Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaFrog
However, the point remains the same, regardless of how you want to nitpik the details - according to the local news, enough dead and out of state "voters" to make a statistically significant difference "voted" in a recent South Carolina election.
|
And I've
never known the local news to get it wrong or overstate the problem for the sake of a good story. But be that as it may . . . .
Quote:
|
The Republican race is very tight. Small amounts of dead voters could change the outcome. Does that constitute a big enough problem to "disenfranchise people"? Where do we draw the line? Do we have to have an election where it is proven after the fact that the fraudulent votes in fact would have changed the election to actually say we have a problem?
|
What should be done is to approach the situation rationally, not with kneejerk reactions. Is there really a problem with "dead people" and out-of-state people voting? Then their names must be on the registration rolls. Requiring photo IDs won't help if they're on the rolls to start with. It's a reasonable "fix" if the problem is people who come to vote are claiming to be someone they're not, but it doesn't address the problem at all if the issue is that names are on the rolls that should have been deleted.
If dead people and out-of-state people are voting, then requiring photo IDs in response avoids the problem while making people feel better and think the problem is being fixed. You fix that problem by getting the voter registration rolls up to date and keeping them up to date.
Threaded Mode
