And Now a Word from the Other Side:
As a journalist trained in action rather than via textbooks, I learned very early to consider viewpoints other than my own when composing articles for publication.
I recently came across a headline accusing Democrats of "highjacking democracy" through election corruption. Well, you remember how the late ACORN lobbyists were "caught in the act" of registering hardly enough Mickey Mouses to change election results anywhere, least of all Disneyland. . . .
However, I have it from a distinguished and esteemed Independent why and how Democrats steal elections beyond those ACORN employees who may have been paid per voter registered. When you're hungry and homeless, Mickey Mouse may help out a bit.
According to Jeffrey Carter (in a 10/24/10 blog titled "Chicago Election Judge Training"), a widely published expert on finance and marketing, inter alia, we Democrats steal elections by signing up illegal immigrants and sometimes allowing them to vote twice. He should recall, however,
that if the number of Latino names on the voter rolls is growing, so too are their numbers among us. They are predicted to become the majority by mid-century.
Which reminds me that last year I, an unrich Democrat, was given the chance to vote twice. I was mistakenly sent two absentee ballots instead of one for the 2010 election. Well, I didn't even have to agonize about what to do. I saved one of the ballots as an exhibit for anyone
interested, and voted on the other. My DC is the most liberal of the states (well, taxed but not represented in Congress).
And so, not only are illegal immigrants allowed to vote; Mr. Cater opines that we all need to vote on DREs because the process is so secure, and
"Paper ballots invite the most hanky panky."
I'd guess the opposite, since lots more hanky panky is possible and has been accomplished through DRE hacking, but that's just an opinion (shared by many authorities as distinguished as Mr. Carter). If you compare the number of stuffed ballot boxes with that of hacked DREs in terms of illegal votes collected, the latter have been compromised far more often because far more people have voted on them than have used ballots. There are simply far more voters now than there were back in the nineteenth century when people in this country voted solely with ballots.
As to the "randomness" he attributes to ballot voting, again he may be right. All DRE hacking is most purposeful, according to my years of experience in the grassroots.
Mr. Carter does not want felons or ex-felons to have the right to vote.
He implies that this would allow Blagojevich and others like him to vote. He may have a point there. But how many felons are loose and out on the streets, unconvicted, untried? I lost count years ago.
What surprises me are the stats indicating that the majority of felons vote Democratic. But what about the majority of white-collar felons? There we have a different outcome, I would guess.
He would prefer that we use voter i.d.s--"there are plenty of chances for early voting and absentee voting to cover any exceptions."
I guess he didn't know back in 2010 how much legislation is being passed in how many states to reduce the amount of time early voting can be accomplished. And, as far as required voter i.d.s are concerned,
perhaps he was unaware how many states are already voting for this
He's right that all voters should be "identifiable" people, isn't he?
It should possible for celebrities, then, to vote without i.d.s, but be careful of imposters, like Mickey Mouse. Oprah Winfrey had trouble voting recently, as did Tim Robbins. I guess they should offer i.d.s also, then. Most likely they have drivers' licenses, an acceptable form.
In addition to drivers' licenses, all sorts of i.d.s make us "identifiable."
But most are not allowed that prerogative. Only hard-to-get (for many) i.ds are admissible: up-to-date passports, birth certificates, and state-issued i.d.s, for example.