By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President-elect Trump announced a plan to overhaul U.S. elections, advocating for paper ballots, same-day voting, voter ID, and proof of citizenship. This plan, previously mentioned in 2016 and reiterated recently, directly opposes recent trends like increased mail-in voting and relaxed voter ID requirements. While claiming to combat fraud, the proposed changes could disproportionately affect certain demographics, potentially disenfranchising rural, disabled, and minority voters. The plan contrasts with Trump’s past actions, including encouraging early voting, including mail-in ballots, in recent elections.
Read the original article here
Donald Trump has announced a plan to overhaul the US election system, outlining proposals that have sparked considerable debate and controversy. His stated goals include implementing paper ballots, transitioning to one-day voting, enforcing stricter voter ID requirements, and demanding proof of citizenship. These proposals, however, raise serious concerns about accessibility and potential for voter suppression.
The suggestion of a single voting day raises immediate logistical issues. The practicality of accommodating all eligible voters within a single 24-hour period, particularly in densely populated urban areas, is questionable. This could disproportionately disenfranchise those with demanding work schedules, limited transportation options, or other constraints limiting their ability to cast a ballot on a single designated day. The lack of mention of a federal voting holiday further exacerbates these concerns.
The call for mandatory voter ID and proof of citizenship, while presented as a measure to ensure election integrity, also presents barriers to participation. While voter ID is not inherently problematic, making it mandatory without providing accessible and affordable means of obtaining the necessary documentation is a clear hurdle for many citizens, especially those from marginalized communities. The fact that proof of citizenship is typically verified during voter registration, further suggests that this is unnecessary additional burden.
The proposed shift to paper ballots presents a different set of challenges. While there’s a perceived benefit to the transparency offered by paper ballots, their inherent susceptibility to damage, loss, or manipulation must be considered. They’re also considerably less secure than well-maintained electronic voting systems, making them potentially vulnerable to fraud.
The overall impression is that Trump’s stated intention is not merely to improve the election process, but to reshape it to favor certain groups and to potentially suppress voter turnout. The lack of consideration for those already facing barriers to voting points to a potential agenda. This is especially troubling given the emphasis on restricting mail-in ballots which are often preferred by elderly and disabled voters as well as those who work unpredictable hours or have travel requirements.
Furthermore, the federal government’s limited constitutional authority regarding state-run elections must not be overlooked. Trump’s proposals would require significant legal and legislative changes, including potential constitutional amendments, before they could be implemented nationally. This process is inherently difficult and lengthy, and a lack of broad political support could hinder the successful enactment of his proposals.
The timing of this announcement, coinciding with ongoing debates about election integrity and access, fuels speculation. Critics argue that the proposals are not genuinely aimed at improving the system, but rather at hindering certain demographics’ participation, which may lead to a skewed outcome.
The idea that the proposed changes are designed to make voting more difficult for specific segments of the population, and thus influencing election outcomes, is a cause for concern. It raises critical questions about the true motives behind the initiative and the impact it would have on the democratic process.
The inherent contradictions within the Republican party’s stated positions are also evident. Their frequent pronouncements on states’ rights clash with the proposal for a federally mandated overhaul of state election procedures. This incongruity weakens the credibility of the arguments supporting these changes, leading many to question the underlying agenda.
In conclusion, Donald Trump’s proposed election changes are not just about improving the electoral system; they represent a deeper struggle over access, fairness, and the very nature of democratic participation in America. The proposals, presented in their current form, are likely to disenfranchise voters, introduce inefficiencies, and possibly facilitate electoral manipulation. Regardless of whether these proposals ever reach fruition, their presence represents a significant point of contention in the ongoing dialogue about the future of the American electoral process. The consequences of accepting such a radical restructuring are too substantial to ignore.