After visiting the site and reading a few comments and reviews, I’ve come to hold a very dim view of Merchant Circle. Although it’s not entirely a scam, it’s extremely misleading in what it claims to offer. The site itself is poorly laid-out and contains very little actual value beyond what could be found at easier, more informative sites such as Google Maps or Yahoo! Local (see? I know how to link when it’s worth it).

Fortunately, there is no review of the school -I say fortunately because Merchant Circle has been accused of creating false negative reviews to prod businesses into creating accounts. The review was, in all likelihood, a lie for marketing purposes, or (if we’re being generous) extremely sloppy record keeping. Why would I want to promote my business through a group that operates this way?

A funny and vitriolic blog entry on this business, which compares them to the Mafia, can be read here.

Although cases of individuals performing voter fraud are usually fairly minor and rare, (Levitt), cases of systemic voter disenfranchisement are significant, and often stem from a history of racial prejudice. The practice of disenfranchising felons, according to Demos (a non-partisan research and advocacy organization), was specifically designed to limit Black southern voters during the reconstruction period. The crimes for which a man could have his voting privileges revoked where specifically selected as crimes which white men where seldom prosecuted for, but black men were often prosecuted for. During this time, many southern whites began creates laws and customs that could prevent Blacks from voting, while still being legally valid. Most of these practices, (grandfather clauses, poll taxes, all-white primaries, etc.) have been abolished, but this practice remains, and has , in fact, spread to most other states, although there is a backlash against this system (Carbo, et al).

As said, voter fraud may be fairly rare on an individual basis, however it is often used as a rational in constructing new practices that creating preventative restriction to voting, thus reinforcing systematic voter disenfranchisement. As an example there has been a strong push to create requirements for photo Ids to be presented at polling places. With the passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005, state issued photo IDs are required to, among other things, be rigorously documented, which is ostensibly to help prevent terrorism, and assist in airport security.

The value of photo identification at airports has been undermined by a well documented loophole which allows anyone with a rudimentary understanding of computers to board a commercial flight, even if they are on the federal no-fly list. Although this loophole could be closed, it would greatly increase the waiting time for boarding passengers, which means such a change would likely face opposition from a financially unstable airline industry (Bowers). It is clear that the REAL ID Act is, at least currently, of limited use in airport security.

Many states have begun to experiment with requiring photo IDs to be presented to vote, and there is a fair amount of discussion on using the REAL ID Act towards that end on a federal level (Wang and Goldman). Regardless, the act has the potential to significantly effect any Voter ID laws in the US by its very nature.

Although the concept of requiring government issued photo ID may seem straightforward on the surface, it can be burdensomely difficult objective for some members of society to meet. Eleven percent of potential voters do not currently have government-issued photo ID, predominantly women. This alone may act as a deterrent to voting. Even among those who would be willing to get IDs, by requiring a birth-certificate (or similar), in order to acquire a photo ID, the REAL ID Act has the potential to further disenfranchise a significant number of older, especially minority voters, who are statistically less likely to have a birth certificate. Additionally, a significant number of people do not have such documentation for other reasons, and these people are much more likely to be poor. Because acquiring or replacing these documents can be time-consuming and costly, this becomes functionally similar to a poll-tax for the elderly, minorities, and the poor (“Restrictive Voter Identification Requirements”).

In addition to these problems, states have complained that the REAL ID Act doesn’t provide enough additional funding to implement the mandated changes. This financial impediment, in addition to obvious, unrelated problems, has the potential to create additional waiting time for individuals having their documents processed, as well as a probable increase in fees for such things. This burden could potentially serve as a further deterrent for many voters (“Real ID”).

Personally, I feel a deep sense of disgust with the amount of manipulative behavior involved in attempting to push through invasive and ineffective legislation. The possibility of individuals impersonating other people in order to vote is simply note a credible threat. Documented cases are unbelievably rare. Even the Republican Party’s website for dealing with the issue (http://www.gop.com/ycmtu.htm), while presented in a scandalized manner, seems as much a catalog of confused grandparents as a list of meaningful instances of voter fraud. It should be pointed out how the site presents higher-level election fraud as being on the same level as individual voter fraud, which accomplishes nothing from a policy perspective, as far as I can tell.

In my opinion, using the rare occurrence of voter fraud as justification for passing such laws is, at best misguided and at worst brazen deceit. The history of using past felonies to disenfranchise Black voters has shown that such legal schemes have been constructed with those goals in the past. I am not prepared to say that voter ID laws are specifically designed as a method of disenfranchising the poor and minorities, but that is certainly the most prominent outcome. Faced with this result, and lack of any other meaningful upshot, the existence of this kind of legislation is an undemocratic error that cannot be reconciled soon enough.

This was originally written for a political science class I am taking. I have reformatted it for easier web reading. and made a couple other minor edits.

Citations/Bibliography

Bowers, Andy. “A Dangerous Loophole in Airport Security.” Slate 7 Feb 2005 2 Mar 2008 .

Carbo, , Steve, Ludovic Blaine, Ellen Braune and Tate Hausman. “Democracy Denied.” Demos. Apr 2003. Demos. 2 Apr 2008 .

Daschle, Senator Tom. “REAL ID is a Modern Day Poll Tax.” Think Progress. 25 Oct 2005. Think Progress. 5 Apr 2008 .

Department of Homeland Security, “REAL ID.” 2 April 2008. Department of Homeland Security. 4 Apr 2008 .

Federal Election Commission, “Help America Vote Act of 2002.” Federal Election Commission. 4 Apr 2008 .

Levitt, Justin. “The Truth About Voter Fraud.” The Truth About Voter Fraud. 2007. Brennan Center for Justice. 4 Apr 2008 .

National Conference of State Legislatures, ” Countdown to REAL ID (May 11, 2008).” 4 Apr 2008 .

“Real ID.” National Governers Association. 11 Jan 2008. National Governers Association. 5 Apr 2008 .

“Restrictive Voter Identification Requirements.” Issues in Election Administration: Policy Brief Number 8 23 March 2007 2 Mar 2008 .

Wang , Tova Andrea , and Jonah H. Goldman. “Photo ID Requirement Compromises Voter Rights.” Mother Jones 8 Nov 2005 4 Apr 2008 .

The Kubuntu got to tackle the older computer because it was the only one that had a DVD drive. It didn’t make it to the desktop. The Knoppix on the newer machine worked better, but not by much. It hung on boot twice. First time it had a hard time loading, second time it messed up the video drivers, and third time (when forced to VESA) it finally ran. It ran, but without any sound and with other problems as well. All of this happened, three boots and reboots, in the time it took Kubuntu to get past its splash screen, which is where it froze. We could’ve made a second attempt with the Kubuntu disk, but the novelty wore off, and we decided to play GunBound instead.

I’m interested in Linux, both as a philosophical movement, and as an actual free (as in beer) operating system. But, as our little experiment showed, I think it’s got a long way to go. Reading the linux message boards, such as Ubuntu Brainstorm, at first I got the impression that it was mired in a nerds-only mentality. If somebody posts a problem, people are usually more than willing to help, but the advice is often arcane or unintuitive, or extremely inconvenient and linux people generally seem to prefer it that way. I’m starting to see that this is really just the vocal minority. Most people who work with linux see the value in ease-of-use, but they also realize the limitations of being an OS in the slim minority.

It’s a minor conundrum. On the one hand, having an overwhelmingly dominant OS for the past couple of decades has given us a lot of headaches: We have to deal with bizarre marketing-designed ‘features’, planned obsolescence, an easy target for virus-makers, and the frustration of answering to the whims of a fallible, bottom-line driven corporation. On the other hand, it has proven a boon to software and hardware developers. Having only one OS to design for has freed up a lot of resources for developers, some of which no-doubt couldn’t have existed with the burden of many competing systems, which was the previous model.

Microsoft has never shown much talent for real, earth-shatter innovation. The use of windows (with a lower-case w) was around long before them, as was pretty much everything else they have come to be identified with. If they can claim innovation at all, it is in their business practices, and the peculiar knack they have for making a monopoly look like a good thing.

Linux has no choice but to struggle under these conditions. There are plenty of people who use linux to get work done, but I’m betting that virtually all of them are “into” computers. I doubt very many people are choosing linux as their first operating system. Maybe Unix, maybe thirty years ago. Windows has tried to conceal the DOS prompt (with some success) since windows 95, but if anything ever goes wrong in linux the terminal is still crucial to repairing it. This is a good reflection of the general mode of linux. Configuring an older printer in Windows may be a drag, and it may be impossible, but it doesn’t take that much computer skill to be able to figure this out. With linux, the feeling is that anything is possible, but it usually requires ridiculously specialized skills and the cooperation of the entire open-source community. Neither one of these models works for me. Maybe someday.