Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 12:47:32 -0400
From: Joe Kingley
Subject: Response to Randy Voller
Randy,
We can argue back and forth on this subject until doomsday, and I am sure we will not agree. However, this lively discussion has addressed several points and should have provided enough food for thought to enable informed voters to arrive at their own conclusions regarding early voting and voter fraud. I could respond to many points, but John Dykers has addressed some of them and so I will just make a final comment on a few.
I found your first question (paragraph 2) to be interesting as I provided some evidence in yesterday’s post regarding North Carolina. Also your inquiry on voter fraud specific to Chatham County is irrelevant. The subject of early voting and/or voter fraud is not a local item. Any changes proposed or adopted will be made at a State level, and we and our local BOC should be considering their position from that level. Whatever decisions are made by the State Legislature will be mandated to the counties. I guess, by concentrating on Chatham County, you are muddying the waters again by deflecting the discussion from state to local activities.
I will make my position once again.
It is my belief that the State Legislature should be addressing the subject of early voting from the position of reducing and preventing the opportunities for fraudulent voting, undue influence and coercion, and ballot rigging that have been demonstrated at both a state and national level.
Those opposed to any changes continue to cite the so-called “oppression of the right to vote” rather than supporting the concept that the right to vote is only extended to those citizens who, by law, actually have the right to vote. Those in opposition cry “suppression of the right to vote!” whenever the suggestion of a photo ID is raised, when modern technology makes it inexpensive and simple to provide that, but at the same time they insist that production of a utility bill with the name and address on it actually proves that someone is eligible to vote, No it does not! It proves only that the bill is to be paid by the addressee. That person could be an illegal immigrant or a non-citizen with a work visa etc., with no legal right to vote in any U.S. election. That person could also be taking the identity of a deceased or non-resident former citizen. I conclude that, by not supporting commonsense rules to prevent fraud, or by not prosecuting intimidation and coercion (even worse, by select prosecution) those in opposition seek to continue to encourage ballot rigging.
Randy says “A longer voting period makes the process run smoother, with less hassles, and less potential for any of the potential problems you cite”. To the contrary, Randy, times have changed and modern technology has enabled the problems (not potential problems) to occur more easily. For example, the auto allows for people to vote multiple times by quickly going from poll to poll. Also, the Internet now enables people to search registration records and confirm or determine whether someone is still alive, still resides at the address or even has a pattern of not voting in elections. The identity, if unconfirmed, can be assumed and that “person” can vote. Do that enough times and pad the number of votes cast and provide a large enough margin to discourage the loser from challenging the result, and all those “multiple votes” and “same day registrations” will not be discovered. I would ask Randy to explain in detail just how early voting ensured each of the problems produced “less potential for any of the potential problems (I) cite”. With the smaller number of votes cast in local elections, this has even greater potential for the counties and cities.
I will address one other item in Randy’s post. He asks the question “Are you implying that we need a “poll test”? Isn’t that exactly the type of foolishness and chicanery the Civil Rights Act finally stopped in 1964?”
First, I have seen this tactic many times – ask an “innocent” question that is out of context, but designed to raise the question in a negative manner in the mind of the reader. Randy, why don’t you carefully re-read my post? The question of “informed” or “qualified” voter was in the context of undue influence, intimidation and coercion, not in whether the voter has a designated minimum level of education. Your question implies that there is something negative in being “informed”. I have not assigned any position to any political party, but have referenced only those that support or oppose what appears to be a commonsense viewpoint. Are you trying to politicize this question, and if so, are you saying that the CCDP supports the position that voters should only vote the party line, and not be correctly informed of their position? I somehow doubt that was your intent, so please show me some respect. If I say, “Qualified, meaning that they are who they say they are, and are legally qualified to vote”, I mean legally qualified, and the all the garbage about civil rights and 1964 is irrelevant as it is not legal.
Joe