sometimes independent, from registration. I believe this occurs because of two primary reasons.

1 Jury selection and other nonelectoral uses of registrant data. Obviously, any potential registrant wanting to avoid jury duty (more than they want to vote,) will decline even the simplest registration options. This number, according to Knack (2000) is very large.

2 Failure to promote interest. The real problem with Motor Voter is that fails to address the main cause of low voter turnout: Dwindling feelings of political efficacy.

Wolfinger and Hoffman concluded that “One explanation for this disappointment [in voter turnout] is the common observation that people for whom registration is costless are unlikely to exert themselves to vote.” (p. 2). Political efficacy is the greatest determinant in likelihood to voting, and is clearly not being upshot by higher registration rates.

Even the one seemingly real advancement in upping voter registration coming directly after the NVRA was implemented into law is suspicious. Prior to the NVRA, states would purge their registration lists of people who did not vote in the last general election, or those who had moved within the state. Reinstatement of such a large number of individuals would make the NVRA appear (falsely) to be immediately effective (Knack, 1995). Thus the huge increase in initial voter registration may simply be attributed to the states re-enrollment of wrongfully removed voters.

Figure 1, Samples (2001) illustrates that although registration increases, turnout does not.

I don’t believe that fraud (or the fear of it swinging elections) is a major contributor to the overall low turnout rate in America. Since low turnout was a problem before the NVRA, and levels fluctuated previous to proof of fraudulent voting surfacing, it can be fairly ruled out as a major contributor to low election attendance. However, increased fraud due to requirements of the Motor Voter Law, do enhance the bill’s reputation as an overall disappointment.

The problems with the DMVs in New Jersey do raise a comprehensive concern. Had the New Jersey Public Advocate not been investigating, it is unlikely that any such DMV failures would have been reported. Considering that New York and New Jersey are the only states with such an entity, it elevates anxiety that DMVs around the country are not up to snuff on NVRA requirements. Yet again, Motor Voter disappoints by overlooking such provisions.

Unfortunately, the incidents at numerous New Jersey DMVs are not isolated to that state alone. Similar problems are being reported at multiple federal assistance sites. According to The New York Times (2009), “In a 2005 study of 103 people leaving a Department of Jobs and Family Services office in Ohio, only three reported being given voter registration forms. Surveys conducted outside of public assistance offices in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland and other states found similar problems … the motor voter law is proving to be far less effective in registering voters than it should be. According to the report by Project Vote and Demos, the number of people registering from public assistance agencies fell 79 percent between 1995 and 1996 … and 2005 and 2006, the most recent reporting period.” In the same article, Senator Schumer (D – NY) specifically blames George W. Bush, stating that “For eight years, the Bush Justice Department showed little interest in enforcing the law” (New York Times, 2009).

References

Federal Election Commission. (1997). Executive Summary of the Federal Election Commission Report to the Congress on the Impact of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. Retrieved from http://www.fec.gov/votregis/nvrasum.htm

Fink, J. (2008). New Jersey to Push More Registrations Through 'Motor Voter' Bill. The Star-Ledger. Retrieved from http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2008/03/new_jersey_to_push_more_regist.html

Highton, B., & Wolfinger R. E. (1998). Estimating the Effects of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. Political Behavior, Vol. 20, No. 2, 79-104. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from JSTOR database.

Knack, S. (1995). Does “Motor Voter” Work? Evidence from State-Level Data. The Journal of Politics, Vol. 57, No. 3, 796-811. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from JSTOR database.

Knack, S. (1999). Drivers Wanted: Motor Voter and the Election of 1996. Political Science and Politics, Vol. 32, No. 2, 237-243. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from JSTOR database.

Knack, S. (2001). Deterring Voter Registration through Juror Selection Practices: Evidence from Survey Data. Public Choice, Vol. 103, No. 1/2, 49-62. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from JSTOR database.

National Center for Policy Analysis, The. (2001). “Motor Voter” Law Has Encourage Ballot Fraud. Editorial. Retrieved from http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=7397

New York Times, The. (2009). Reviving the Motor Voter Law. Editorial. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/opinion/11sat4.html?_r=1

Samples, J. (2001). The Motor Voter Act and Voter Fraud. Washington, DC: The Cato Institute.

United States Department of Justice. (2008). Civil Rights Division. About the National Voter Registration Act. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from http://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/nvra/activ_nvra.php

United States Senate. (May 1993). Legislation and Records. U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 103^rd Congress - 1^st Session. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00118#top

Office of the Clerk U.S. House of Representatives. (May 1993.) Art and History. 72^nd Congress, 103^rd, 1^st Session (1993) Final Vote Results for Roll Call 154. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll154.xml

Wereszynski, K. (2001). Stunt Reveals Holes in “Motor Voter” Law. Fox News. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,27281,00.html

Wolfinger, R. E., & Hoffman, J. (2001). Registering and Voting with Motor Voter. Political Science and Politics, Vol. 34, No. 1, 85-92. Retrieved November 15, 2009, from JSTOR database.

Kubrick: Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange, and Full Metal Jacket (with sources): A Brief Analysis

Visual Genius: Stanley Kubrick


When one analyses a film, or series of films by the same director, a good reviewer will have no choice but to take the subject matter chosen in to evaluation. The subject that a director chooses to capture on film can say a lot about that person. For example, when assessing a film using the psychoanalytical approach, or more specifically, Freudian criticism, a reviewer “believes that a movie is an expression of the filmmaker’s psyche and that a film’s meaning lies beneath the obvious images on the screen” (Boggs 381). Stanley Kubrick once wrote that “the most terrifying thing in the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent, but if we can come to terms with this indifference, then our existence as a species can have genuine meaning. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.” This central idea, that the universe is indifferent and we must make our own way, is reflected in all of Kubrick’s films.


The “dehumanization of men into machines and vice versa” (Rod, “The Kubrick Site”) is portrayed most excellently in two of his films, A Clockwork Orange, and Full Metal Jacket. In Full Metal Jacket, the young marines are subject to extreme mental and physical abuse at boot camp until they are stripped of their emotions. They are then raised up by the strength they share in each other. However, this is not a loving strength, it is more like a responsibility – it causes thoughts like “If I don’t fight my comrades will die.” All human life can then be protected by fighting off “the enemy.” Thus, violence becomes one of the most important things imaginable. The Marine Corp has now created soldiers that think the only path to peace, is war. Some soldiers’ helmets even have things like “Born to Kill” written on them; which further enhances the theme that Kubrick is pushing upon us. Similar in this ways is A Clockwork Orange, in which the main character Alex, is robbed of his free will. While this solves his violent behavior, it asks an equally sinister question: “Do we lose our humanity if we are deprived of the free-will choice between good and evil” (Dirks, “Clockwork Orange” 1)? Once again, this strongly enforces Kubrick’s idea that in this world, we must carve our own path.


Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, shows a variation on Kubrick’s theme about humanity: a “nightmarish, apocalyptic theme about how technology had gone haywire and had dominated humanity” (Dirks, “Dr. Strangelove” 1). In other words, the ultimate fail safe machine is actually possible of making errors. This is, of course, a paradox. How can a fail safe machine make a mistake? While Full Metal Jacket and A Clockwork Orange show people progressively turning in to machines, Dr. Strangelove takes the opposite approach by showing machines gaining more humanistic senses. In the film, the Russians have created a super-nuke which will destroy all life forms on Earth. This foolproof weapon will automatically trigger itself when Russia becomes seriously threatened by a nuclear attack. However, the super weapon can not be turned off because that could be a trick or even sabotage. In effect, mankind has endowed the power to kill upon machines which are guaranteed to be more reasonable than us. Kubrick is stating with this film that our trust in technology will eventually be our downfall. The film seems to give us an answer to this problem. Kubrick suggests that nothing is perfect, but that human emotion is perfect in its imperfection; thus saying that nothing can make decisions for us, that the only way to correct wrongs is to fall victim to our own destinies, which are anything but predefined.


A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket deal heavily with the struggle between good and evil. A Clockwork Orange shows evil as being inbred, suggesting that we are conceived evil by nature, and that it is our choice to be good, or more naturally, follow our born path. The film deals with what happens when you take away the choice to change, in somebody who has not made that decision. In the end, it portrays good v. evil in a very ironic sense by allowing Alex to return to his more natural ways. In doing this, the viewer is almost blinded by the blurred line between what is moral and what is sinister. Full Metal Jacket lets us follow Private Joker in to combat scenarios. Joker’s duality within himself is startling. He says things like, “I wanted to meet interesting and stimulating people of an ancient culture... and kill them....,” and “They have to destroy the village in order to save it.” His helmet has “Born to Kill” written on it, and yet he wears a peace button on his uniform. Joker is quite obviously struggling internally between his nature as a killer, and his desire to be virtuous. In the end, Joker acknowledges that one can not exist without the other – which like A Clockwork Orange almost disintegrates that difference between the two.


Dr. Strangelove handles this theme of good versus evil on a special, satirical level. The movie was produced with black and white film, at a time when color was available. Black has classically represented evil, and white, purity. So before the film really starts, I already can see that good versus evil may be a premise. The fact that the movie revolves around nuclear war only enhances this idea. Dr. Strangelove abounds with sexual puns such as excessively large cigars, airplanes refueling (which looks like a mating ritual,) and “the orgasmic atomic bomb that Kong rides between his legs” (Dirks, “Dr. Strangelove” 1) at the end of the feature. Also, “many of the absurd, omnipresent names of the male, military characters have sexual connotations or allegorical references that suggest the connection between war, sexual obsession and the male sex drive” (Dirks, “Dr. Strangelove” 1). For instance, the base commander Jack D. Ripper named after the notorious murderer Jack the Ripper, and Major T.J. Kong, similar to the destructive giant ape King Kong. As Dirks has pointed out, men, sex, and war almost go hand-in-hand (“Dr. Strangelove” 1). Just like in A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket, the proposal that man is born with wickedness and war on the brain, and that it is only through a battle of free will that we are able to defeat it, is reaffirmed.


Stanley Kubrick, visual genius that he is, is able to reiterate his belief in “supplying our light” in the darkness by portraying characters who do exactly that. What makes Kubrick unique in this aspect is that he is able to do this in an entertaining, and thought provoking way that is as applicable in the 1960’s when some were made, as it is today, and as it has ever been. Kubrick’s immortal theme of finding our special niche in society, as exposed wonderfully in Full Metal Jacket, A Clockwork Orange, and Dr. Strangelove, can give life, as he puts it, a “genuine meaning.”


Works Cited

Boggs, Joseph and Dennis Petrie. The Art of Watching Films. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004.

Dirks, Tim. A Clockwork Orange (1971). 1996-2007. April 20, 2007. <http://www.filmsite.org/cloc.html>.

Dirks, Tim. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964). 1996-2007. April 20, 2007. <http://www.filmsite.org/drst.html>.

Rod. The Kubrick Site. 6 Dec. 2005. April 20, 2007.
<http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/>.

Social Security (with sources): A brief history, several problems, and solutions

Social Security


Social Security concerns are one of the most pressing issues that my generation will face. Social Security pension funds may not even be available in whole for the current retiring generation. Why is this, what is the real problem, and what is the solution, are just a few questions that should spring to mind. Why is a failing system, one which every working American is paying in to, and will (hopefully) inevitably receive benefits from, not undergoing a major overhaul?


The Social Security Act (SSA) was signed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1935. Essentially the program was created to help people over age 65, who had been working their entire life, and forced to retire due to medical and disability issues (DeWitt). A 65 year old man or woman would find it very difficult to continue working, and without a job they would have to rely on their children’s earnings or some other beneficiary. Since not everybody could survive this way, the SSA was passed. Additions to the SSA include survivors benefits, disability benefits, and the ability to share benefits with a spouse and children (DeWitt).


How Social Security is maintained is a relatively simple process. Every working American has a percentage of their earnings deducted from their paycheck. The money collected from this Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) is placed in special trust funds created for this revenue (DeWitt). When it comes time to collect, benefits are also paid out of this trust fund.
Since retirees have been putting in to the system, and they will be the only ones taking out, what is the problem? Due to inflation, and the rising cost of healthcare, the money that was originally placed in these trust funds will not cover the cost of a modern day retiree (Penny). So the government solution was to use the trust fund money that the current workers are paying in. There are currently 3 ½ workers paying in, for every existing retiree (Penny). By 2030 however, the baby boomer generation (which is twice as large as the current generation) will be completely retired; and actuaries say that when that happens there will only be 2 workers for every retiree (Penny). The amount being paid out will significantly overwhelm the trust funds.
The solutions are not politically popular. Fixing this problem in its current state, without changing the system, will require FICA tax hikes - from 12.4% to 14.1% (Altman), cuts in other government programs, and/or borrowing money (Penny). Raising the retirement age from the current 67 to 68, 69, or even 70, is suggested by actuaries to be one of the easiest changes to pass, and will help as part of a package deal to keep the system from imploding. This is not totally unjustified, as the life expectancy has been increasing disproportionately from the retirement age.


For the past 15 years, the amount of money taken in has not been enough to cover the amount being taken out (DeWitt). All solutions other than an overhaul of the Social Security program will be like using duct tape – a temporary fix. George W. Bush has offered a program that will allow people to divert portions of their Social Security taxes in to private accounts for investment in stocks and bonds (Grier). This change alone would not repair the problem, but combined with a reduction in benefits and a change in the retirement age, would help bring Social Security Trust Funds back in to the black (Grier).


Since this is an election year, I feel it is important to note the stances of our two major political candidates as well. Senator Obama of the Democrats is strongly against establishing private accounts, citing that if an investment were to go awry, it could be worse than what would happen if the government were to continue holding on to it (Miller). He also opposes raising the minimum retirement age, as well as reducing the paid out benefits (Meckler). Obama states that a new tax of 2%-4% on those earning more that $250,000 a year will help compensate for Social Security losses. I could find no evidence supporting that this would be enough change. Senator McCain of the Republicans is convinced that the path to Social Security prosperity is with Bush’s plan to allow private investments (Meckler). He notes that increasing the retirement age and lowering the amount of benefits allowable would permit the system to work without raising taxes (Miller).


Personally, I don’t believe that any of these plans is the best course of action. I think three things need to happen to solve all future Social Security calamities. One, Congress should subject at minimum 90% of aggregated wages across the nation to be eligible for taxation in to the Social Security fund (Altman). This is a modest tax increase of 6% that could be phased in over the next 4 years, would not hurt the middle class, minimally affects the upper class, and would bring in billions of dollars of revenue (Altman). Two, allow private investments in long-term government bonds. Lastly, and the most radical, make paying in to Social Security optional. Many people do not want to pay in to a system that they can only collect on when they are 67 years old; and even then, only collect a slow percentage of what they originally paid Allow people to do what they want with their money. This can stimulate the economy, and remove millions of retirees and their beneficiaries from the government payroll.


Works Cited

Altman, Nancy. 2008. The Battle for Social Security. Los Angeles Times April, 9. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-oe-altman9apr09,0,3295623.story

DeWitt, Larry. Social Security Act and its Development. March 2003. http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

Grier, Peter. 2005. Social Security's Battle Over Values. Christian Science Monitor January, 12. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0112/p01s03-uspo.html

Meckler, Laura. 2008. Social Security and the Candidates. Wall Street Journal September. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122074594873607453.html?mod=relevancy>

Miller, Jim. 2008. Where the Presidential Candidates Stand on Social Security and Medicare. The Observer October, 2. http://www.observernews.net/artman2/publish/Savvy_Senior_33/Where_the_Presidential_Candidates_Stand_on_Social_Security_and_Medicare_printer.shtml

Penny, Tim. 2004. Social Security Needs Long-term Overhaul, not Campaign Slogans. Christian Science Monitor March, 15. http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0315/p09s02-coop.html

Voting Machines (with sources): A brief history, several problems, and solutions

Voting Machines


What is often not thought about, questioned during almost every election year, and is important enough to swing any modern presidential appointment? The voting process. Millions are excluded from voting because of the things it requires you to do – some of which are exceedingly difficult for a number of Americans. Even more are politically apathetic because they do not believe their vote counts. There are many factors involved in the voting process: Registration, accessibility for the disabled and language minorities, inadequate poll worker training, audits and recounts, and now, machine hacking and reliability errors – just to name a few. What I am asking is this, are voting machines the best method of voting, and are they secure enough to trust?


160 years ago we were using non-secret, hand-counted paper ballots to vote (Voting Technology). This has obvious flaws. Any counter could easily throw away a vote he did not like. Also, constituents had to provide their own paper and make a sometimes lengthy journey to a voting center. 119 years ago we adopted the Australian Secret Ballot method. With this method the government printed paper ballots with the name of each candidate and where they all stood on important issues (Voting Technology). These ballots were still counted by hand however, and could be easily tampered with. In 1892 we began using the lever counting machine (Voting Technology). This was an answer to the call of dishonesty. With this system, people pulled a lever over the person they wanted to vote for, and the machine would instantly add another tally to that candidate. Fraud was still an issue, so 45 years ago we made the transition to punchcards (Voting Technology). The new ballots had numbers (which corresponded to a separate booklet with all the candidates listed) and spaces next to them to punch a hole out. A computer tally machine would then count all votes for the numbered candidate.


While fraud cases decreased, voter uncertainty increased because it was very easy to make a mistake and mark the wrong number. Around this same time some states adopt an optical scanning system (Voting Technology). In 1974 the first Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting system was used (Voting Technology). As technology advanced, so did this preferred process – until we have today’s method. Voter uncertainty and fraud cases decrease, but because the latest technology is being used, many new and equally dangerous problems arise.


In 2002 the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed after numerous ballot recounts showed inaccuracy at the polls (Voting Systems). Optical scanning and DREs are now the most utilized of today’s voting methods (Voting Systems). HAVA was the main factor in this. New federal funds allowed states to purchase DREs and optical scanners, increasing by 17% the numbers of electronic voting machines, and decreasing other methods by 18% (Voting Systems). However, other manual systems such as punchcards, lever machines, and mixed (counties that use two or more voting methods) still comprise the other 40% (Voting Systems).


The downside. DREs have recorded the second highest residual vote rate (votes unable to be counted because of machine errors) in the 2000 election (Bermant). Additionally, information came out that Diebold executives (a major DRE manufacturer) are staunch republicans and give more funding to preferred candidates in counties which register as republican (Hart). This begs the question, since millions of Americans are only able to vote through DREs, is it fair for partisan manufacturers to help facilitate voting?


The idea of hacking also comes to mind. The Director of Secure Internet Programming at Princeton writes, “an attacker who gets physical access to a machine or its removable memory card for as little as one minute could install malicious code [which] could steal votes undetectably, modifying all records, logs, and counters to be consistent with the fraudulent vote count it creates. An attacker could also create malicious code that spreads automatically and silently from machine to machine (Feltman).”


Is it possible for a DRE to capture the intent of a voter (such was the problem in the 2000 election)? Since many DREs are touch screens, CEO of the Vote-PAD Company writes “The sensors in touch screen devices can be knocked out of alignment by shock and vibration that may occur during transport. Unless these sensors are realigned at the polling place prior to the start of voting, touch screen machines can misinterpret a voter's intent (Theisen).” With all other voting methods, when a recount is called for, poll workers can go back and manually interpret a punched ballot; but with a DRE, Tova Wang writes, “DRE machines do not provide an independent record of each individual ballot that can be used in a recount to check the machine for error or tampering. It is impossible to check if the voting machine records a vote in its memory different than the one the voter cast.”


Are DREs accessible to the blind and hearing impaired? Dawn Wilcox (qtd. in The San Jose Mercury News), president of the Silicon Valley Council of the Blind said, ”Among the criticisms provided by voters was poor sound quality, delayed response time and Braille that was positioned so awkwardly it could be read upside down.” In the case of Sam Chen, a blind man, the audio message on his DRE told him to press a yellow button (Ackerman). Like many others, he was unable to vote without assistance.


Personally, I can see many glaring issues with our modern voting machines. However, I have yet to come across a problem which can not be solved. Like all technology, it has its flaws, but it also helps to improve our current system. Through the creation of a voter review page and improved help for disabled citizens, we can increase accuracy at the polls. Also, to prevent the hijacking of a system, we can increase security at voting booths. Since it is necessary to gain internal access to the machines to hack them, strict screening processes should also be enforced on poll workers. With all of these combined measures and the constant advancement of technology, we should feel safe that our votes will be counted true and accurately. Of course, until these procedures are put in place…


Works Cited

Ackerman, Elise. “Blind Voters Rip E-Machines." 15 May 2004. http://www.mercurynews.com/.

Bermant, Arden. “Glossary of U.S. Voting Systems.” 26 April 2006. http://www.nist.gov/.

Felten, Edward. "Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine." 13 September 2006. http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~felten/.

Hart, David. “Press release to announce the formation of the Election Technology Council.” 8 September 2004. http://www.electiontech.org/.

ProCon.org. "Historical Timeline of Electronic Voting Machines and Related Voting Technology.” 30 June 2008. http://votingmachines.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=273.

ProCon.org. “Voting Systems & Use in U.S. Presidential Elections since 1980.” 25 February 2008. http://votingmachines.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=274.

Theisen, Ellen. ”Myth Breakers: Facts About Electronic Elections.” 2005. http://www.vote-pad.us/.

Wang, Tova. “Understanding the Debate Over Electronic Voting Machines." 26 May 2004. http://www.reformelections.org/.