In an effort to stop fraudulent voting where people who are not citizens are voting, or people are voting more than once, conservatives have been pushing for voter identification laws, and keeping the manner of elections in line with including a paper trail. Liberal democrats have railed against the GOP's push regarding voter ID, calling it racist, and an attempt to suppress the vote. The claim has been that some people are so poor they do not have the ability to get themselves an ID, and since the poor are usually members of a minority group, that makes the voter ID laws racist.
“If you go back to the year 2000, when we had an obvious disaster and – and saw that our voting process needed refinement, and we did that in the America Votes Act and made sure that we could iron out those kinks, now you have the Republicans, who want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow laws and literally – and very transparently – block access to the polls to voters who are more likely to vote Democratic candidates than Republican candidates. And it’s nothing short of that blatant.” -- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Of course, they feel it is completely justified to then require identification for union voting.
In reality, saying that voter ID laws are racist is a racist thing to say. Imagine, for example, if someone suggested voter ID laws keep Scottish-Americans from voting, or people that are German-American? Or how about Jews, since they tend to vote democrat? Why wasn't Jews thrown into the mix of people according to the democrats that voter ID laws discriminate against?
First of all, we had to use hyphenated labels to indicate the different groups (Scottish-American, German-American), which segregates Americans in our vernacular. Isn't that racist? Also, we don't assume that Scottish-Americans, German-Americans, or Jews will have a problem getting identification to ensure they can vote because these folks are intelligent, and capable of accomplishing the tasks set before them. Therefore, calling voter ID laws racist against blacks is saying that blacks lack the capacity and intelligence to obtain an ID in order to vote. Isn't that racist?
In the 2012 election, the accusations of fraud were abound. In some areas it was claimed that the number of votes exceeded the registered vote, and not a single person in Philadelphia, or Cleveland voted for challenger, Mitt Romney. In Florida, there were also a number of irregularities that went against the GOP.
A number of cases also emerged regarding people who voted many times for Obama.
Voter ID laws would have protected us against such fraud.
Meanwhile, the liberal left democrats accused Mitt Romney of fraud, because he indirectly invested in electronic voting machines that are more susceptible to fraud, since there is no paper trail.
The belief that Romney invested in voting machines is false. It has been debunked, and only liberal left conspiracy theorists have hung on to it, rejecting the evidence that says otherwise. Business Insider has a great story about it, as does the very liberal website Think Progress, that not only dispels the myth, but explains why it would make no sense for Romney to take that kind of risk (for example, the voting machines in question were only used in two counties in Ohio).
Through the whole accusation by the liberal left that Romney may have been a party to election fraud, the insinuation was clear, electronic voting opens a great potential for voter fraud.
Josef Stalin once said, "You know, comrades, that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this - who will count the votes, and how."
The democrats are realizing that when your policies fail (which is pretty much anytime their policies are tried), you can only fool voters for so long, so they need to convince as many uninformed voters that blindly vote democrat as they can to go to the polls in order to remain in power. Fraud, I believe, also plays into their strategy.
What better way to get more liberal left sheep to vote, and open more opportunities for fraud, than electronic voting? Better yet, for the democrats, how about online voting?
That is exactly what they are shooting for.
What better way to get more liberal left sheep to vote, and open more opportunities for fraud, than electronic voting? Better yet, for the democrats, how about online voting?
That is exactly what they are shooting for.
In Iowa, the Democrat Party is seeking increased participation for the presidential caucus by their blind tools at the voting booth, by pushing for internet voting, a controversial method that would mark the first time in history the web is utilized to cast an official ballot preference for president.
The argument is that it would better enable voters that are not in the area to vote, like military members overseas, persons unable to get to the polls due to age or physical restrictions, or workers who have shifts during the hours when caucuses are held.
Of course, once the democrats can secure an inch for online voting in the Iowa Caucus, it won't be long before they demand a mile of online voting in the general election.
One way of putting this into place, according to Democratic Party Chairman Scott Brennan, is to create an additional at-large precinct for all of those who can’t show up in person. The party of the donkey already allows internet voting in party-run state primaries, but no state has used the option. The DNC first allowed the Internet as a method of voting in primaries in 2008.
“Everything’s on the table,” said Brennan.
One way of putting this into place, according to Democratic Party Chairman Scott Brennan, is to create an additional at-large precinct for all of those who can’t show up in person. The party of the donkey already allows internet voting in party-run state primaries, but no state has used the option. The DNC first allowed the Internet as a method of voting in primaries in 2008.
“Everything’s on the table,” said Brennan.
That is an understatement, when it comes to democrats.
Traditionally, caucuses are multiple hour affairs conducted in churches, schools and homes where neighbors make a public case for their candidate of choice and try to persuade others to join their camp. Allowing those to participate without having to show up in person could change the spirit of a caucus, which is a more collaborative, interactive and public process than a primary, in which voters simply cast private ballots.
Traditionally, caucuses are multiple hour affairs conducted in churches, schools and homes where neighbors make a public case for their candidate of choice and try to persuade others to join their camp. Allowing those to participate without having to show up in person could change the spirit of a caucus, which is a more collaborative, interactive and public process than a primary, in which voters simply cast private ballots.
The risks regarding the potential for hacking and fraud skyrocket with non-paper ballots voting, not to mention Obamacare style technical problems. Close contests would become a nightmare.
How do you do a recount?
How do you ensure the votes were valid?
Exactly.
And the democrats aren't stopping there, when it comes to destroying the American election system. They have also set their crosshairs on the Electoral College, one of the important gifts from the Founding Fathers that protects us against the excesses of democracy, and protects us from the tyranny of mob-rule. The attack is underway State by State, by giving their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, a way to change the check against pure democracy without a constitutional amendment.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama Poll Worker Voted for Obama ... 6 Times? - Townhall
Romney Got No Votes in 59 Philadelphia Voting Districts - NewsMax
Romney Investment in Voting Machines - Business Insider
Exactly.
And the democrats aren't stopping there, when it comes to destroying the American election system. They have also set their crosshairs on the Electoral College, one of the important gifts from the Founding Fathers that protects us against the excesses of democracy, and protects us from the tyranny of mob-rule. The attack is underway State by State, by giving their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, a way to change the check against pure democracy without a constitutional amendment.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Obama Poll Worker Voted for Obama ... 6 Times? - Townhall
Romney Got No Votes in 59 Philadelphia Voting Districts - NewsMax
Romney Investment in Voting Machines - Business Insider
Why Romney Isn't Rigging the Voting Machines - Think Progress
Memoirs of Stalin's Former Secretary
Democratic National Committee Discusses Rules, Iowa Thinks Internet Options - US News and World Report
Scheme to neutralize 36 States' votes advances - World Net Daily
Democratic National Committee Discusses Rules, Iowa Thinks Internet Options - US News and World Report
Scheme to neutralize 36 States' votes advances - World Net Daily
No comments:
Post a Comment