Remember the days when a story like this one would be national news? I remember such a voter scandal both two, and then, a decade ago, when their guy was not able to steal the election. In the end both cases turned out to be bullshit stories, but the usual DNC mouthpieces in the LSM were all screaming about voter fraud and abuse, inciting their voter base – those that vote for a living, illegal voters, dead voters, multiple-time voters, convicted fellons that shouldn’t be voting, and other such assorted criminals – to take to the streets and protest. I guess in this case the story is not news, because the right party is benefiting from the crime, and likely because if it was investigated it would turn out not to be a bullshit story. After all the left’s major reason for accusing others of bad behavior or criminal activity is projection, after all.
Tag: Electronic voting
There must be an election coming, because the class/race/gender warriors are hard at work fabricating a faux-crisis that will bring out the vote for them. Here is the problem in a gist: The SCOTUS told the DOJ that last June that federal “preclearance” under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act had outlived its usefulness in states where black and white voter registration and participation rates are roughly equal. No more favoritism. But Obama’s DOJ can’t risk having states decide that they do not want to let the feds make it easy for democrats to rig elections. After all, denying dead people, illegals, criminals, and the people that like to vote multiple times in the same election their rights is something detrimental to the democratic party. So Holder is filing a whole bunch of lawsuits he knows will go nowhere, but will give the left a lot of leverage to pretend that the people fighting the suits are doing so because they are evil racists/sexists/rich overlords. Check this out:
One claim is that North Carolina’s shorter early voting period will have a more pronounced impact on African Americans, who made up 23% of registered voters in North Carolina in 2012 and cast 29% of early ballots. But while the state reduced the number of days for early voting, it maintained the number of total hours for early voting. That change maintains ample time for voters to cast a ballot but reduces the burden on county election officials who have to man early voting sites in the run-up to Election Day.
Nobody can play as dirty as democrats can, but your average serf isn’t even bright enough to catch on to that fact. It’s Alinksy’s rules on steroids. Every time you hear one of these scumbags talking about how evil, racist, greedy, or whatever America is, remember that nobody does as much as they do to create and maintain that illusion.
There has been a lot of discussion recently about a potential split between the popular vote and the electoral college this year. Obama is leading in the polls in several critical swing states while Romney has been holding a lead in the national polls (caveat: Nate Silver points out that the math doesn’t work out. If the state polls are accurate, Obama should have a national lead (and indeed, the RCP average is now tied or has Obama with a very slightly 0.1% lead). One set of polls is likely off. Come Tuesday, we’ll find out which ones).
I’d kind of like to see a split this year since it would weaken the President and create the glorious spectacle of every pundit arguing the precise reverse of what he said in 2000. While it does now appear unlikely, it remains possible. And given that we’ve had two such splits in our history, a third will likely happen at some point.
(There is a very tiny chance of an electoral tie as well, which would throw things to Congress, assuming we don’t have any faithless electors. That would, given the composition, result in a Romney-Biden administration; almost like the worst of both worlds.)
I’ve made it clear that I oppose switching to a national popular vote, but we’ve never really had a discussion. So I want to throw this open before Tuesday’s vote. Should we abolish the electoral college? Should we go to a popular vote?
One of the things that make me hesitate is this: to the best of my knowledge, we have never had a national vote. On anything. All three high offices — the House, Senate and the President — are elected at the state level. Amendements are passed by Congress and state legislatures. In fact, reading the Constitution, you can’t help but be struck by how the Founders went to great lengths to avoid anything approaching a plebiscite.
This wasn’t just because a national election would have been difficult in such a large nation in the 18th century. And it wasn’t just federalism speaking, either. They cleared regarded direct democracy as dangerous (as do I). The beauty of a Constitutional Republic is that the people do not always get what they want. Elections do not give us what we want; elections create accountability.
Because we have never had a national vote, creating one is a lot more complicated that just adding the tallies from the states. Different states have different voting laws and that will create some power disparities. States with stricter voting requirement will lose votes relative to more liberal ones. States that don’t worry too much about counting every single Presidential vote because of the huge margin (e.g., Utah) will have to be more strict. And how do you reconcile the widely varying laws on early voting, absentee voting and electronic voting? What happens if online voting becomes a thing?
No, we’re not just talking about having a popular vote. We are talking, in the end, about federalizing the vote. We are talking about creating uniform voting standards, uniform early voting and absentee policies and, most likely, a national voter registry and ID card. In fact, I can not see that national vote would possible be compliant with Bush v. Gore unless it created uniform standards.
Maybe that’s preferable to the 50-state patchwork we have now. But if so, make the case. Why should we abolish the electoral college? Why should we nationalize the vote?