On November 8, Maine voters, including many Bowdoin students, chose to reject a blatant affront to democracy: a ballot initiative that aimed to prohibit same-day voter registration.
Sadly, this was not the only law of its kind. Across the country, from Indiana to Florida to Michigan, state governments have passed, or are considering legislation that would make it harder to register to vote. In most cases, the new laws require some form of photo identification to cast a ballot.
However, according to a 2006 report by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU's School of Law, around 13 million Americans "cannot easily produce documentation proving their citizenship" and some 21 million don't have "government-issued identification."
If photo-requirements do become law, it is hardly democratic to disenfranchise 11 percent of U.S. citizens.
There are two main claims made by supporters of stricter voter registration requirements. The first is to reduce the apparently widespread incidences of voter fraud. But, according to a report by Lorraine Minnite, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Barnard, less than 0.0004 percent of all ballots cast in recent US elections were fraudulent. Certainly, any number of fraudulent ballots is too many, but the contention that it is rampant does not stand.
Secondly, proponents of these laws say that the cost of elections needs to be reduced. I disagree: there can never be a price too high for the oldest and most fundamental aspect of democracy.
The very fact that such laws are even considered is an indication that the way government works in this country needs to be radically rethought.
Mind you, this is not a question of slashing budgets or eliminating agencies with opposing political views. An even more profound change needs to take place before such issues can be tackled. And what might this change be? Simple: becoming an absolute monarchy, but not as the sun king Louis XIV would understand it; where all the power is vested in one person.
No, the absolute monarchy that this country needs is one in which the people wield the most power.
However, this does not mean that the United States should become a populist state—far from it. Consider Switzerland, a country whose political structure has been analogous to that of the US since 1848.
In Switzerland, to cite a government-issued brochure, "the people are the supreme political authority." Besides voting for members of parliament, the Swiss electorate has the right to vote on amendments to the constitution or laws in referenda.
In the case of constitutional modifications, a referendum must be held, regardless of what parliament or the executive has to say about it.
Regarding acts of parliament, an optional referendum may be held if 50,000 citizens sign a petition within 100 days of the law's passing. In effect, the Swiss people have the power to veto or delay laws passed by parliament.
Similarly, citizens may also force a vote to amend the Constitution by collecting 100,000 signatures in 18 months.
Although political parties and other groups can exploit this, the system's positives far outweigh any negatives.
By giving the electorate increased avenues of political authority—as opposed to special interest groups and lobbyists—political parties are forced to reach a consensus, something the United States has lacked for many years now.
It's time that compromise and flexibility return to the political scene in this country; time for the government to serve the people, not the other way around.
Let's remember Thomas Jefferson's remark: "When the government fears the people, there is liberty." Let there be liberty in this self-appointed land of the free and bring about an era of pure democracy—an "absolute monarchy" of the people.