Eric Holder Must Prevent Voter Fraud - Paul Pin - The "righteous" veneer of your concern with voter fraud is wearing thin. We can see your prejudice showing through.
Holder must prevent fraud ...
Re: "Attorney general critical of Texas redistricting plan, voter ID law -- At LBJ Library, Holder says discrimination remains in elections," Wednesday news story.
I vigorously object to Attorney General Eric Holder's intention to challenge laws that require voters to identify themselves before voting.
While I understand it is his responsibility to ensure equal access for all voters, it is also his charge to protect against voter fraud. Votes by unqualified voters can negate my vote and therefore abridge my right to vote.
Though he is correct to cite deplorable episodes in our country's history where legitimate voters were denied access to the polls, he is remiss if he fails to recognize how voter fraud has significantly affected the outcome of our elections. The questionable electoral results from Chicago in the 1960 presidential election are a good example.
Re: "Attorney general critical of Texas redistricting plan, voter ID law -- At LBJ Library, Holder says discrimination remains in elections," Wednesday news story.
I vigorously object to Attorney General Eric Holder's intention to challenge laws that require voters to identify themselves before voting.
While I understand it is his responsibility to ensure equal access for all voters, it is also his charge to protect against voter fraud. Votes by unqualified voters can negate my vote and therefore abridge my right to vote.
Though he is correct to cite deplorable episodes in our country's history where legitimate voters were denied access to the polls, he is remiss if he fails to recognize how voter fraud has significantly affected the outcome of our elections. The questionable electoral results from Chicago in the 1960 presidential election are a good example.
Paul Pin, Dallas
Mr. Pin, I challenge here and now, to stop propagandizing for the extreme Republican wing and either put up or shut up.
I ask you here and now to produce even one shred of evidence, from reputable investigators, using standardized and industry accepted statistical methods to show us even so much as one election in the United States since the 2008 election where the outcome was affected by voter fraud. You can't be cause there aren't any.
It is interesting to note that all those states passing voter identification requirements are those controlled by the Republicans. In the name of "protecting" your right not to have your vote canceled by someone without the right to vote, you disingenuously undermine the efforts of the Attorney General to protect the franchise of voting for all those entitle - but, with restrictions on voting that you yourself have never been called upon to make.
And you do so, citing the 1960 Democratic voting in Chicago some fifty years ago because you can't in that entire time span provide an instance where voter fraud - presumably by illegal immigrants or those otherwise disenfranchised from voting - felons- have had any meaningful impact on the outcome of elections. And for your information Mr. Pin, the voting fraud in the 1960 elections was carried out by U.S. citizens with the right to vote. Yes, their votes were cast twice and sometime cast by someone else without their knowledge, but these were entirely the acts of misrepresenting the intentions of those with a right to vote and not fraud by voters with no right to vote in the first place.
The Attorney General must, in fact, be on the look-out for the likes of you Mr. Pin. He must be so charged because those of your ilk, who would push for voter identification in order to prevent voter fraud are really looking for something else - the means to disenfranchise those who are likely to cancel your vote through perfectly legal means.
You look about yourself and see the national electorate changing to something that does not reflect your values, your beliefs, your way of life and the first thing you do is strike out against those dissimilar to you with the notion that it is they who must change and not yourself. Your electoral profile is rapidly becoming that of the minority rather than the majority and you don't like it.
So, now you ask for the rules to be changed and have everyone obtain and then provide proof that they have the right to vote. To be blunt, under the guise of "protecting" your vote you actually seek to reduce the number of eligible voters, who are unlikely to share your view, by making it more difficult for them to vote through what can only be only be characterized as a "poll-tax.
In all those states with laws demanding identification as a legal voter you demand something that has never once been required in our Constitution. A fee to vote.
For example, an elderly black widow, living on a fixed income, too old or too disabled to drive and therefore not in possession of a diver's license. You would have this woman take inconvenient public transportation to one of the few locations issuing public identification cards, pay a fee to obtain one, just so that she can vote. Perhaps, you might go one step further for the sake of efficiency, and have the government deduct this fee from her Social Security check, so she won't have to make the choice on her own to either obtain and ID or do without a medication or a couple of meals one week.
Mr. Pin, your reasoning is unsound. Your motives apparent. Your argument feeble. Your fifty-year old example irrelevant. We see it for what it is.
You are not interested in preventing voter fraud by those without the right to vote. What you are interested in is participating in voter fraud through the re-engineering of the election laws to produce an electorate that represents your views and opinions.
And you do so, citing the 1960 Democratic voting in Chicago some fifty years ago because you can't in that entire time span provide an instance where voter fraud - presumably by illegal immigrants or those otherwise disenfranchised from voting - felons- have had any meaningful impact on the outcome of elections. And for your information Mr. Pin, the voting fraud in the 1960 elections was carried out by U.S. citizens with the right to vote. Yes, their votes were cast twice and sometime cast by someone else without their knowledge, but these were entirely the acts of misrepresenting the intentions of those with a right to vote and not fraud by voters with no right to vote in the first place.
The Attorney General must, in fact, be on the look-out for the likes of you Mr. Pin. He must be so charged because those of your ilk, who would push for voter identification in order to prevent voter fraud are really looking for something else - the means to disenfranchise those who are likely to cancel your vote through perfectly legal means.
You look about yourself and see the national electorate changing to something that does not reflect your values, your beliefs, your way of life and the first thing you do is strike out against those dissimilar to you with the notion that it is they who must change and not yourself. Your electoral profile is rapidly becoming that of the minority rather than the majority and you don't like it.
So, now you ask for the rules to be changed and have everyone obtain and then provide proof that they have the right to vote. To be blunt, under the guise of "protecting" your vote you actually seek to reduce the number of eligible voters, who are unlikely to share your view, by making it more difficult for them to vote through what can only be only be characterized as a "poll-tax.
In all those states with laws demanding identification as a legal voter you demand something that has never once been required in our Constitution. A fee to vote.
For example, an elderly black widow, living on a fixed income, too old or too disabled to drive and therefore not in possession of a diver's license. You would have this woman take inconvenient public transportation to one of the few locations issuing public identification cards, pay a fee to obtain one, just so that she can vote. Perhaps, you might go one step further for the sake of efficiency, and have the government deduct this fee from her Social Security check, so she won't have to make the choice on her own to either obtain and ID or do without a medication or a couple of meals one week.
Mr. Pin, your reasoning is unsound. Your motives apparent. Your argument feeble. Your fifty-year old example irrelevant. We see it for what it is.
You are not interested in preventing voter fraud by those without the right to vote. What you are interested in is participating in voter fraud through the re-engineering of the election laws to produce an electorate that represents your views and opinions.
Rdio
Intelifi | Background Checks
ABCmouse.com
Community Service Help
Wondershare
No comments:
Post a Comment