FUN FACT: Obama Lost in Every State with a Voter Photo-ID Law

Reaganite Republican ^ | 08 November 2012 | Reaganite Republican

[Reaganite Republican]

Was the election stolen? Remember all those lawsuits by Democrats demanding that any voter identification laws be repealed? Well, now we know why they filed them. They needed to steal the vote in certain key states so that Obama could be reelected. 

Curiously, Obama lost in every state that requires a photo ID to be produced before voting. A list of closely contested state elections with no voter ID, which narrowly went to Obama include: Minnesota (10), Iowa (6), Wisconsin (10), Nevada (6), Colorado (9), New Mexico (5) and Pennsylvania (20). 

This amounts to a total of 66 electoral votes. When added to Romney’s total of 205 electoral votes, that would give Romney 271 electoral votes, enough votes to win even without Ohio or Florida Romney also likely had the states of Florida and Ohio stolen from him, which don’t require photo IDs. 

Ohio requires a non-photo ID. Would a library card do? Florida “requests” a photo ID, but doesn’t require it. So what happens if they request a photo ID and the illegal alien Haitian doesn’t have one? Do they just count the vote anyway?

____________________________________________________

American 3rd Position Whistleblower Newswire h/t Jan

[Crimson Elephant]

So in Florida you are asked to show ID, and if you don’t, they give you a Provisional ballot, and those are only counted/checked if there is a recount? Or are those automatically looked at and put in the total?

[Wiser now]

I was required to show my driver’s license with photo, plus sign my name before I could vote in Ohio.

This has been the case for the last two years.

[Vaduz]

Was the election stolen?.We know but the trouble for the dems is just about to start,cell numbers to ensue.

[annieokie]

If you know for a fact that they are cheating, then is it still wrong to cheat as well?""""".....

What’s the sense in following rules that exist for only one side?"""".....

_______________________________________________________

I think it is high time we tried something. Their rules have now become "Common LAW", and is thus legal.

Example:common law marriages, anything done over a length of time with no objection it becomes Common Law and legal.

Time is overdue to get started.

[BCR #226]

Forget simple voter ID with a license. You’re never going to get it. There is no reason for the Dems to agree to it. However, a 4473 and NICS style background check has basis in law and given that the Dems support it so much for owning a gun, they have no ground to stand on to be against it for voting. Extend the voting period from a single day to 7 days to account for the phoned in background checks and there is no problem.

If the Dems are against this, then they need to put their money where their mouth is and repeal the same background check for buying a firearm. Push the issue until one or the other happens. Make it a big deal for voting since it’s not considered racist or a violation of Civil Rights regarding the 2nd Amendment.

[kidd]

Not true. CT requires ID

[TurboZamboni]

In MN, you not only don’t need any ID, you can “vouch” for up to 13 of your alleged friends or neighbors in line.

Can you say Franken 2012?

[Help!]

The CT website says: Acceptable forms of identification to fulfill this federal HAVA requirement are a current and valid photo ID that shows the elector’s name and address, or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or government document that shows the name and address of the voter.

[TurboZamboni]

This whole headline’s premise would be great to be researched by John Fund.

[petercooper]

Bttt

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

It’s not mandatory, they just ask real nice and are more than willing to take ‘no’ for an answer in Michigan

That’s what the chart says fwiw

In PA the Republicans planned to change from the unit rule to the “per-congressional-district” rule for selecting Electors. The Democrats counter offered to support photo ID instead. Naturally, the Republicans fell for it - and just as naturally, the Democrats sued to keep the law from taking effect until after this election. The rule being “jam tomorrow, and jam yesterday - but never jam today.”

The Republican state legislature should now amend that law, IMHO, to require that the “per-congressional-district” rule be instated, at least in any presidential election in which the photo-ID rule is not enforced.

[CowHampshire]

In NH, voter ID law was passed. But the ACLU went to court and a Judge said we could not use it on Nov 6th.

The discussion of voter ID exposed all the ways to do it and thus, Obama bused students from everywhere to vote and many voted twice and then bragged about it.

So basically we taught them how to do it and then the Judge allowed it.

[stranded]

I voted for Romney and I am a woman, so I find your comment quite childish and ignorant. If you believe women vote with their crotches, you make no sense in saying that’s why Obama “won” because both candidates were men. . . It was voter fraud with democraps voting multiple times. I heard people joking about it at the polls, saying “this is the 5th time I’ll be voting tonight”. Turns out it wasn’t a joke. I would bet that if the truth were told, more women voted for Romney than Obama, because I believe Romney won the election if you discount all of the fraud that went on. I love my country, but the voting process is a joke.