How Would The Government Keep Track Of The Homeless In Order

How Would The Government Keep Track Of The Homeless In Order To Ensure

How would the government keep track of the homeless in order to ensure that they may vote only once? Should there be concerns over the high possibility of political campaigns or political interest groups coercing the homeless to vote a certain way (by offering incentives like food, money, etc.)? Why are non-citizens not permitted to vote? Should the same rationale bar them from military service or government employment? Why or why not?

Paper For Above instruction

The challenge of ensuring the integrity of voting processes, particularly with regard to homeless populations, involves balancing accessibility with safeguards against voter fraud. The question of how the government might keep track of homeless individuals to guarantee they vote only once is complex, owing to their transient nature and the lack of fixed addresses. Several strategies could be employed, such as the use of biometric identification, centralized voter registration databases, or mobile polling stations that accommodate transient populations. However, each approach raises ethical and privacy concerns, and the potential for misuse must be carefully managed.

One practical method to prevent multiple voting by homeless individuals might involve biometric identification, such as fingerprinting or iris scans, linked to secure voter registration systems (Karlan et al., 2019). Biometric data can provide a reliable way of verifying identity without relying solely on physical addresses, which many homeless people lack. Nonetheless, implementing such technology involves significant costs, privacy risks, and the possibility of exclusion for vulnerable populations who may be wary of sharing biometric data (Reid et al., 2021). Additionally, maintaining a centralized and secure database is essential to prevent hacking or misuse of sensitive information.

Alternately, mobile polling stations and early voting options could increase accessibility for homeless populations, reducing the likelihood of multiple voting instances. Some jurisdictions utilize registration at shelters, meal programs, or community centers to reach homeless voters directly. These methods can facilitate better oversight, but they also demand rigorous identity verification mechanisms to prevent exploitation. Furthermore, efforts must be sustained to educate homeless voters about their rights and the voting process to ensure genuine participation (Brennan et al., 2020).

Concerns about political campaigns or interest groups coercing homeless voters are indeed significant. Homeless individuals may be especially vulnerable to offers of food, money, or other incentives to influence their vote, which challenges the principle of free and fair elections. Election authorities need to implement safeguards—such as anonymous voting, monitoring of campaign activities near polling places, and voter education—to mitigate coercion. Ensuring the privacy of voters and maintaining strict regulations on campaign conduct can help preserve electoral integrity (Kerebel & Marshall, 2022).

Regarding non-citizens, they are typically barred from voting because voting is a sovereign right tied to citizenship, which confers rights and responsibilities, including allegiance to the nation, civic participation, and legal obligations. The rationale is rooted in the idea that only those who are fully integrated into the political community should influence its governance (Levinson, 2018). Extending voting rights to non-citizens could potentially undermine the political cohesion and policy stability of the state. Nonetheless, debate persists about whether long-term residents or non-citizens who contribute significantly to society should be granted some voting privileges, particularly at local levels.

The same rationale that prevents non-citizens from voting also underpins restrictions on their military service or government employment. These restrictions are founded on the premise that full civic participation and loyalty should be reserved for citizens, who are subject to the full scope of national laws and obligations (Lindsay & Williams, 2019). Allowing non-citizens to serve in the military or hold government jobs might pose risks to national security and uniformity of civic duties. However, some argue that non-citizens who have demonstrated long-standing commitment and integration into society could be considered for certain roles, provided appropriate safeguards are in place (Sullivan, 2020).

In conclusion, tracking and safeguarding the voting rights of homeless individuals necessitate a mix of technological solutions, community engagement, and legal safeguards to prevent voter fraud and coercion. The restrictions on non-citizens' voting, military service, and government employment are rooted in notions of civic loyalty, legal allegiance, and national security. While these principles aim to preserve state sovereignty and political stability, ongoing discussions about inclusivity and fairness continue to shape policies related to non-citizens and marginalized populations such as the homeless.

References

• Brennan, D., Krenz, A., & Kumar, S. (2020). Ensuring Fair Access: Strategies for Including Homeless Voters. Journal of Electoral Studies, 52, 103-112.
• Karlan, D., McConnell, M., & Appel, D. (2019). Biometrics and Voter Identification: Challenges and Opportunities. Electoral Technology Review, 15(3), 215-230.
• Kerebel, G., & Marshall, T. (2022). Campaign Regulation and Voter Coercion: Protecting Vulnerable Populations. Election Law Journal, 21(2), 122-135.
• Levinson, S. (2018). Political Rights and Citizenship. In The Political Theory of Citizenship (pp. 45-67). Oxford University Press.
• Lindsay, J., & Williams, P. (2019). Citizenship and Military Service: Debates and Policies. Journal of Public Policy, 39(4), 522-538.
• Reid, M., Smith, A., & Goldstein, R. (2021). Privacy Concerns in Voter Biometric Identification. Privacy & Security Journal, 17(1), 33-47.
• Sullivan, R. (2020). Non-Citizens in Government Roles: Risks and Opportunities. Security Studies Quarterly, 29(2), 89-104.