Do You Have Any ID?
There have been lengthy discussions about several states’ new requirements that you have some form of picture ID before you are allowed to vote. Interestingly, conservatives have fallen almost squarely on the “show your ID” side while liberals have almost roundly condemned any means of confirming identity. Liberal attacks have even gone as far as equating calls for showing ID with the return of Jim Crowe or poll taxes.
I suppose when you have no better argument, crying racism is the easiest retort. It’s also the most ridiculous. Even the New York Times, which long ago gave up any claim of objectivity or respectability, is using the “little old lady” defense in a recent article against verifying your vote, as it were. They highlight the requirement in Arizona of buying a $12 ID as unduly harsh and a burden on a little old lady, who by the way did you know has a son on active duty in the Army? It seems the only time any major paper will mention active duty military is if they believe it gives them some sort of heart-string-pulling leverage over middle America.
Now, to be fair, I will say that I’m on the fence with paying for an ID that allows me to exercise my right to vote. I don’t mind it, but I think it could be a burden. To Indiana’s credit, it provides free ID’s for just this reason. Funny, that still didn’t seem to pacify the local liberal crowd, like the ACLU and Democrats, who thought that having to pick up a free ID card was an unbearable burden.
I digress, though. I fail to see, and perhaps someone can help me understand, how being able to help curtail voter fraud is inherently a bad thing. I wasn’t alive for it, but I’ve read several accounts of the Chicago voter fraud that handed the presidential election to Kennedy in 1960. Never has one candidate had some many dead people vote for him. Amusingly, though, it seems Republicans are the ones typically cited for voter fraud, although I have yet to see any of the modern allegations proven. There was Florida in 2000, where several recounts, including many by decidedly left-leaning partisan entities, gave the election to Bush, not Gore. The election wasn’t “stolen”. Bush wasn’t “appointed”. He won it thanks to the Founders’ rather impressive intercession in the Electoral College. Never intending mob rule, they had wisely decided to minimize the average citizen’s say in who was President. Remember, the idea was not to have a vulgar democracy, but a representative republic.
Again, not to digress, but the same issue arose in 2004, mostly due to the same people unwilling to believe that Chimpy McBushHitler, as he’s so lovingly referred on the Left, could possibly win over the majority of American voters (the first to do so since Reagan, by the way). This is sort of becoming a post of tangents, but don’t you find it ironic that a political group (the Left) that complains so loudly about defamation from the Right uses the above moniker so readily for our current President? Maybe it’s not irony, just the regular hypocrisy we’re so used to seeing in politics these days.
Ok, so back on track. Why the backlash? Why the fear? When there were concerns that “butterfly” ballots were too difficult to count, the industry that creates voting machines came up with electronic voting, which was at the insistence of the Left, I might remind all again. What do we have to do? Go back to writing our candidates on paper? Or do we have to type them so they’re legible? Do we need to file our votes in triplicate? Or could it just be that those crowing loudest feel they might actually be the ones to primarily benefit from voter fraud and don’t really want to see it go away? Perhaps that’s a bit conspiratorial, but just as readily it could be a true motivating force.
I see only good things coming from a better and more easily verifiable voting registry. With the rolls purged of dead voters and with the remaining voters actually having to prove they are eligible (as opposed to say illegals or those wishing to vote early, vote often), there can only be greater accountability in the practice. That it’s so decentralized still also means the likelihood of widespread fraud is greatly reduced. If there is a downside to this, I can’t see it.
Hat tip to Rightwingnews for the article link.
There have been lengthy discussions about several states’ new requirements that you have some form of picture ID before you are allowed to vote. Interestingly, conservatives have fallen almost squarely on the “show your ID” side while liberals have almost roundly condemned any means of confirming identity. Liberal attacks have even gone as far as equating calls for showing ID with the return of Jim Crowe or poll taxes.
I suppose when you have no better argument, crying racism is the easiest retort. It’s also the most ridiculous. Even the New York Times, which long ago gave up any claim of objectivity or respectability, is using the “little old lady” defense in a recent article against verifying your vote, as it were. They highlight the requirement in Arizona of buying a $12 ID as unduly harsh and a burden on a little old lady, who by the way did you know has a son on active duty in the Army? It seems the only time any major paper will mention active duty military is if they believe it gives them some sort of heart-string-pulling leverage over middle America.
Now, to be fair, I will say that I’m on the fence with paying for an ID that allows me to exercise my right to vote. I don’t mind it, but I think it could be a burden. To Indiana’s credit, it provides free ID’s for just this reason. Funny, that still didn’t seem to pacify the local liberal crowd, like the ACLU and Democrats, who thought that having to pick up a free ID card was an unbearable burden.
I digress, though. I fail to see, and perhaps someone can help me understand, how being able to help curtail voter fraud is inherently a bad thing. I wasn’t alive for it, but I’ve read several accounts of the Chicago voter fraud that handed the presidential election to Kennedy in 1960. Never has one candidate had some many dead people vote for him. Amusingly, though, it seems Republicans are the ones typically cited for voter fraud, although I have yet to see any of the modern allegations proven. There was Florida in 2000, where several recounts, including many by decidedly left-leaning partisan entities, gave the election to Bush, not Gore. The election wasn’t “stolen”. Bush wasn’t “appointed”. He won it thanks to the Founders’ rather impressive intercession in the Electoral College. Never intending mob rule, they had wisely decided to minimize the average citizen’s say in who was President. Remember, the idea was not to have a vulgar democracy, but a representative republic.
Again, not to digress, but the same issue arose in 2004, mostly due to the same people unwilling to believe that Chimpy McBushHitler, as he’s so lovingly referred on the Left, could possibly win over the majority of American voters (the first to do so since Reagan, by the way). This is sort of becoming a post of tangents, but don’t you find it ironic that a political group (the Left) that complains so loudly about defamation from the Right uses the above moniker so readily for our current President? Maybe it’s not irony, just the regular hypocrisy we’re so used to seeing in politics these days.
Ok, so back on track. Why the backlash? Why the fear? When there were concerns that “butterfly” ballots were too difficult to count, the industry that creates voting machines came up with electronic voting, which was at the insistence of the Left, I might remind all again. What do we have to do? Go back to writing our candidates on paper? Or do we have to type them so they’re legible? Do we need to file our votes in triplicate? Or could it just be that those crowing loudest feel they might actually be the ones to primarily benefit from voter fraud and don’t really want to see it go away? Perhaps that’s a bit conspiratorial, but just as readily it could be a true motivating force.
I see only good things coming from a better and more easily verifiable voting registry. With the rolls purged of dead voters and with the remaining voters actually having to prove they are eligible (as opposed to say illegals or those wishing to vote early, vote often), there can only be greater accountability in the practice. That it’s so decentralized still also means the likelihood of widespread fraud is greatly reduced. If there is a downside to this, I can’t see it.
Hat tip to Rightwingnews for the article link.
posted by Rob Beck | 6:24 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home