mrarmy

Voter ID laws are more about suppression and discrimination instead of laws for the purpose of a free and democratic nation. 180,000 people were questioned in Florida (mostly Hispanics and some African Americans), and the results concluded only about 0.1% of people were actually unqualified to vote. 99.9% of these people were qualified to vote, but may not be allowed to because of this tiny fraction of people who use fraud.

Voter fraud is a rare, almost nonexistent problem in the US today. The tea party introduced laws with restrictions that don’t allow 21 million legal citizens (around 11%) who don’t possess the correct ID to vote. Citizens would technically have the right to vote but they actually can't because of the way the laws are set up.

These laws would keep citizens from their earned right to vote and lessens the impact of their vote if they do vote. It gives an unfair advantage to one party so they have a better chance at taking complete political control.

A reason for voter ID laws to be put into place in the past was to suppress the rights of the blacks and others who are not white and wealthy. In the future a reason would be if voter fraud actually becomes a problem; it is not very common right now, so that is not a good excuse for increasing the restrictions on these laws. Right now the laws are almost doing the same thing the old laws tried to do: suppress the rights of a specific group of people to give more power to another.

I believe that some laws regulating the voting process are necessary for our country to remain free and democratic. However, the types of laws that are being presented today are much too restrictive and are secretively being discriminative towards minorities or those who tend to vote democratic. It is unfair and rigs the system so that the citizens who should be able to exercise their right to vote can’t; the results of the vote are skewed because a portion of the population is not permitted to put their input.

The two countries had (more or less) similar reasons for reconstruction. For the US it was to restore the southern economy, reunite the country, and to spread freedom in the south. With Iraq it is more to get the country functioning on its own again and to create a democratic, free country who is allies with the US. Basically, they worked to make the country free and functioning again.

During the reconstruction there were basically two conflicting ethnic groups: the whites vs the blacks.

In comparison, Iraq had three socially unstable ethnic groups: the Sunnis (wealth, power, minority), the Shiites (majority, no power), and the Curds (minority, disliked.)

-The south had help from the north in rebuilding their economy - the entire south had to be completely rebuilt after all the damage form the war. They southerners basically had nothing after all the destruction, so they were bailed out and didn't have to pay taxes.

-Iraq's infrastructure was rebuilt, more regulations were introduced in industry, and the currency was reformed. The markets were made open to international trade to help the economy heal, therefore, allow the country a chance at recovery.

Although the US and Iraqi reconstructions were two completely different events, they have their similarities (as well as differences.)

-After the fighting was more or less over, the US government rebuilt the southern US; for Iraq, the country was rebuilt not by the government, but by a company that was hired to do the rebuilding.

-Both countries had/have terrorist groups; the US has the KKK, where Iraq has Al Qaida.

A pro of the reconstruction includes the restoration of the southern economy to try to get rid of the southern dependence on slaves to spread freedom in the south. There was an attempt to reunite the country although the country still remained deeply divided.

Economically, the US Government bailed out the south so their economic burden would be lessened; freed blacks housed and fed, and the entire south was completely rebuilt.

Government was reestablished in the south to help them recover although there were still clashes between the northern and southern ideals.

Still, many in the area being reconstructed opposed reconstruction. Many didn’t want to get rid of slavery - it was their way of life.