Elections are a vital element of society. Election is the only tools through which the electorate, despite their class, can be able institute the changes that they deem necessary in society. However, many leaders of the world have evaded elections or breached electoral laws so as to remain in government. Incidences of election rigging have been evident across many parts of the world. Despite the United States being a stable democracy, the electoral system is still subject to election malpractices if it remains unchecked. Of key interest is the idea that failure of presiding officers to ascertain the identity of the voters can in some instances result in the voting of individuals that do not meet the threshold that has been set by the electoral body. In order to avoid electoral malpractices, many state governments, gubernatorial units, and the federal level in the United States have backed the idea that voters should possess government issued identity cards. These cards have the details of the voter and make sure that the voters who show up in polling centers are legit and eligible citizens. In the midst of the efforts by government to enhance a free and fair election, critiques have argued that the forcing of voters to possess a government identity card violates the provisions of the constitution spelt out the 24th Amendment. Despite these critiques, it is worth noting that government’s efforts to enhance a free fair election are the driving force behind this rationale. This paper takes the position that forcing people to possess government issued identity cards is legit. There are four important arguments that support this position
First of all, government as an entity does not have its own funds. Government generates it funds from taxes that are charged on citizens. This means that the employees employed in the DMV stations are paid using government taxes that come from the electorate. Without these services, it is difficult for citizens to obtain special services like the acquisition of driving licenses (Watner 13). This means that since the processing of government identity cards happens at a cost, it is worthwhile that the government compensates for these costs by charging a fee on citizens who enjoy these services. As citizens, it is worth noting that government expenditure is meant to promote social welfare (Robinson 67). This means that the social service that we enjoy from the government comes at a cost. Therefore, if government is to continue offering these services, it has to have a continuous flow of funds that makes sure that these services are constantly available and at the same time happen in a smooth manner. Voters should therefore not see the payment of a fee on identity cards as being a burden. Instead, voters should view the paying of these fees as a support to government, and also as a way of making sure that there is a continuum in the provision of services to society.
Second, it is worth noting that the notion of security within the United States has changed. Unlike the Cold War era where state to state aggression was viewed as being the threat to society, non-state actors have turned out to be one of the greatest security concerns to many states in the international system. Non-state actors include transnational criminal and terrorist organizations as well as individuals. This means that the same individuals that the state, as a security provider, sought to protect have become a security threat. The United States is considered being a melting pot where many people from all walks of life and different nationalities converge. Globalization has allowed the movement of people across borders and most of them have landed in the United States. In the midst of this flow of people in the form of labor and entrepreneurs, individuals who are security threats to the state have also found themselves in the United States (Lyon 34). In this case, without a government issued identity card, it is difficult for law enforcement officers to be able to ascertain whether individuals are a threat to state security or not. This means that forcing voters to possess government issued identity cards is not only a political issue, but also an issue that determines the security of the state. Therefore, states and federal government officials are justified to ask voters to possess government identity cards to which they pay a fee.
It is also worth noting that statistics and patterns are important in the study of political elections. Unlike the past centuries that were characterized by inadequate technology, there is a need to create political demographics and patterns. The possession of identity cards makes it easier for analyst and analyst to be able to determine how voter demographics such as age, geographic area, race and other variable influence the electoral process. Bearing in mind that government issued identity cards possess all this information, it is easier for both presiding officers and election analysts to be able to conduct election studies because information about voters is available.
In conclusion, the possession of government identity cards on which a fee is paid is important because it generates government revenue. This is because the printing of these identity cards and their administration happens at a cost. Government has to therefore compensate through taxes. Second, government identity cards combat election malpractice, and acts as a way to combat state security threat
Works Cited
Lyon, David. Identifying Citizens: ID Cards as Surveillance. Malden, MA: Polity
Press, 2009. Print.
Robinson, R. Legislation on Identity Cards: A Consultation. New York: Routledge
Publishers, 2004. Print.
Watner, Carl. National Identification Systems: Essays in Opposition. Washington,
DC: Library of Congress, 2004. Print.
