| Re: More Like "Voter Income Tests", I'm Inclined to Think -- CPMariner | |||||
| Posted by RichAndPretty , Sun, Apr 22, 2012, 20:02:22 | Top of Thread | Reviews by RichAndPretty | Archive | Main BigDoggie.net site | |
Certainly requiring prior registration is going to prevent some people from voting, and poor people are more less likely to be disenfranchised in higher percentages. So, let's just do away with ANY impediment to voting. Right?
Of course, we do want to make sure that only citizens vote, especially with all the undocumented people in the country. Well, conservatives do anyway.
IMO, voter fraud has gotten worse over the years, and I believe it is primarily by Dems (especially the likes of ACORN and Hispanic candidates). However, even if it wasn't, I'd still like to see it eliminated as much as possible. Proving that you are actually the person registered doesn't sound like an outrageous burden to me, or much of a burden at all (hell, poor need ID to get their government checks cashed, don't they?).
I don't think either of you condone or want to perpetuate voter fraud, but since you KNOW that it doesn't hurt Dems, I think you convince yourselves that the arguments against voter ID laws are sound (just as you don't really care that the MSM is liberally biased .... LOL). I doubt you'd have the same opinions if you believed Pubs were benefiting from voter fraud.
Professer, I'm not sure about your "picture at time of registration" (I see potential problems with it), but it would be better than nothing. Perhaps offer it as an alternative for those who don't already have a form of ID.
RAP
PS: Voter fraud: Efforts to ensure integrity of elections met with derision.
In California, controversy continues regarding voter fraud in last November's U.S. House race between Bob Dornan and Loretta Sanchez. The Los Angeles Times and others have turned up evidence that some non-citizens voted in the election, won by Ms. Sanchez. A congressional hearing was held Saturday on the matter. In Louisiana, allegations continue that Mary Landrieu's election to the U.S. Senate last year was the result of widespread voter fraud. Senate Republicans last week approved a wide-ranging probe of the alleged irregularities, which angered Democrats.
In Washington, D.C., an independent auditor has found that the Immigration and Naturalization Service allowed some 180,000 foreigners to become citizens last year without the required criminal background check. Critics claim the process broke down because the Clinton administration was in a rush to naturalize potential Democratic voters before the 1996 election.
The above cases represent only a fraction of instances in which the results of balloting may have been compromised. Ms. Sanchez might have won regardless, but few deny that illegal aliens did vote in her race. Ms. Landrieu most likely won't lose her Senate seat, but substantiated accusations of voter shenanigans in her home state are nothing new. Minor voting irregularities are not unknown in Southern Nevada.
Yet efforts to make it more difficult to perpetrate voter fraud are routinely met with derision. When members of the Arizona Legislature considered a bill to demand voters provide proof of citizenship, they were denounced as "racists." And when Nevada Assemblyman Jack Close attempted to draft a similar bill for the Silver State, he was told the Justice Department would oppose it. Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani actually said, "I don't think it's constitutional to make anyone prove they are a legal citizen." Mr. Close dropped the idea.
In Clark County, residents can vote by simply signing their name in the election book, no identification required to prove you are who you say you are. Legislation to change that has been killed in the past.
What has happened to the integrity of our election process? The push in the recent past has been to embrace inclusivity, to make it easier for everyone -- anyone -- to vote. Register at the DMV. Register by mail. Register at the welfare office. The effort to encourage more citizen participation deserves praise, but isn't it also important that along with it we erect safeguards to ensure the process which forms the very foundation of our republic remains free of fraud and abuse?
Such safeguards are not incompatible with a participatory democracy, they are an essential part of it. In our eagerness to make voting as convenient and simple as possible, we seem to have lost sight of that.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1997/Apr-20-Sun-1997/opinion/5233527.html
| | | | Recommend | Alert Support | Original Message Top of Thread Current page |
| Replies to this message |