ACORN

[--Pete]

Hi,

Come November 4th evidence could arise that shows that ACORN or any group for that matter has in fact perpetrated such acts and as such would shift the scales of believability.

For the reason I already gave, no such evidence will appear. There will be cases of discovered voter fraud as there is bound to be anytime a nation of 300 plus million votes. But there will never be evidence leading back to ACORN or any such organization. That proves nothing, either way.

In other news, it is my perception that ACORN views the possibility of people abusing their organization to commit registration fraud in exchange for monetary payments as less important than the amount of valid voters they can register and encourage to become a part of the voting populace.

I'm sorry, but just how do people who have to be rounded up and herded like cows "become a part of the voting populace"? Oh, they can cast a vote, alright, but shouldn't a voter be a little more? Like at least aware of the issues? Like motivated enough to take five minutes to register when renewing a driver's license? Do we really want large numbers of apathetic and ignorant people voting the way they are paid to vote, or the way that their demagogue of choice tells them to vote?

Now, if even a sizable minority of the people ACORN recruits are concerned, knowledgeable, citizens who couldn't or didn't register because of external restrictions, then ACORN is doing some good (the amount of good, in my opinion, is measured by the ratio of "good" voters to "bad" voters registered, where by 'good' and 'bad' I mean degree of civic responsibility accepted by the individuals). But if nearly all the ACORN recruits are civically apathetic sheep, then I fail to see how ACORN is aiding the democratic part of the republican process of our government. In signal terms, they are adding noise to the channel, causing the little signal that exists to be further drowned.

I view it much as the ethical dilema of the legal system. Is it worse to send an innocent person to jail, or to set a guilty man free? I believe it is worse to send an innocent man to jail.

Bad analogy. Voting is a civic right which each individual has the right to participate in or abstain from. Going to trial is usually not an option (plea bargains, etc,. aside). As an aside to this aside, do you believe that there can be a perfect system? Because, if not, then there *will* be innocent people going to jail and guilty people being turned loose. So, it is not the simple 'either-or' choice you present. How many guilty people are you willing to set free for each innocent convicted? And how many of the future victims of these criminals are you willing to console for their loss of property, dignity, or life because of your philosophy. Many in this country feel as do you, and one of the highest crime rates in the world is the price we pay.

Related to that I also believe it is worse to deny a valid voter their right to vote than to create the possibility that someone will abuse their voting rights.

I agree, but this is a non sequitor. Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see where ACORN was addressing this. What I've seen is ACORN registering people who couldn't be troubled to register themselves. Not fighting for people who are being denied their rights, but simply people who didn't care to exercise them. I'm not even sure how ACORN would go about doing this, since then it becomes a matter of law. The organization I do see addressing this problem is the ACLU, and in this case, I cheer them (about two thirds of the time, I cheer the ACLU and in the other third I curse them -- but that's what makes them a good watch dog.)

--Pete