Why do as many Republicans as possible need to get to the polls today in Virginia’s 33rd Senate District? Why? The other side has virtually admitted it cheats.
Consider this bullet from Jennifer Wexton‘s Issues Page.
Voter’s Rights: We need to make it easier to vote, not harder. I will work for early voting and no-excuse absentee voting, and will fight against discriminatory voter ID laws.
Now read 
Defending voter fraud on the basis of perceived “racism” is bizarre, but we have such foolish people as Colin Powell and the occasional statist Republican senator who goes along with this. In so doing, they are fraudulently denying real American citizens their right to vote, by canceling those votes out with an illegal ones. (continued here)
Make certain you also listen to what Bill Whittle (here as the Virtual President) has to say.
Then, if you are a voter in Virginia’s 33rd Senate District and you have not yet voted, please vote, and please vote for John Whitbeck.
Citizen Tom 
Are you saying that Wexton and Obama were elected because people who were not eligible to vote showed up at the polls and were able to vote because the ID requirements were not rigourous enough? That’s the them of this post and thread. I get it that you didn’t vote for Obama and would not have voted for Wexton if you were in that particular district. I wouldn’t have voted for Wexton either. But how does that relate to fake or inadequate voter ID?
How naive is it for me not to be aware of any data indicating that there is a spate of outcome determinative ID fraud in recent years? Which elections at the state or national level do you claim were decided by people coming to the polls claiming to be someone they are not, or voting more than once in an election? I had not heard of any suspicions on that front. Unless you can identify an outbreak of this kind of fraud, I suggest that the problem, while real in the arithmetic sense discussed by Keith (i.e., a fraudulent vote for one candidate offsets a legal vote for that candidate’s opponent), is not tearing apart the fabric of democracy and is not causing elections to go one way when, if the ID system were improved, would go another. I suspect that the reason for my skepticism on this issue is because no such data exist. It may be something more than naivete.
What does St. Paul or “siblings” (yours? mine? someone else’s?) have to do with voter ID, by the way? Perhaps that graph strayed in from another post.
Don’t waste your time refining Keith’s and Mr. Whittle’s arguments. They are clear enough and I have agreed with them that fraudulent voting is a bad thing and that it would be just super if we could put in place the best possible means of ensuring electoral integrity. My only nuance on the subject was that this has to be done in a way that in no way deprives current eligible, lawful voters of their franchise. In other words, all voter ID improvements must be accompanied by strong efforts to get IDs to everyone and to encourage higher turnouts than we characteristically achieve.
Let me help you: I said there is very little evidence, if any, of outcome determinative rash of voter fraud at the polls in this country (for Keith’s benefit, this country is the United States). I also said that I’m sure that some ID fraud happens but that I doubted (because I have never seen any reports or evidence to the contrary) that it is statistically significant.
You might want to get a reader to read these things to you to spare you the embarrassment of your distorted restatements of my comments. I fear that some people might think you do that on purpose.
What you are saying is amazingly naive. What is disturbing is that we elect people like Obama nationally and Wexton locally.
Why do I take you serious? I consider past self and my siblings. Otherwise, like Keith, I would be far more tempted to believe you a troll.
So what can I do? Experience has taught me that we change our minds slowly. Even the Apostle Paul, who saw that light on the road to Damascus did not suddenly reverse himself. First, he saw many martyrs. Only after that did he spend the rest of his life repenting of what he had done. Yet what is more remarkable? To save souls just as stubborn as his own the Apostle Paul preached the Word of God.
Neither voter fraud or voter suppression are subjects of the Bible. Nonetheless, since we discuss both religion and politics, this weekend I will do my best to refine Keith’s and Bill Whittle’s arguments and add a few more.
Again, Tom, your reading disabilities are tripping you up. Tehre is no resemblance between your last comment and anything I said in the immediately preceding comment. Focus, man, read slowly, and think.
I’m all for electoral integrity. I think I made that clear. You should read what I say before you undertake to distort it into something altogether different.
If you’re all in favor of going out to old folks homes, ghettoes, low income housing, homeless shelters, etc. to ensure that all eligible voters get new IDs, we’re together on this. But that degree of dedication to expanding the electorate hasn’t really been much in evidence among most of the members of my party who advocate new ID procedures. Again, it’s not like this has been a major problem, although I agree with Keith that even one illegal vote cancels out one legal vote.
As for your ink-stained finger proposal, I think we can do better than that.
By the way, Jennifer Wexton won today. I consider it a very sad result. You may not consider her a serious candidate, but apparently some folks did.
The Socialist Democrats complain about Rush Limbaugh’s mind-numbed robots. Then they trash their opponents stupid lies and spend as much as they can on 30-sec ads that speak to issues many of which they have no intention doing anything about. Instead, once they are elected, they rob us.
And yet you say with a straight face there is no evidence of voter fraud. You trust people who make no effort to protect the vote to detect voter fraud — or tell you about it?
You may wish to do a little more research. Mark Obenshain and Rob Bell did.
Of course voter fraud is a very real threat to life in a democratic Republic such as ours. But I have never heard anyone argue that voter fraud is a good thing or that ensuring eligibility to vote is a bad thing. The issue is, rather, whether improved eligibility validation procedures might have the effect of barring people who are entitled to vote. Can we not stipulate that none of us wants that result? Republicans as well as Democrats can agree that we want voting to be as east as possible and that we, like Ms. Wexton, oppose discriminatory voter ID laws. (I’m not sure how you conclude that that statement is and admission that Democrats “admit” that they “cheat”.)
There is very little evidence, if any, that the country is afflicted with an outcome-determinative rash of voter fraud at the polls. I’m sure it happens, but I have not seen the slightest indication that the incidence of this is statistically significant. We have tremendous technology available to ensure that each person who votes is eligible and is who he/she says he is. No problem there either IF (and the IF is hugely important) we make the transition to new ID procedures in a way that does not intentionally or inadvertently disenfranchise anyone who is eligible now. That means public funding or outreach to take new ID formats to everyone who now votes at no cost or inconvenience to them. That important piece has been missing in much of the discussion from advocates of revised IDs. Indeed, there has been instances in which advocates of revised voter ID have expressly said that their mission is to reduce votes from demographics that tend to vote for the Democratic Party. We Rs need to lash back at that kind of stupidity and corruption and make sure that we find the means and procedures to reach out in ways that expand the electorate, not contract it.
Any political party that appears to be afraid of the electorate is like a beached, dying whale. There is almost no hope for it. It is unfortunate that much of the agitation for improved ID has originated solely from within the Republican Party at various levels of government and has not been accompanied by energetic efforts to get better IDs to everyone in the country. Republicans need to identify themselves as the Party that wants very high voting percentages and and iron-clad, non-discriminatory system of electoral integrity that brings every eligible voter into the system. Instead, there has been too much rhetoric that creates the mistaken impression that we want to cast people out of the electorate.
I think there need be no concern that any considerable component of the electorate is in favor of voter fraud. If anyone feels that way, they are way out on the fringes and not really having much effect on public policy.
And you are a Conservative? 😆
Seriously! He says he is a Conservative.
https://citizentom.com/2014/01/20/why-does-voting-for-a-christian-conservative-make-a-difference/#comment-51923
Yeah! If Conservatives just hold the same positions on the issues as Socialists, they will make great Conservatives.
Jennifer Wexton is not someone I consider a serious candidate. She is running for the Virginia Senate, and she make abortion her star issue. That’s stupid! The fact people fall for such candidates is just pathetic.
As for you? What are you saying? No one would steal an election? People don’t care enough about politics to kill each other and fight wars? And getting a picture ID just too complicated for Democrats? So we don’t need to protect our right to vote by making certain everyone only gets to vote once? 🙄
When the people in Iraq voted, they stuck their finger in indelible ink. Then some proudly displayed that ink-stained finger. Would that be to complicated for a Democrat?
Reblogged this on Dead Citizen's Rights Society.
Reblogged this on U.S. Constitutional Free Press.