Letter to the editor: Motivation of Wolf’s election system veto | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Motivation of Wolf’s election system veto

In the wake of the 2016 elections, Republican voters have repeatedly been referred to as uneducated, unsophisticated hayseeds who marched hypnotically into the voting booth having been immersed in the MAGA gospel and blindly pulled the Trump lever.

Now comes Gov. Tom Wolf vetoing the funding for a new updated election system because Republican legislators wanted to eliminate the straight-party vote possibility. In doing so, Wolf states, “eliminating the one-button voting for all party candidates on the ballot would create confusion and longer lines at the polls” (“Westmoreland delays election machine purchase”).

First, there was an issue with voters producing proof of ID being a challenge because it was just too difficult to get a proper ID, and that would be discriminatory. Now, simply asking the voter to read the ballot and make choices that require some thought is considered too burdensome.

I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact that those who make up a significant portion of the Democratic base have accepted without question that the blue ticket will continue to do the wonderful things it has done for them for decades, like superior school systems and better economic conditions, by just having to push that one button. Maybe the day will come when, as a part of the motor voter system, they can just print your driver license in the color that matches your registration, and automatically register your presumed preference every election cycle so you’ll never have to leave the house.

Bill McMaster


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.