Election laws are a matter of life and death for a political party. If you want to understand how they feel about the electoral process, ignore their flowery speeches and look at the changes they propose or oppose in election laws.
Given the actions of both parties, it is clear they agree the Democrats benefit when voter registration and verification and vote counting laws are, shall we say, flexible.
The Democrats have done everything possible to loosen registration and verification procedures for voters. In the latest effort, Attorney General Holder has blocked a South Carolina law requiring a photo ID to vote.
The notion that any significant number of eligible voters lacks a photo ID is patently absurd. Young people anywhere near the legal drinking age have to show a photo ID to buy liquor. Recent changes in the law require a photo ID for medical procedures.
Banks routinely ask for a driver’s license. Photo ID is needed to board a plane or a cruise ship. In Mr. Obama’s political base in Chicago, a new law requires a photo ID to buy drain cleaner and other caustic substances. Whether the goal is to verify a person’s identity or just to track people, photo ID is needed.
Why are Democrats opposed to photo ID for voters? Could it relate to the old Chicago saying, “Vote Early and Vote Often?” The attempt to block voter ID is clearly designed to facilitate voter fraud. I can understand a politician wanting to have someone “take my place” in a voting booth, and why someone would be willing to do it. I don’t see anyone willing to take a colonoscopy for me.
The Democrats are blocking voter photo ID and the Republicans are supporting it. Apparently both parties agree the Democrats are better at voter fraud.
Discontent with the Electoral College method of electing the President came to the forefront for Democrats in the 2000 Florida controversy.
The National Popular Vote movement is an attempt to essentially replace the Electoral College with the popular vote. If states with more than fifty percent of the electoral vote agree, they would all cast their Electoral College votes for the winner of the popular vote. The plurality winner would win. There is no requirement for a majority of votes.
The web site for the bill notes that it has been enacted by 9 jurisdictions possessing 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 necessary to activate it (VT, MD, WA, IL, NJ, DC, MA, CA, HI). A related web site emphasizes the desire to make “Every Vote Equal.”
A quick glance at the list of states produces a glaring similarity. They are routinely vote Democratic and, with the possible exceptions of Vermont and Hawaii, are not noted for clean and fair elections. Why is this group of states leading the movement for a national popular vote?
King County, Washington is known for “finding votes in a trash bag” days after an election. These votes, by some strange coincidence always have just enough of a Democratic tilt to elect the chosen Democrat to statewide office.
Questionable vote tallies have long been a norm in Illinois. Richard Nixon’s supporters urged him to challenge the Illinois vote in 1960, but he declined.
In Maryland, whenever elections are close and the Democrats are not feuding among themselves, there will be more votes than voters and those extra votes will elect the Democrat. In 1994, Ellen Sauerbrey “lost” to a united Democratic party when Baltimore had more votes than voters. In 2002, Robert Ehrlich won when Democrats William Donald Schaefer and Paris Glendenning were feuding.
A national popular vote spreads the power of artificial votes. This movement would, indeed, make “every vote equal.” It would not make every voter equal. Currently, dishonest votes and honest votes are only equal at the state level. This movement would make “creative votes” in states like Illinois, Maryland and Washington the equal of every honest vote cast anywhere in the nation.
Despite some nominal support from Republicans, this movement is being driven by the Democrats. In any close election, there would be a huge incentive for “creative” vote counting, and both parties agree the Democrats are better at it.