Posted on 12/25/2007 11:47:24 AM PST by Aristotelian
What I donât understand is that the limits of the Federal Constitution on elections and voters is limited to naming the day on which the national elections take place. All other requirements for establishing voting ability is vested with the states and the people. Technically, I believe, the states could require passports and baby foot prints and the maiden name of your mother if the wanted to and by the Constitution the federal government could have no say in the matter.IMHO
>>
To gain access to social welfare benefits e.g., food stamps, Medicaid, etc. the poor must show photo ID. What do you lib friends think of that requirement?
<<
Since not a single one ever brings it up, what is really at work here? Care for the poor and downtrodden of the world or care for the accumulation of power and control?
Absolutely!
And with thousands of illegal immigrants invading our poor country every day, it becomes even more important to the RATS to shoot down any kind of photo ID requirement.
That said...
I have worked the polls for the last four years here in South Carolina. The state requires some type of ID to vote. This can be a voter registration card, a driver's license, a passport, etc.
It has been my personal experience that 95% of the voters use their drivers license which has a photo ID. So, even though we can't require a photo ID, the vast majority of voters present one anyway.
This ONE woman, New Mexico, was on welfare and a host of other state programs, so she too “could” have bought an ID, but chose to spend her money on other things.
Bookmarked.
like dead people
I know it, and you know it, but it is almost pitifully funny how fixated these people are about this issue. The speculated suffering and difficulty that a handful of voters may encounter, in their minds, more than outweighs the bad social and economic effects of corrupt elections.
However, how do we define “corrupt elections”? Ones in which votes are cast by people who are not legally entitled to vote. Aside from dead and fictional people, illegal aliens must not vote, nor people who are properly registered.
But more to the essential point. In recent elections where voters without proper ID were allowed to vote, what is the typical outcome? Are these elections typically won by the conservative or the liberal candidate? That is almost a rhetorical question!
Historically, who benefits from the lack of voter ID? The Left.
And I speak as a resident of a state that recently elected a dead Senator, made possible because the polls in a major city were held open hours after their normal closing time so “voters” could be bussed in.
So now libs except this sort of reasoning?
Reasoning like... Since most crimes are committed by [blank]. (Reasoning based on statistical example is always acceptable to libs. Riiiight.)
For one reason only—to make voter fraud easier. Democrats do not care if they get their votes legally or legally—whatever it takes.
The ends justify the means. Thank you, Moral Relativism.
I think you're giving RATS too much credit. I think the fundamental reason for their success at the polls is vote fraud, pure and simple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.