Skip to comments.New Republic Online Article by Peter Beinart defending voter fraud - anyone have access to this?
Posted on 10/29/2004 8:24:59 AM PDT by QuiMundus
I saw on another blog (linked) that Peter Beinart included in an article a justification for voter fraud as long as more participation results. This article requires membership to the site, and I was wondering if anyone can get and possible post the entire text of the article here. Thanks.
Peter Binhardt would have felt at home in Nazi Germany.
They are talking about your man here--if they find the link--don't read it. I don't want another frenzy of typing symbols sent to me--ha, ha.
Suggestion: Everyone should take one of those cheap throwaway cameras with them to the polls and actually take or pretend to take pictures of the commies standing around with demonrat signs. Then inform them you're turning their picture over to your State Attorney General. Should be great fun! Get em all lathered up.
|"As a liberal, I think conservatives are wrong: Voting should be easy. If easier access to the polls produces a little fraud and a lot more participation, it's worth it. "|
I am astonished anyone could admit that in print! My thougts here are that the error in that logic is obvious. Who defines what a "little" fraud is. And by that point, how is "fraud" defined? And if a "little" fraud is acceptable, at what point is it not acceptable? If a little fraud is acceptable, who is allowed to perpetrate that fraud? How anyone can agree with such a statement is beyond my understanding. And what might UN or other third-party observers have to say about this? Whatever happened to ethics and principles? This statement exemplifies what is wrong with the Liberal Left.
a "little" fraud is: - Just enough to offset the Republican vote.
how is "fraud" defined? - Fraud would be any action which results in a previously disenfranchised person, citizen or not, being allowed to cast a vote on behalf of himself or his ancestors.
at what point is it not acceptable? - There are two cases where this type of fraud is not acceptable. Case one, is where the fraud is insufficient to result in the election of the chosen party (Democrats). Case two is when such fraud is perpetrated by the privileged (Republicans)and results in the defeat of the chosen party.
The sooner we accept thesed definitions, the happier the Democrats will be.
He makes an interesting argument. I would like to disagree with his statement that "Conservatives don't want to make voting easy," but fundementally, he is right. Here in Ohio there are going to be a lot of challenges to people voting.