 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Suspicious Timing | Main | Book Recommendation » October 5, 2004Liberals Take Aim at ID Requirement in Tennessee
State election coordinator Brook Thompson said he was concerned about the change in the law and was seeking guidance from the state Attorney General's office and the U.S. Justice Department.With all due respect, Mr. Thompson, a voter registration card simply doesn't prove one's identity, as you can see from the black-and-white scan of my voter registration card below. The purpose of the law is to force the holder of the card to prove they are the person whose name is on the card. Accepting the voter card is ID itself pushes the door wide open to voter fraud. Really. Is that so difficult to understand?
If you spot a news story about suspected voter fraud in your part of the country, please send me the link and a brief summary to voterfraud-at-gmail.com. Posted in Voter Fraud
| Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com Comments
I cannot begin to comprehend how in this age of computers, voter fraud is still alive and well. It seems to me that it would be fairly simple to eliminate it altogether. I am especially curious as to why after 4 years to try to correct glitches, we are facing the same unnerving situation as we did in 2000. Posted by: paula jones at October 5, 2004 08:41 AMLet's get this straight. Groups like Tennessee Citizen Action can go out and fill out cards for people who don't exist. If the election commission issues the card and it goes out to an address, anyone who picks it up on the other end can go and vote with it. Hmmmm. Sounds like a recipe for election theft to me. You can't buy beer with out a photo ID. Why should voting be any different? Personally, I don't find the 2000 situation all that unnerving. The fact that some morons in Florida are too stupid to punch a ballot correctly is an adequate reason to not count their votes IMO. Posted by: Mike at October 5, 2004 09:59 AMTo be more accurate, Mike, it's not that their votes shouldn't count because they are stupid, but this: their votes should not count because, under Florida law, they did not cast a vote. Florida law specified a vote was not legally cast unless the chad was removed from the card, not just pen-pricked. This law was clearly spelled out on posters on polling place walls. Folks who did not push the chad completely out of the ballot no more cast a legal vote than did someone who thought about voting but didn't bother to go and actually do it. And then Gore decided he wanted to count uncast votes as legal votes in three counties populated heavily by democrats, but not in counties where GOP voters are more common, thus violating the equal protection clause of the federal constitution. When the Florida supreme court decided to abet his attempt to subvert election law and the equal protection clause, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in and protected the rights of all Floridians to equal protection under law, and the rights of Floridians who voted legally to not have their vote undermined by illegally cast votes. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at October 5, 2004 10:10 AMThat's probably the most succint summary of election 2002 that I've ever seen. Posted by: Mike at October 5, 2004 12:18 PMAnd to head off any idiots who are going to claim that Gore won, please note that the final, all-encompassing vote count commissioned by various media outlets in Florida and elsewhere showed that Bush did, in fact, win Florida. As Bill says above, Gore didn't want a complete count, he just wanted to scare up a few more votes in heavily Democratic areas. Posted by: Michael Chaney at October 5, 2004 08:59 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
Speaking of voter fraud, some liberals and Democrats in Tennessee have 
