Jump to content

Is Voter Fraud a Red Herring?


Clyde

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Minorities, students, elderly.

 

I don't think its going to affect them as you think. It is only going to hurt those who let it. Such as the students. I already posted what I thought as to why it will affect them in an earlier post.

 

Thanks. We agree on who will be most effected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just wanted to be clear as to what you were answering.

 

I'm not a big "coincidence" guy ie it just so happens now is the time these were passed....

 

One more follow-up:

 

Do we agree that those who will be most negatively impacted by these specific rules are minorities/elderly/students?

 

 

You're not a big coincidence guy, I'm not a big conspiracy guy.

 

I don't know enough of the details of the laws you speak of to know who it will impact the most. It would not surprise me if students, minorities/elderly are impacted the most. Or if simply the poor are impacted the most. What we will probably see is the party who thinks they will benefit most from these voters finding ways to get them out to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have seen a number of problems since the 2000 election and the 1960 election had many problems, but Nixon did not contest the election for the good of the country. Most these problems involved Democractic voters. In order to help fix these problems these laws have been enacted. Since most of the problems were faced by Democratic voters, on the face it looks like it is directed at them. Yet the laws are to protect the entire system.

I image that there were people who were upset by the outlawing of Gerrymandering, the passing ofVoting Rights legislation and the One Man, One Vote ruling that called for balanced populations in Congessional Districts. All were enacted to help protect the system, just as these current laws were enacted in several states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have seen a number of problems since the 2000 election and the 1960 election had many problems, but Nixon did not contest the election for the good of the country. Most these problems involved Democractic voters. In order to help fix these problems these laws have been enacted. Since most of the problems were faced by Democratic voters, on the face it looks like it is directed at them. Yet the laws are to protect the entire system.

I image that there were people who were upset by the outlawing of Gerrymandering, the passing ofVoting Rights legislation and the One Man, One Vote ruling that called for balanced populations in Congessional Districts. All were enacted to help protect the system, just as these current laws were enacted in several states.

 

What are the "number of problems since 2000?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Clyde is right and that the timing of these Republican-backed proposals has to do solely with the upcoming elections and a desire to limit the voters "less-inclined" to vote Republican. As a former die-hard Republican this normally wouldn't bother me in the slightest, other than I have now grown disgusted with the Republican party as well.

 

I have no problem with requiring a picture ID and given some of the tactics of ACORN over the past few years with voter registration fraud, think it's a good idea. It's important to note, though, that these ACORN employees were committing these acts predominantly to meet criteria required to get paid - i.e., they had to sign up "xx" number of new voters a day, so they made up names when they were short - and not to rig the election. Nonetheless, it was their inappropriate/illegal activities, which became more prevelant during the last election and openly supported by Democrats, that has made the concern about voter/election fraud more pronounced and given the Republicans the very opening they needed to pursue excessive voter rules designed to benefit their party and future election prospects - all under the guise of doing what's best for the American people and the election process. Sure.

 

The exact reason I am sick of them all.

 

Said better than I could have done.

 

Anybody that thinks differently, to paraphrase Dennis Hopper in Speed, has got blinders on to the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Florida and Ohio. Someone mentioned all the phony registrations by ACORN and all the illegals in California.

 

You need to be a bit more specific. What are you referring to in FL and OH?

 

What are you referring to with ACORN?

 

How many illegals were determined to have voted in CA?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The policies being enacted have a clear aim at who will have to work harder to get their vote to count, legal or not. Namely the laws in Wisconsin (where the Dems won by 14% in 2008), which will make it tougher on college students and the citizens who will need to renew their IDs to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would seem to adversely affect any church doing a voting drive & not just the black churches.

 

Technically you are correct. However, there was one church group that rallied the troops in 2008 and it wasn't the Catholic church. It was the black church. As a rule, members of the black church support which side?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I'm generally on your side here, Clyde, there is, of course, the issue that if exercising the right to vote is all that important to these disenfranchised voters (blacks, minorities, low-income, etc...), it really shouldn't take someone cajoling them and almost literally leading them by the hand to the polling booth to exercise this right. I know this is off your point of why these regulations are being proposed/enacted at this particular point time, but nonetheless it is rather silly that it takes such a Herculean effort to get these individuals to vote. Don't tell me they don't know an election is taking place, that they are unaware of their right to vote, or that they couldn't figure out the process on their own to get registered and become a meaningful part of the political process - if it was truly important to them. That's the part of the argument that bothers me - helping to ensure that people who generally speaking don't really care about the right to vote have the easiest path to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People can say "Oh, this is just something the GOP is trying to pull!" or " There were only 90 something cases of voter fraud." but the fact is showing ID should be required. It is logical. Voting is the most important obligation we have. We owe it too the people who have sacrificed their lives for us. We were one of the first successes of having a lasting democracy. The most important role we as citizens have is voting. If posters on here think it is a political move, I seriously believe you are just looking for something to complain about. Ethically, it is ten times better than what, as I said before, democrats do in order to try and capitalize on the illegal vote.

 

We have to show our ID to buy cigarettes. We have to show ID to buy beer. We even have to show our ID when we purchase something with a credit card to make sure we're the correct person (something that I have yet to fathom....)

 

It doesn't matter when this process would of happened. The people on the left are going to complain because the GOP is enacting it. Get over it. And the only reason the Dem's haven't proposed it is because they are getting more and more dependent on the illegal vote in certain parts of the country. From what I have been reading, stopping people who have no right to vote in America is the reason this was put forth. Not some conspiracy to prohibit blacks, hispanics and black churches from voting. People are putting their own spin on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.