Mandatory Voting?

As we discussed in class last night, the United States has a relatively low turnout for elections. The figure for voter turnout for congressional elections is barely above 50%. Other countries tend to have significantly higher voter turnout figures. In Australia, the rate is 95%. Of course, Australia has compulsory voting. Here's how it works there:

All Australian citizens over the age of 18 must register and show up at a polling station, but they need not actually vote. They can deface their ballot or write in Skippy the Bush Kangaroo (Australia's version of Lassie)—or do nothing at all.

What happens if you don't show up on Election Day? You'll receive a fairly polite form letter (see example here). At this point, you can settle the matter by paying a $15 fine or offering any number of excuses, including illness (no note from your doctor required), travel, religious objections, or just plain forgetfulness. For most people, the matter ends here. In most elections, about a half-million registered voters don't come to the polls. Ninety-five percent of them offer a valid excuse, and the matter ends there. Five percent pay a fine.

Would you favor such a system here in the United States? Or does requiring someone to vote defeat the purpose of voting as a right or privilege? Should we want everyone to vote, informed or otherwise? What does it say about the state of our democracy when barely half the voting populace exercises that right?

Should health care workers be required to be vaccinated?

The State of New York through its Health Department issued a rule that all "all hospital, home health and hospice health-careworkers" must get the H1N1 vaccination. The State of Washington has issued a similar mandate. Both the hospital worker's union and some public health officials have questioned those policies. In the past only about 50% of health care workers choose to get the vaccination. However, that compares favorably to the 1/3 of the general public that does so.

Some health care experts have been supportive of this requirement:

Dr. Julie Gerberding, the former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, called New York’s move “a big deal.”

She had pushed for years for mandatory vaccinations — not just to protect health care workers, she explained, but to protect their patients, who are often aged, have weakened immune systems or are bedridden after surgery, which increases pneumonia risks.

“We tried to market the idea, to push people, to educate,” she said. “But looking back, broadly speaking, we failed. It’s time to look at a more aggressive approach.”

Others have expressed concerns about the safety of the vaccine and forcing people to take agains their will:

In response to the New York state vaccine mandate, the New York State Public Employees Federation (PEF) released a statement stating "vaccination for influenza is not as effective in the control of disease as vaccination for diseases such as polio, measles, and mumps. The safety of the H1N1 vaccine has not been as thoroughly established."

It should be noted that:

Every state already requires health workers to be immunized against measles, mumps and polio, and the unions do not object. Also, federal law requires their employers to offer free hepatitis shots against needle-stick injuries, and California requires them to offer free flu shots too. While workers may decline, they must sign a form saying they accept the risk.

Do health care workers have an obligation to get the flu shot in order to prevent their patients from getting the flu? Many who may already be the most vulnerable to effects of the flu may be in hospitals where the caregivers are not themselves protected from contracting the flu. How many lives may be saved if hospital workers have been vaccinated? On the other hand, should workers be forced to take the shots if they have a fear about the safety of the vaccine since its testing period has been over a much shorter time than usual?

Banning Books

Recently, the issue of banned books in the public schools found its place right here in the Roanoke Valley. From WDBJ-7:

It's a book one father says he would NEVER have allowed his son to read and he's furious it came from a William Byrd teacher.

The book in question is called 'The Perks of Being a Wallflower' by Stephen Chbosky.

In it, there are countless stories of sexual encounters including homosexuality, forced sex and voyeurism.

These writings upset parent John Davis.

His son is a junior at William Byrd.

An English teacher gave her copy to a student, who then gave it to Davis's son.

This book is banned in other school districts across the country on what's called a 'Banned Book List.'

The book is NOT banned in Roanoke County schools.

Davis finds it troubling that two copies were available in the school's library.

The Roanoke County School Board responded:

"The principal took appropriate personnel action. It has been the long-standing practice of the school system not to publicly comment on action taken with regard to individual employees and, in keeping with that practice, we do not intend to comment on the action taken in this case."

The School Board was unaware of this book and that it was in the library.

Both copies have been removed and the Board has ordered a review of the system's procedures for accepting books in school libraries.

In the minds of many, the publicity from this episode is likely to stimulate greater interest in the book. One could imagine a large number of individuals checking their public library or going to Barnes and Noble to get themselves a copy to check out what makes the book so controversial.

Does the parent have a legitimate concern? Did he handle it properly? Did the school system do the right thing?

In the Roanoke Times on Sunday Dan Casey wrote a column that poses some interesting thoughts and includes some the back and forth on the issue:

Thursday morning I called Barnes and Noble at Tanglewood Mall with a simple question.

Do you have any copies of "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" by Stephen Chbosky? I asked.

The answer was no.

"I can order you a copy," the clerk said. "We're all sold out."

"Wallflower" was out of stock at the Valley View Barnes and Noble, too. And at Ram's Head Book Shop in Towers Shopping Center. A colleague managed to snag the last copy at Books-A-Million.

That's one of life's little ironies that must gall the book-banners.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Calls flooded the office of William Byrd Principal Richard Turner, and the Roanoke County schools administrative offices.

Members of the Roanoke Area "Tea Party" movement passed around an e-mail with the tantalizing subject line: "For Those Needing More Encouragement To Pull Their Children Out of Public Schools."

It read in part: "You should be outraged that a Roanoke county [sic] school teacher even owns such material, much less that she gave it to her students."

---------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, among its 213 pages are passages about sex, masturbation, homosexuality, sexual violence and alcohol abuse.

But the parts I've read, which the offended father explicitly cited in his complaint to the school system, hardly glorify those subjects.

If anything, the narrator seems to describe them with a bit of angst and detached horror.

He comes across a bit like Holden Caulfield, the narrator of J.D. Salinger's "Catcher in the Rye," a novel that other book-banners have pilloried from time to time.

Is this much ado about nothing or a legitimate issue?

Flag Burning

In the 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson ruled that burning an American flag is protected speech under the 1st Amendment. This decision was met with much outcry from many Americans. That sentiment was felt in Congress when an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was introduced. In very brief language it read:

The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

The amendment itself would not outlaw flag burning but would allow Congress to pass legislation that would do so. The necessary two-thirds vote was garnered in the House of Representatives but failed by one vote in the Senate to reach that threshold.

Would you favor amending the Constitution to give Congress the authority to outlaw flag-burning?

In his dissent in Texas v. Johnson, Chief Justice William Rehnquist made the case for outlawing the practice:

"The American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. It does not represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another 'idea' or 'point of view' competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have. I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 States, which make criminal the public burning of the flag."

On the other hand, opponents of an amendment argue that while burning the flag is burning the symbol of freedom, outlawing the right to burn the flag as a sign of protest would, in fact, be outlawing freedom. Moreover, they argue that there has not been an epidemic of flag burning in the United States and amending the Constitution to outlaw something that is a rarity would not be worth the time.

What do you think?