Power of the Ballot

The right to vote incorporates citizens with the power to assemble and cast a vote for a specific candidate. Ultimately this power is the inevitable results in the inevitable outcome of the election. The elected official winning by a majority of votes then represents the people who voted in turn proclaiming there ideas and voice in the government. The process all sounds so simple, but in some terms the process becomes more difficult in many aspects, usually involving regulations and law. It is safe to say that over the years different ideas and customs have been integrated in the electoral process, some which may not be entirely legal, but result in an outcome either way. For example there may be a fine line between electoral fraud and buying someone's vote in your spare time. What exist to be a smooth running operation often falls short of some forms of coercion or discrimination enacted to ensure a one sided victory. Clark states, “vote buying and election fraud are fine old Kentucky traditions in the eastern mountains.”

“In the past years money and whiskey determined the out come of many local elections” (163). That is not to say there are no voters willing to submit an honest vote in the election, but maybe some form of coercion was necessary to even hold an election. Either way the problem presented often grows to such extremities that it is often picked up on a consensus. Despite laziness or corruption, most cases go to the Supreme Court for a final out look on the election.

The changes now in effect today are showing more discrepancies in the electoral process and what was once considered morally legal has become a target for attack by justices across America. In a case study of Copperhead County, Kentucky the results showed a great deal of discrepancy in the electoral process. Some results construed illegal measures to balance the outcome of elections. Chambliss states, Copperhead counties political forum by stating , In copperhead county politics, crime, and commerce have become so thoroughly integrated that a single powerful cabal controls both the counties beauracracy and the counties vice” (90). The actual link between organized crime and politics dates back many years. Clark states, “In earlier days a discreet distribution of dollar bills and the use of chain ballots accomplished wonders” (163).

With electronic ballots and increased security inconsistencies from potential voters strikes a nerve during an election. Monitoring polls is now a general practice across America, but still just a small dent in the corruption that may exist. The problem may lie in the fact that not enough honest voters cast their votes during an election or simply in the fact it is often easy to pay people to cast a vote, rather legal or not the initial intimidation has become a problem to such an extent that enforceable measures have become necessary. Clark states, “In an analysis of a century of Kentucky voting behavior by county it was not unusual to return one hundred and ten percent or more of its potential voters” (163).

Hired voters referred to as floaters, often play a big role in the overall outcome of the election. Clark states, “The floaters are given some kind of identification, usually by the county clerks office or the sheriff and simply go around the county voting early and often” (163) So it is idealistic to say the outcome of an election can have more to do with the voters that have actually been paid or coerced to vote in a particular area. The results of Copperhead County's elections are not meant to be a singled out case example, but an overall grounds for the average polls in most communities. An actual Supreme Court decision on the percentages of total voter outcomes in a particular district may represent a large scale operation of bribery vs. disenfranchising people living within the actual community.

In the Supreme Court case of Mahan vs. Howell the percentages of cast votes outweighed registered voters by almost double. The statistics present the problem of outside influence holding more political bearing than the residents residing in the district. In the case Mahan vs. Howell the court rules “ “ violating county lines would effectively disenfranchise certain persons on certain local issues, the number of persons affected would still be less than 1 and a half of the total state population” (315, 1973). The initial problem being variations in district votes high enough to outweigh total communities. This variation reflects the courts decision as stated by the court to uphold “the one person one vote principal” Still one may ask why anyone from another county would embark on the adventure of voting in a different jurisdiction, I feel the answer though not always provable in the court of law, are floaters paid by community members.

The courts are beginning to stricken voting policies and regulations as well as incorporate security measures to ensure the right to vote for everyone. The simple idea that electronic filing is now showing these massive inconsistencies in the system has resulted in many arrest and convictions. As stated by the court in the Mahan vs. Howell case, the term “disenfranchising” defines a form of discrimination. The actual crime is buying a political seat in office and disenfranchising community voters on the issues that may be important to them.