From Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly (linkie):
And when the voting system has been rigged? Don't think a lot of Democrats won't do when they get the chance. I don't think the Republicans will crow about how they have benefitted by that fraud when it happens.
In my district, registration has to be done well ahead of time. When voting, you sign a book that has your name and the poll people check your signature to the one on record. It works for us.
Democrats Vote Against Election Reform
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by carpro, Sep 21, 2006.
Page 2 of 3
-
Drum wrote:
"Now, as near as I can tell, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that requiring photo ID to vote would stop a very, very tiny amount of actual fraud, but would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of poor, non-white, elderly, and disabled citizens. So: no actual serious problem solved, but lots of Democratic-leaning voters kept at home. Hard to believe that Democrats oppose this, isn't it?"
Near as I can tell , Drum presented no evidence to back up his claims. Anyone can make off the wall statements making claims they are not called on to prove.
Here's one from carpro:.
Voter ID would eliminate 95% of voter fraud. Why would democrats be afraid of that? It has to be because the vast majority of fraudulent voters vote democrat. Some of them are even dead.:smilewinkgrin: -
-
Here, to vote, all you need to do is be able to match a name and an address. If you say you are "Joe Blow" and live at "123 Any St" and your name matches the voter roll, you can vote as Joe Blow. It is a total joke.
You don't even have to verify who you are.
Picture ID for voting is an absolute must. It will not disenfranchise anyone. For about $10 (or two packs of cigarettes) one can get a state issued picture ID that would suffice.
Absentee voting is also a big business here. It is well known that candidates have people go and get absentee votes, where a voter will sign the ballot and then allow someone to fill it in for them.
Until we crack down on voter fraud, we will continue to have problems. The biggest problem is that those who depend on the fraud, mostly Democrats, are do not have the character to stop it because it will cost them power. Look for every election in teh near future to be tainted by voter fraud. -
I can very well believe that there is a great deal of voter fraud with absentee ballots.
Absentee voting tends to be markedly republican. And since the most notorious and pervasive cases of electon fraud in recent years have been those that favored republican candidates, it would make sense. -
Actually, the most notorious voter fraud has not been republican but democrat in places like Chicago and St Louis. The absentee voting around here is almost totally democratic. Dead people voting in Chicago has been known for years. There have been few documented cases of Republican voter fraud.
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Democrats are always guilty of voter fraud just study the many well documented cases out there. they cut republicans off while they are trying to drive to the polls. Send them death threats, beat up children of republicans. Republicans are the most disenfranchised on the face of the earth.
-
-
:laugh: Yes, most notorious of the awful democratic voting frauds was the wholesale disinfranchisement of thousands of black voters who were fraudulently accused of being felons.
Another was a similar attempt (which was fortunately caught before the election) when it was found that the State of Florida had rigged the process so as to falsely accuse more blacks of being felons, while bypassing Cuban felons entirely.
Not to mention the rather unusual case of a precinct in Florida with a huge Jewish majority was reprorted by Jeb Bush to have overwhelmingly voted for Pat Buchanan. (Even Buchanan called a foul on that one)
The perpetrator of these frauds? That notorious democrat, Jeb Bush. -
Can you say "persecution complex"? I knew you could. -
Which has been the bigger problem, unregistered voters voting fraudulently or registered voters being prevented from voting? -
-
But I have no problem with free ID, so long as you find a way to pay for it.
$10 is two packs of cigarettes in a four year period. It's a trip to McDonald's. It's a night at the movies for one person with no popcorn or drinks.
So clearly $10, is not much.
I think the biggest problem is people voting fraudulently.
But there is a simple solution to all this, and that is tightenign teh voting restrictions. We need to take it seriously. -
If it's required, and it should be, then it should also be free.
The poll tax comparison won't fly. -
As long as it's free, and readily available where people live, it's not a problem. But don't you see, that would make it useless, as far as the republicans are concerned.
If it was free, and readily available, no one would be disinfranchised.
It would be like making those GOP-contributor voting machines hackproof. That would be defeating the whole purpose of making them hackable in the first place. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
What I found out was it really isnt all that fun. The lack of truth can be very vexing. -
I strongly disagree with you that we should "get rid of the electoral college" (sic).
We are not a uniform nation. We are not the "country of 'America'". Our nation is not a homogenous democracy, it is a federal republic - the United States of America, composed of 50 separate but equal states (four of which are also legally commonwealths, including my home state, KY), one Federal District that is the seat of government, two Commonwealths that are not states, and three organized territories, along with some minor possessions with no indiginous population, as well,. I personally would like to see some progress made on getting something close to 'equivalent' voting rights and relatively equal electoral votes for the three territories and the Commonwealth of the Mariannas; and progress on Puerto Rico becoming a state, or not, as it may choose, and especially erasing the spectre of colonialism over American Samoa, by the population there becoming citizens of the US, as are those of all other organized entities, as opposed to "American nationals", which, IMO, smacks of the early days of our Constitution, when an "Indian" was a non-entity, and a "slave" was 3/5 of an entity. (And should any other sovereign nation desire to become a part of the USA, not that I expect that in any forseeable future, mainly, it should be afforded that opportunity on an equal footing, by following the legal procedures to do so, IMO.)
Any vestige of that thinking should have been put behind us forever 160 years ago at Lee's and the CSA surrender at Appomattox, in the case of the latter, and for at least a century, in the case of the former. Simply put, while slavery may not be 'prohibited' by Scripture, neither is it sanctioned or suggested, and I find it totally unacceptable in the USA in the 21st Century! PERIOD! NO questions asked! No objections entertained!
Ed -
I agree Ed but what does any of that have to do with the Electoral College?
-
Comparison studies have shown that the fewest problems and mistakes were made with the big lever action mechanical behemoths over all others and KY had them before switching to all electronic voting machines. The only reasons KY switched is that they were supposedly (A) out of date; (B) hard to get parts for and repair; and (C,D,E) - the real reasons, BTW - they were awkward and heavy (They were!), took a crew just to move them and set them up (Yes on the first; no on the second.) And one person usually can move and set up the electronic machine that weighs 60-70#, has wheels and slides, and folds into the size of a large piece of luggage. (Yes, Yes, and Yes)
Ed -
Ed
Page 2 of 3