To the editor:
When the methods of voting catch up with current technological capabilities, the voter turnout problem largely will cure itself.
My wife and I would have loved the opportunity to vote in this month’s primary election. But we did not vote. Rather, a serious injury to a parent required our extended absence for six weeks, followed by seven days home here in Las Vegas and another departure for another extended period, taking turns with siblings caring for our parents. Our opportunity to vote in person or with an absentee ballot was lost.
Other methods should be available to voters who need or merely desire to vote electronically; from locations outside designated brick-and-mortar polling places; and at hours and on days not set by bureaucrats. Such polling should be an anachronism.
It is not because some powerful people gain by disenfranchising large numbers of our citizens. That is routinely achieved nationwide largely with the complicity of the courts, including those “Supremes” who march hand-in-hand with the ultra-rich who seek to, and do, buy our elections. Indeed, our courts march with those who aggressively block access to voting and gerrymander districts to make voter turnout useless. Blocking access to voting and gerrymandering are the tactics of choice from those who cannot gain or keep office honestly.
Online voting in this day and age should be the rule rather than the exception. The current system discourages voting by workers who are not on traditional 9-to-5 shifts near their assigned polling place; it discourages anyone who works, goes to school, is hospitalized or otherwise assigned away from home territory.
If participation is really desired, then the use of current phone and computer technology will encourage involvement of the masses. Why not? Who gains by keeping the masses disenfranchised?
Breath of fresh air
To the editor:
Newspapers these days are filled with stories of wars and atrocities, gun violence, poverty, starving children and 7.2 billion people exhausting this planet’s resources. Maybe this is why Ed Graney’s June 21 column concerning 11-year-old Lucy Li playing in the U.S. Open brightened my morning (“Pigtailed prodigy Lucy Li, 11, misses Open cut, doesn’t miss the point”).
Mr. Graney neither endorsed nor condemned parents who would promote or even allow such an undertaking by a child, instead giving credence to both sides of that complex issue, a rarity in an age when commentators all seem to be dead certain about their condemnation of someone else. Mr. Graney was instead intrigued by the fact that Lucy really didn’t care about her score, despite the fact that she was on a national professional sports stage where participants are normally obsessed with every detail of their performance. Rather than view the U.S. Open as competition, Lucy was relaxed and simply having fun — while nevertheless focusing on her game and outperforming some tremendous golfers. We can all take a lesson from that.
ALBERT G. MARQUIS
Is it over yet?
To the editor:
I was wondering if there are other Democrats out there who are as disappointed as I am with President Barack Obama and the direction this country is headed. This is the guy who was going to go over every spending bill with a red pen, plus have the most transparent administration in history.
Well, the nation is up to its neck in debt and the president is up to his neck in scandals. And it seems as if there is a new crisis weekly that he is totally incapable of dealing with. The president seems to focus on everything except what is truly important to the average working American, and that is jobs and the financial security to provide for your family. I think he might be the most anti-business president we have ever had.
He is good at is giving speeches and raising money. He is not good at is being a leader and solving complex problems. Like everyone else, I had high expectations for hope and change when he was first elected. Now I can’t wait for 2016.
NORTH LAS VEGAS