Tackling vote fraud
There is much chatter in the media about concern over voting irregularities. Two distinct problems need to be addressed. The one getting the most attention is voter identification when the voter appears at the polls to vote. The other concerns the same voter voting more than once in a given election.
The voter ID issue is relatively easy to resolve. However, it is disingenuously being used as a political football with the claim of bias against a segment of our society. The Democratic Party believes that lack of positive ID at the polls is an advantage for Democrats. This makes it highly unlikely that the issue will be solved in the foreseeable future.
Several foreign countries have solved the issue of the same person voting more than once in a given election. There can be no claim that the procedure utilized by these countries shows a bias toward anyone except a person with no fingers. At the time of voting, the voter must dip a finger into an ink container. The ink is not easily removed and the stain lasts for few days. Clearly, an accommodation would have to be made for absentee voting. But absentee voting could be made very restrictive.
The ink-finger procedure would partially solve the identification problem by preventing a person from voting a second time under a different name.
Let's solve the problem a step at a time.
The writer, a Republican, is a Bethel Park councilman.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Animal abuse
- Food for thought
- Poisoned long ago
- EPA not the problem
- Appreciate caregivers
- Law applies to drillers, too
- For their own benefit
- Trophy shot trumps learning
- Speak up on illegals