State Requires Photo ID for Voting Now: This is a Good System, Despite Initial Problems

Michigan now requires voters to produce photo ID before voting in elections. It's a wonder that this step wasn't taken years ago. It's so common sense that it's ridiculous.

With all the reports of election irregularities over the last eight years, producing photo ID is a minor inconvenience. The election officials don't know who everyone is on sight and where they live, and for anyone to expect that is ridiculous.

And there are government issued IDs that the poor can acquire that are acceptable forms of identification as well. And if they don't want to obtain identification, they simply sign the form that says they are eligible to vote and they are who they say they are. So the argument that it's a discriminatory practice designed to suppress the economically downtrodden doesn't hold water.

The biggest problem lies with the training of poll workers, who did different things in the various precincts. There was some variance in the types of ballots that were issued: regular ballots should have been used for voters who signed the forms, but some provisional ballots were issued instead, which are treated differently and require further validation. Other poll workers rejected acceptable forms of ID, such as military-issued ID cards and Michigan driver's licenses, which is unfathomable.

Uniformity was present yesterday, but not in all the precincts.

There are definitely glitches to work out of the new system, but when they are worked out, it will make Michigan's voting system much stronger and more secure.

Broken House Computer Adds to Trouble in House: Some Members Have Interesting Comments on This

A computer that displays live vote tallies while House voting is in progress malfunctioned today, leading to more tension on top of yesterday's disgraceful actions in the House of Representatives.

One representative complained that he couldn't possibly vote because he couldn't see what his party was doing. Here's a thought: why don't they forget about fixing that machine, and vote based on their own beliefs and values, not their party's??!

If they can't do their jobs, why don't they resign and let someone with more guts make the tough calls?

There was a reason that President Washington spoke out against political parties during his farewell address of 1796:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy....

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

I think Washington's words ought to be considered carefully by politicians who need a machine to tell them how their party is voting before they cast their own vote.