Imagine having no excuse to not vote in an election and knowing that your vote would be counted and verified if necessary.

In recent elections, allegations of fraud have been rampant. Reports of voters being alienated from specific polling locations and problems with electronic touch screen voting machines were not uncommon. In some places, a voter would attempt to vote for a candidate, only to see the opposing candidate’s name appear on the screen as his or her choice.

Voting by mail is the answer to many of the problems voters express they have with traditional voting and increases voter turnout. About two weeks before an election, every registered voter would be mailed a ballot to his or her home. During this time, voters would choose the candidate that they wished to vote for, and simply mail back the ballot or drop it off at a designated area.

We have all heard the reasons that people use when they do not vote in an election, and they are credible. Perhaps they had to work, were busy with their families, had no transportation to the polling place, or had no desire to travel long distances to wait in line. These all lead to lower voter turnout. In the 2004 election, around 59% of eligible voters in Kentucky actually cast a ballot. While in Oregon, which has mostly voted by mail since 1998, a resounding 70% of voters did.

With voting by mail, voters would have plenty of time to cast their ballots, fraud would decrease by signing the ballot and the presence of a paper trail, and Kentuckians would have more faith in the nation’s elections.

Economically, voting by mail is more cost efficient to the community. In Oregon, the average cost for an election is 30% lower than it is for a traditional one. This would save our state as well as the taxpayers money.

However, perhaps the best reason to bring voting by mail to Kentucky is that it would simply bring about more democracy. When more people vote, the government is more representative of we, the people.

George Bush doesn't care about black people? Ask any good conservative nowadays, and they'll tell you that’s simply false. Right they are. Forget the fact that there are 7.4 million African-Americans without health insurance. Pay no mind that African-Americans incomes fell $2,000 since Bush became president. Throw out the notion that the unemployment rate for African-Americans is ten and half percent.

To say that George W. Bush doesn’t care about black people can be easily disputed because it just isn’t so.

Tell the 46 million Americans who don’t have any health insurance in the richest country in the world that George W. Bush doesn't care about black people, and they'll laugh in your face. Because it’s obvious he doesn't care about them either. Right now, a child is sick and wonders why her family cannot afford to take her to the doctor. She sees them on television, pretends to be one at school during recess, but her family cant afford to send her to one, to receive the adequate healthcare she do desperately needs.

Tell the families of the 2,492 coalition servicemen and servicewomen who have died in Operation Iraqi Freedom that George W. Bush doesn't care about black people, and they'll wonder why their race wasn't included. A war began and fought on the three biggest lies of the century (1. Iraq posed an imminent threat to America 2. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction 3. Iraq had ties with Al-Qaeda) took over two thousand men and women from their families. Those families will never again see their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers or fathers ever again. Why? Because George Bush doesn't care about them either.

Tell 98% of Americans, 274,400,000 of them in all, who did not and will not receive the majority of President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that he doesn't care about black people, and we'll ask you to open your eyes. While in the course of giving millions, sometimes billions to his already rich friends, we got either little or nothing. In fact, this is the only president in history to actually cut taxes during a time of war. While the president may be used to getting things handed to him in life, it is the rest of us who realize that you must pay for what you get. If Reaganomics taught us anything, its that making the rich richer doesn’t trickle down to anyone.

So, conservatives, you are right on when you say that no one has the right to say that George W. Bush doesn't care about black people. In fact, he doesn't care about a lot of us. If you are rich, evangelical Christian, rich, corrupted, rich, intolerant of others faiths or lack thereof, rich, or most importantly rich, then yes. Perhaps George Bush does care about you. Maybe he even loves you. But that’s between you and he. But, if you are like the rest of us: poor, middle/working class, public educated, liberal-Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, Agnostic, or multi-cultured, then there's bad news. George Walker Bush doesn't give a damn about you.

(This letter to the editor that I wrote appeared in Madisonville's The Messenger on May 27, 2006.)

Ed Whitfield does not want to be re-elected to the House of Representatives.

While the congressional elections are months away, Ed Whitfield has yet to tell the people of the First District that he does not wish to be re-elected. However, voters only need to look back at the year 1994, when Whitfield first ran in a congressional race. He then stated that Congressmen should only be able to serve six terms, or twelve years. In the years of 1995 and 1997, Whitfield voted to limit congressional terms to six terms, respectively. He also voted seven different times to limit terms to just three terms. This November, he ironically runs for his 7th re-election bid. Why the sudden change?

Is it because Whitfield has received $148,209 from the big pharmaceutical companies and interests during his tenure? He knows that if he were to lose his seat now, he would no longer receive some of his beloved soft money. Instead of working to lower the premiums of health insurance for Kentuckians or making sure that every Kentucky child is covered, he votes to give the special interests tax breaks in the billions.

Is it because Whitfield has a quarter of a million dollars invested in Exxon, one of the nation’s leading oil companies? Instead of actually working to lower gasoline prices, Whitfield sits idly by while gasoline prices skyrocket. As long as gas prices increase and remain high, “Exxon Eddie” receives a wonderful sum of money from his dividends.

Is it because Whitfield supports Halliburton’s no-bid contracts? He has continually voted to keep giving Halliburton contracts even when the Pentagon found that over $100 million of their contractors’ costs in Iraq were unreasonable. In return, Halliburton gifted Whitfield a hefty $2,000.

Perhaps Ed Whitfield has changed his mind since he first ran to “clean up the mess in Congress” in 1994. However, there is a new mess in Congress, and Whitfield’s name is all over it. Regardless of whether he wants to be re-elected or not, he won’t. It is time for Kentuckians to once again place their trust and votes in Tom Barlow, Whitfield’s opponent this fall. Let’s make Whitfield honor his own personal belief that no Congressman should serve more than six terms. Let’s vote for Tom Barlow.

Tyler B. Yandall

Madisonville