Letters to the editor: Voter apathy the issue

Letter to the Editor

Voter apathy the issue

Recent changes in Florida voting laws have created the canard of a brouhaha and demonstrate differences between the two major parties.

We Republicans don't seem to have any problems registering to vote. Nor do we have any problems with voting, even when there was no such thing as early voting. Or any problems figuring out the ballots or producing identification to vote.

The conclusion is that Republicans are, on balance, both smarter and more well-informed voters.

One of the changes to recent law dropped the number of early voting days from 14 to eight and eliminated early voting on Sunday before Election Day. And this is to be taken as a serious complaint? Counties are in pretty dire financial straits and must look to responsibly manage their budgets.

Another change required groups registering voters to submit the paperwork within 48 hours or face financial penalties. I think an extra 24 hours are in order. Or are we to believe that submitting paperwork is much more difficult than persuading voters to register in the first place?

Updating addresses at polling stations is no longer allowed, but provisional ballots can still be cast. Opponents declare that most provisionals are not counted but never cite any statistics in support.

The real problem glossed over by the media is voter apathy, not voter suppression. The national elections in 1960, '64 and '68 all totaled over 60 percent turnout of the voting-age population. This started falling in 1972, and the low-water mark of 49.1 percent was set in 1996. Years 2000, '04 and '08 ranged from the low- to mid-50s. Over the same time span, "off-year" elections never once hit 50 percent, with most in the high 30s. My source is High Beam Research and corroborated by the United States Election Project.

It is sad that newspapers can no longer afford to hire investigative reporters to scatter the Democratic bull dust to the four winds.

Syd Comer

Brandon

Voter registration private

Regarding "Protect access to polls" (Other Views, Jan. 27): Robert Brandon claims that "we have seen the chilling effect on teachers helping eligible high school students register to vote."

As a retired government (read: public) high school teacher, I find it "chilling" that teachers are allowed to "help" students to register. If the schools were doing their job, by the age of 18 (legal adult, legal voter) students should be able to accomplish this simple task on their own.

Consider that the National Education Association was the largest single contributor to political campaigns and ballot measures in the 2007-08 election cycle, spending $56.3 million — 95 percent of which went to Democratic candidates and causes.

At its national convention in Chicago last July, members voted 72 percent in favor of endorsing President Obama for re-election (the earliest ever such endorsement and down from 80 percent in 2008, but still significant. The NEA has never endorsed a Republican for president.)

Students' political affiliations should be none of the teachers' business, as the teachers' affiliation should be no business of the students — that's why we have a secret ballot. If the school wants to have voter registration on the premises, make forms available in the library, cafeteria or office. But even this is not necessary, as a few clicks on a computer will produce a form.

Is there any 18-year-old today who does not have access to, and know how to operate, a computer? Voter registration, as voting itself, is a private, personal matter. It should be the goal of the schools to keep it that way.

Judi Allen

Sun City Center

Contemplate before voting

The GOP primary brought Floridians a steady assault of venomous messages by phone, in the mail and on television. As the saying goes, "Politics ain't beanbag." It is rough.

However, what is most objectionable is the attempt to smear another by guilt through association. Often these associations are tenuous as best. Gov. Mitt Romney shows Newt Gingrich sitting on a couch with Nancy Pelosi. Somehow, Pelosi's liberalism is supposed to tar Gingrich. Speaker Gingrich associates Romney with President Obama, specifically his health-care reform. So what?

The only things in a candidate's past that matter are issues of character. There are issues in the past of both of these leaders in the polls that raise concern: Gingrich was a serial adulterer; Romney has been — to quote Jon Huntsman — a well-oiled weathervane, changing positions to pander to whatever audience he is addressing at the moment. The hypocrisy of both gives one pause.

Nonetheless, it is important to look at not what these gentlemen have said and done, but what they plan to do if elected. Through that prism, Gingrich presents a host of ideas — many big and controversial. Still, they do provoke honest debate. It is far more difficult to get a firm handle on what Romney has in store if elected. He has articulated precious few concrete ideas.

The single candidate on the ballot who has a consistent political philosophy and policy ideas firmly grounded in that philosophy is Congressman Ron Paul. Yet some of those ideas appear to be beyond the pale.

There is much to think about before entering the voting booth. The one sure thing is that thankfully the vitriol that choked our airwaves ended Tuesday night as the candidates moved on to other states.

R.G Yates

Hudson