One word.....democRATs!
.
Posted on 10/27/2004 4:11:39 PM PDT by rhema
For the same reason our apathetic a$ses still have a straight two party system! :)
Democrats. period.
We used to be able to trust each other's honesty. That's gone up in smoke now though.
The answers above (1 1/2 party dictatorship and such), complacency of the citizenry and the common, irrational belief that we are the best and no one can tell us anything. Compare this with the thread a couple of days ago about Swiss election observers coming or wanting to come to the US. There was nothing but invective and insults there. The ugly face of mindless nationalism. But we have a lot of learn from the Swiss and, as it turns out, (Oh my!) from the Mexicans. What can ya do? Another Pollyannish vanity thread last night again extolled the virtues of American Paradise with the usual worn patriotic banalities and cliches. Who can argue?
I have no problem with a national ID CARD. It is the national ID CHIP that some are already advocating that has me feeling the chill of fascism!
One word.....democRATs!
.
"Democrats"
BTT!!!!!!!
And not to mention have the will to enforce our laws. How many people do you think would risk jail time just for the sake of getting in one extra vote out of 100,000,000? Not too many.
At the risk of being flamed, I'm in favor of using driver's licenses as Voter ID/registration. For those who don't drive, every state offers a photo ID.
At least there's some consequense of having a false driver's license, and there are databases that can be checked instantly to prevent duplicate voting. Also, the address used for a license can be checked against the post office database of valid residential addresses.
You can have both the rule of law and easy access to voting.
This is where that whole slippery-slope thing comes in. Drivers' licenses have been defended up to now with the claim that no one's "forced" to get an ID. It's just a voluntary thing you do if you want to drive. That may have made sense in the early days of motoring, when relatively few people drove, and most people were rather fearful of cars. Today nearly everyone drives, yet the "voluntary" justification persists. But now we have this little bait-and-switch that says that since ID's are a virtual requirement because it's so difficult to get by without one, there can't be any serious objection to making them mandatory, at least for those who want to exercise their right to vote.
Anyone who refers to the slippery slope "fallacy" (and this isn't directed at you, just at a bunch of Freepers who at various times have insisted that it's just a phantasm) truly is clueless about the way the world works.
I used driver's license as an example. Everyone who wants to vote should have a photo ID with a number that would eliminate duplicate voting. Second, all voter's addresses should be checked against the post office list of valid addresses.
There's only two reasons for all the problems relating to our voting procedures. Either it's gross incompetence or being done on purpose, in which case those responsible need to held accountable from Congress on down to the local level.
That horse left the barn some time ago. You can't use a pay toilet without a social security number.
So what is your rational argument against a national ID card? A modern society can not function without the possibility to reliably identify persons. All major financial transactions require this. Yet some locales allow people to vote without a picture ID. Unbeliavable.
What is needed is a national population registry with information on each resident's citizenship status. Based on this, each voter would be sent a notification a few weeks in advance indicating the polling location and time. Voter registration should also be scrapped; primaries should be paid for and organized by the parties.
Yeah, unbelievable, isn't it, that we managed to get by all this time without any such thing. Must've been blind luck.
In a nutshell:
Campaign finance reform:
Puts limits on the electorate, violates free speech, allows billionares to buy elections.
Election Reform:
Empowers the electorate and lessens the possibily of a lifetime career in Congress.
No brainer.
But I do believe John McCain fought the wrong dog with CFR. It is the corruption at the ballot box which sullies our election process.
John McCain seemed to be more concerned with forcing his version of "nice" than he was about an honest election. But hey, he is a politician.
Reform would not take much:
Proof of ID when registering.
Proof of ID when voting.
A disclaimer that the voter is responsible for knowing how to vote--if you have questions, then ask.
No election drives.
Scrap the motor voter program. If someone is not motivated enough to go to the Courthouse to resister, then they are not motivated enough to cast an informed ballot.
Period.
End of story.
I think the point here is that the system fails miserably exactly there where use of reliable identification is NOT mandatory (i.e., in voting) .
When it comes to election security, it's a shame, but yes, we should.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.