Response to "Voting for Voter's Votes"

For the generation of young students who are just becoming eligible to vote, 2016 is certainly an exciting year. Yet, even for experienced voters, the current array of candidates has promoted an increased awareness in politics. As the possibility of two extreme candidates likens, so does the possibility that foul play in the voting booths could be at work. In Katrina Berthold’s commentary, she discusses one possible instance of voter fraud in Arizona. I agree with Berthold that the behavior at hand is definitely suspicious, but it wasn’t until additional research had been done that I came to this conclusion. 

Berthold starts her argument by examining the idea of voter suppression. She notes that Arizona had issues with voting during its primary, and citizens were complaining about the lack of polling places, wait times, and problems with ballots. The complaints were even taken to court where judges ruled that not enough evidence had been produced. 

At first glance, I assumed that the alleged voter suppression was due to outdated technology and a lack of funds to allow for more polling places. After further research on the issue, I discovered that voters were forced to wait in lines for hours and many remained even after winners had been announced. Arizona is a closed primary and some voters complained that they were given provisional ballots despite being registered with a specific party. These are details that were left out in the original commentary, and would have shown themselves to be highly effective in convincing readers.

Berthold concludes her argument by considering who is to blame for the thousands of Arizona citizens who missed their opportunity to vote. She writes that voter turnout in the state decreased in 2012, possibly accounting for the lack of polling places, and therefore the government may not have intentionally restricted voters. 

Berthold makes it clear that Arizona’s primary voting this past year was “unfair and restricted.” This, I agree with. However, I feel that with additional information, her argument could have been strengthened. Nevertheless, Arizona should consider the importance of the upcoming election and respond accordingly. 

Coping with Mental Illness

Earlier this month, the federal government issued a report accusing South Dakota of unnecessarily holding thousands of mentally ill and disabled patients in nursing homes or long-term care facilities, many of whom are being held against their will or could manage on their own with minimal assistance. Similarly, a study done by a group of researches in 2010 found that “America’s jails and prisons have become our new mental hospitals,” with “more than three times more seriously mentally ill persons in jails and prisons than in hospitals.” As the number of mentally ill and disabled persons continues to grow, government officials and scholars alike work to find a proper and effective treatment solution. I do not believe that the answer comes in the form of a simple program, but rather a shift in attitude on mental illness and disabilities, followed in suit by proper funding. 

Sociologists have long proposed the idea that our beliefs about insanity and mental illness are socially constructed, and by labeling a person as such, the attitudes and means of interaction with that person will be significantly altered. In 1973, David Rosehan conducted a famous experiment in which eight sane people were granted secret admission into 12 different hospitals. Rosehan found that inside the hospital, the sane were indistinguishable from the insane. The social environment in the hospitals led to the patient’s feelings of “powerlessness, depersonalization, segregation, mortification, and self-labeling,” quite the opposite of helpful treatment.

Likewise, in criminal situations, police officials are often not familiar with the symptoms of mental illnesses and may respond accordingly. Rather than criminalizing these minor behaviors, we should provide support and promote programs of understanding. For those inside facilities, measures should be taken to improve the lives of its inhabitants such as job-finding programs, and focus should shift from nursing homes to in-home care which would save money and allow patients to live out their lives in a more comfortable settings.

 
In 1963, weeks before his assassination, President Kennedy signed into law the Community Mental Health Act, intended to make mental health centers more accessible so that Americans could work and live at home while still receiving necessary treatment. However, many of these centers were never built or funded, and as a result of the 2008 recession, states cut mental health funding by a combined $4 billion, allowing nursing homes and prisons to become the go-to place for people with mental illness. Stepping Up Initiative is a group aimed at reducing the number of people with mental illness in jails and by teaming up with Washington officials, more funding may be achieved.

 
  Mental illness is a serious issue and the first step to making life better for those suffering is raising awareness. By helping others to understand and learn how to properly deal with mental illness and disabilities, we can begin the long road to solving this crisis. With a different outlook and the funding required to make such a change, we can treat people in their own communities and return them to useful places in society.