So the US Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, has upheld Indiana's state law requiring voters to present ID before they can vote. This should be a no-brainer to everyone, but not everyone sees the Justice's decision as a good thing. The long, storied democratic tradition of voter fraud is finally put on notice. Obama, no surprise, has blasted the ruling.
Many media outlets are spinning this as a divided decision by the Justices, and technically they're right, but they're implying that this was a five-four split. Truth is, it was six-three... two-thirds. That, my friends, is called a super majority.
Will this ruling keep some people from the polls? It certainly will. Anyone who cannot prove they are Joe Voter with a photo ID.
But why do Democrats have a problem with people proving who they are in order to vote? The typical response is "everyone has the right to vote!"
But how many Democrats-- and how many Republicans for that matter --know that there is no constitutional right to vote in a general election? Perhaps the reason Democrat bigwigs don't like it is because of the very reason Indiana passed the law in the first place. To prevent voter fraud.
But Democrats want everyone to be able to vote! No they don't. They only want those who will vote "Democrat" to vote. If they wanted everyone to vote they wouldn't consistently seek to throw out military absentee ballots, which largely go to Republican candidates.
But it is a fact that portions of urban and elderly voters do not have photo ID. Because they don't drive or because they have let ID's expire and not be renewed.
There is not a rash of fraudulent voting in this country we don't need any new laws in this area, especially laws that will disenfranchise some voters.
What about this election? The Democratic Party has disenfranchised millions of voters in Florida alone. Beyond that, the entire Democratic process [the process employed by the Democratic party] is disenfranchising hundreds of millions every presidential election cycle with their insane rules and traditions. Why bother declaring ANY candidate the winner of a given state when they don't win the delegates? A candidate who wins a state should win ALL the delegates. To split the delegates is distinctly UN-democratic.
This UN-democratic process of electing presidential candidates has created the current spate of problems in the Democratic primaries. On top of that Howard Dean very short-sightedly refuses to seat Florida and Michigan at the Convention. To further complicate matters every voter who cast a ballot in the Democratic primary is officially disenfranchised because THIS time around SuperDelegates will choose the nominee..... not the voters.
Even today, rallies have been held in Florida by angry voters who are threatening to shut down the convention if their delegation is not sat. Rosanne Barr on Air America just the other day called for demonstrations in Denver, in her own words,
"But you know, we have a lot of power and there is a Democratic Convention in Denver in just a short time and we should a bunch of us go there and repeat the Democratic Convention from Chicago. Like, let’s just cause a bunch of trouble. Let's wrest back our government from what, six or seven you know guys like McCain and Romney and Bush from the top. Let’s just go take it. It’s ours. Nobody gives it to you, you just go take it. Let’s meet in Denver and let’s do it."
And then there's this cute little movement... "Recreate '68"
All I have to say is...
Thank You Democrats!
But Roseanne is right about one thing. This is OUR country, not these power-crazed politicians who trample upon our rights each and every day... Republicans included. the only way we will ever take back our country short of armed conflict will be if enough people working in concert thrust out all these congressional goons over a period of several election cycles, and make it unequivocally clear that the same will happen to any of the ones who replace them in Washington will ALSO get the boot if they get too uppity.
You might want to ask yourself why Democrats [the politicians] don't want laws that demand voters present ID before voting. Disenfranchisement of voters? Nah... disenfranchisement of politicians.
Vote early and vote often? The Supreme Court has just made that more difficult in Indiana.
1. The democratic party has disenfranchised voters by refusing to seat Michigan and Florida at the national convention.
2. The democratic party should award state delegates, like the republican party, in a winner take all fashion.
Also EL I need to tell you that you are under a misunderstanding when you say we have to provide ID to cast a ballot. Elections are administered by each state with differing rules. In Alabama for instance if you show up to vote and don't have an ID, or are at the wrong polling place, you can get a provisional ballot. You cast the provisional ballot and then must provide a valid ID within seven days. I believe. Also Alabama recognizes several forms of ID that are not photo ID's. Social Security Card, utility bill, a few others.
Relating to your rants on our national election system, you might be interested in a bill that is winding through a lot of state houses. It is a legislative promise and contract that when enough states have signed up to equal 243 electoral college votes then from that moment forth all states in the contract will award their electoral votes as a block to the candidate that gets the majority of the popular vote. It's passed in Maryland and New Jersey and is almost passed in Illinois(??), and is being considered by like 23 more state legislatures.
But off course all this is beside the point. The Supreme Court set a precedent approving a partisan law that doesn't combat what miniscule voting fraud incidents there are, but instead may disenfranchise enough people to change the outcome in a close election.
How much would you pay to vote?? You have to have a copy of your birth certificate before you can apply for most photo ID's. Getting one of those can be $50. Or could you take half a day off to go to the drivers license office, or the SS office. Photo ID's aren't free, they aren't universal either.
And I keep telling you there is no history of in-person fraudulent voting. It's a boojum someone you listen to has used to fire you up. Don't be a sheep. Investigate the issue for yourself.
Also a little historical fact: From the beginning, no president has been more than 15 years older than the president before him. Since George Washington. No election has looked back at the preceding generation for leadership. I just don't think John McCain is such a dynamic person he can buck this trend. The next POTUS will be either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
The notion that we disenfranchise someone with such a rule is lame. There are two years between elections. I don't care who you are, that's enough time to arrange to get the dough and time to obtain an ID.
This is voting for major positions in our government. This requires a level of seriousness and importance that is altogether lacking when you consider how few people actually vote. I don't think the best thing for the nation is to make voting super easy, when it has never been so difficult to begin with. I want people to understand just how weighty a proposition voting is and expend a little effort in order to see that it is done responsibly.
I believe that the objections to this requirement are all related to the possibility that some votes won't be cast and a particular party might lose as a result. That would be the Democratic Party, who is more concerned with getting votes than with having people truly support their positions.
Tell me again why that's a bad thing. Why is is wrong for any party to fight against a law that might deny votes to their candidates? And why should we not react aghast at any legislature that would enact a law that might target one party over the other?
"Though I hate what you say, I shall defend to the death your right to say it!" --Attributed to Voltaire
The disenfranchising angle is just a pile of steaming poop. The Dems want absolutely no restrictions that might prevent absolutely anyone from voting for them. They demand that convicted felons not lose their right to vote. This attitude means that power is all that really matters to them. They don't want to chance losing the "right" to power, so they'd rather open up the polling places to anyone no matter what if it helps them win. Disenfranchise my eye. What a load!