It’s as tough question to ask (at least on face value): How do you weigh voter fraud protections against the right to vote?
On the one hand, for a democracy to work and maintain legitimacy, voter fraud must be minimal to ensure the “will of the people” is realized (assuming such a thing can be realized or that it exists).
On the other hand, every citizen of a given entity should have the right to the same vote with the same magnitude attached to that vote. Not doing so leads to something other than democracy.
So, how does a civilization deal with these contradicting principles?
Before we answer this question, we need to understand that disagreeing with voter fraud protections is a violation of the Uncontestable Argument principle I coined a while back. By this I mean, one cannot “legitimately” argue against voter fraud legislation, irrespective of the law in question, because doing so would suggest you want voter fraud to better your own personal agenda.
Therefore, the only “legitimate” argument is to push for further voter fraud regulation. And this seems to be the trend in democracies around the world. I can only assume this is a function of the fact that all democracies throughout history have struggled to appear democratic.
Now, rather than discuss this directly, I will provide a similar example where fraud and rights come into play on equal footing to voting, but is dealt with (at least in theory) in the opposite direction.
In the American justice system, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. William Blackstone once said, “it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.” This adage appears to be believed by most Americans and most around the world as well.
In the justice system, it is seen as far better for justice that 10 guilty people be allowed to wander the streets and do their terrible acts and never see justice laid upon them than to imprison 1 innocent person.
If a society believes this, why then is it so hard to convince that society that voter fraud and and the right to vote are among equal footing in a stable and democratic system?
Voter fraud only works when it is on a mass scale and perpetrated by the the government itself or by massive underground systems. In recent years, voter fraud is near non-existent in the U.S. and other developed countries around the globe. Why then is voter fraud protections so rampant?
It’s simple: political advantage. Voter fraud protections are easy means by government to limit the role of the “will of the people.” Democracy in its true form has never existed in any state. Why? Because it requires the participation AND INCLUSION of every citizen. Rules that force education requirements limits the poor as do laws that require costs such as ID’s that are paid for or entire days at the MVD to get an ID or actually charging to vote. Recent actions in Florida and other states to “purge” their voter registries of people who have moved or people with names that sound like illegal immigrants limits both poor and non-white minorities.
Now, do I think this is a vast government conspiracy? Absolutely not! This is all democracies. Democracy itself is a tool used to make the government in question appear to take into consideration the will of the people. States have become democratic only when forced to do so. When social upheaval exists, the government coddles the public just enough to enable those in power to remain there. “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free” Goethe.
Voter suppression laws are simple tactics to continue the power struggle between the two sides: the masses and the elite. The Unconstestable Argument in the form of democratic ideals and patriotic sympathies is little more than means to that end.
The real problem is, this will never change. Since democratic inception with the Ancient Greeks, these tactics have remained stable. Democracy is not what most understand as democracy. Justice and voting shall never be equivalent.