Voting arguably one of the greatest rights that we have as Americans. Voting gives the common person a voice for how our government should be ran. Since this next president election is so important, the conflict has risen if voters should have to present a photo identification at the polls to vote. An article from Chris Freind explains why photo identification should be required and an article from NPR explains why photo identification should not be required. Let us explore both articles and see which one comes up with the better argument. First, let us look at the use of logos. Freind uses logos numerous times, one example is, “In a society where one must show ID to enter office buildings, airplanes… it is time to give the same level of importance to …show more content…
Freind starts his article using pathos. In the beginning of the article he tells a short story of how he is a person who is an “voter-enfranchised” and that he can vote 22 times. Freind uses this story to explain how simple it is for a person to vote multiple times without photo identification. Likewise, NPR also uses pathos. NPR uses testimonies from three people across multiple states saying how they are not able to get a valid ID and as a result, they might not be able to vote now. NPR uses these testimonies to display that getting a valid photo identification is not simple in some cases.
Thirdly, let us look at the use of ethos. NPR uses a several quotes from creditable people in the fields of civil rights and voting. Some people that they quoted are Larry Dupuis of the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, Elisabeth MacNamara, who heads the League of Women Voters, and many more. NPR used these people to strengthen their argument to express that experts in these fields are agreeing with them. On the opposing side, Freind does not use ethos at all. Freind himself is not creditable because he is an independent columnist, he has no expertise in this