So I got the chance to go snooping around on what some of my class mates were writing. It was fun, informative, and helped me see where other people in my classes stand. It also helped me see where I stand in relation to my peers. Apparently, I might be on a somewhat smallish island.
One of the blogs I read was called Don't Tread On Me. The particular article I read was entitled Say No To The UN! The basic argument was that inviting UN officials to participate in poll watching in would lead to the downfall of the freedom of US citizens. I think this is more than a little far fetched and extremely alarmist.
It begins with the assertion that it is against Texas Election Code to have UN officials watching the polling locations. While it is true that TEC states that only registered voters of that precinct are eligible for poll watching, it is also true that the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution states that federal law, statutes, and treaties are the supreme law of the land. The UN's OSCE involvement in poll watching is part of the treaty (or commitment) by the US as a member of the UN that establishes this as within their conflict resolution scope. Therefore, as it has been accepted by the US Federal Government, the states must also abide by it. I would like to add that the UN poll watchers, the only actually actual non-partisan watchers, would be better suited to the job than Democrats or Republicans appointed to the position.
The next part of the blog states that Texas attempted to pass a voter ID law that was struck down in federal court, but implies that the federal government overstepped it's bounds in doing so:
Texas did what they thought best by trying to pass a vote ID law to prevent voter fraud but the law was shot down once again by the power of the Federal government.
The federal government was doing it's job. It was protecting the rights of its voters from unconstitutional legislation passed by the state of Texas. Voting is a right in the US for US citizens. The law that Texas was attempting to pass would be putting more barriers between voters and the voting booth. It was designed to block lower income voters by putting what is essentially a tax on voting by requiring certain people to purchase voter ID cards. All of this is of course, to help prevent voter fraud, which has been proven time and time again to be somewhere between .001% at the highest to .000004% at the lower end. Furthermore, most of the voter fraud that does actually happen is perpetuated using absentee ballots, which does not require a photo ID present.
The next part of the post, however, is my real problem. It is based on the slippery slope argument that if we are to let UN officials watch some of our polling places, the next logical step is full scale invasion.
Do we really want to start relying on the UN to protect the citizens of Texas? You give some people a little power and that is not enough. Watch out Texans, if the UN poll watchers show up in your neck-of-the woods the next time they come they will be dressed in blue military uniforms with guns and besides losing your voting integrity you will be losing your right to be free.
Whoa there, Wolverine. This is one of the most extreme cases of the slippery slope argument that I have encountered. It is pure fiction. There is no evidence that anything remotely like this has or will happen in the US, and if the author has evidence of such, he should probably cite it. It seems to me that this type of extreme rhetoric is not based on factual evidence, but is an intended to create a fearful response in the attempt to persuade others to agree with them, and should be called out as such.
In conclusion, I find that this argument falls flat because there is no factual evidence presented to support the author's claims. All of the assertions are based on extreme rhetoric and I think that if the author wants to help people see their point of view, a couple of facts, cited evidence, or better presented arguments would go a long way.
No comments:
Post a Comment