ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: We need responsible voters | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: We need responsible voters

In her plea for automatic voter registration, state Rep. Sara Innamorato makes the common (common to Democrats, at least) mistake of conflating the principles of economics with those of government (“It’s time for automatic voter registration in Pa.,” Feb. 9, TribLIVE).

In commerce, input from everyone gives the market information it needs to efficiently provide the greatest amount of stuff for the greatest number. Business is utilitarian and amoral, and it works great.

On the other hand, the principles of good government are ethical. The job of government is to protect the state from external threats and preserve the rights of the people. Government may also provide public services unless doing so abrogates individual rights. While a dumb or unethical consumer still contributes to efficient markets, a dumb or unethical voter causes harm. Good government depends on voters who bother to learn something about political philosophy, ethics and economics … people who understand and care about the principles of good government and vote for candidates who will uphold them.

A voter registration system that requires a bit of effort at least ensures that those registered have some foresight and initiative. Automatic voter registration just serves to enable voter fraud and exploitation.

Arthur Moeller

Fairfield


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.