If I Were Dictator (Part 25)

Posted on Wed 07/20/2011 by

1


By Marlin6

On 02/05/2008, I authored a post “Benevolent Dictators Make Good Government”. Examples are King David – Israel – (1010 BC –970 B.C.) in ancient times and General Douglas McArthur – Japan – (1945 –1947) in modern times. I started musing about what I would do if I were absolute dictator of the United States to fast track our country back to a position of greatness and prosperity. Therefore I am submitting a series of posts to PA Pundits (many controversial) about how I would provide solutions to the major issues facing our nation.

ELECTIONS

I would issue an order that all states require each voter to present personal, acceptable identification to include photo identification, a proof of residency, a name that confirms to the poll list, a non-driver ID, proof of U.S. citizenship or a U.S. Passport Certificate of naturalization issued not more than 2 years before the election. If Native American, an ID card issued by a federally recognized Indian tribe. I would issue an order that there will be no absentee voting (except for members of the military or the foreign service in other countries) and no early voting. All voting must be done by electric voting machines with a paper record. Any disputed elections will be settled by the Legislature of the state where the election was held. Every precinct must have poll workers specifically trained to recognize voter fraud and voter intimidation. I would also issue an order that the Federal Government cannot restrict freedom of speech by limiting campaign contributions from any donor, but there must be complete transparency in who donated to any candidate.

In a Democratic society, your vote counts. In a Feudal society, your Count votes.
It has been formally certified that Osama bin Laden is dead, because he has registered as a Democrat to vote in Chicago.

It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes. – Josef Stalin

Democrats are the most disturbed about strict voter identification. When a voter ID bill passed in Rhode Island, longtime opponents were stunned. How could this happen in one of the country’s most Democratic and liberal states? Why did Democratic leaders and black legislators support it? And why did Governor Chafee sign it? Some say black politicians were trying to protect themselves from Hispanics’ growing political power. Two longtime black legislators were defeated by Hispanics in the 2010 elections. Some cite illegal immigration as a driving force. Some say voter ID is simply essential. Whatever the reason, people are still seething. That includes many within the minority community, who chide Chafee for saying he was compelled by concerns from the “minority community” about voter fraud. “Many organizations are deeply troubled by the governor’s erroneous comments that the legislation had the support of the minority community. In fact, there is not one organization from the minority community that supported this bill,” said Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union. “Rather, groups like the NAACP and the R.I. Commission for Human Rights were among the strongest opponents of the legislation. In addition, groups that represent other vulnerable minority populations — such as the homeless, the poor and people with disabilities — also uniformly objected to the legislation and its potential impact on the right to vote.”

Election fraud can take many forms, but the two that are most in the public eye happen on opposite sides of the polling booth. On one side, an election can be fraudulent because of issues surrounding the voter – the casting of the vote. For example, supporters of photo ID legislation argue that without it, there’s no proof that a voter is who she says she is or if she is really entitled to vote. This is commonly known as “voter fraud.” On the other side, an election can be fraudulent because the votes “counted” were not the votes “cast.” This argument examines the voting and counting mechanisms. Some call this “vote fraud” and it is the primary impetus for a “paper trail” for electronic voting systems. Another issue of concern is voter intimidation — actions designed to influence a vote, either to not vote at all or to vote a certain way. A 2003 report, Securing the Vote – An Analysis of Election Fraud, reaches the “overall conclusion that the incidence of election fraud in the United States is low and that fraud has had a minimal impact on electoral outcomes.” Nevertheless, in recent elections accusations of voter fraud have become central to the political messaging of both Democrats and Republicans.

How Democrats Steal Elections – Top 11 Methods of Liberal Vote Fraud:

Over-Voting. In Democrat strongholds like St. Louis, Philadelphia and Detroit, some precincts had 100% of their registered voters voting, with 99% of the ballots going to Gore. Clearly, multiple voting resulted in extra tallies for Gore in the 2000 election.

Dead Voters. This classic Democratic method of vote fraud goes all the way back to 1960 in Chicago and Dallas. The 2000 election was no exception. In Miami-Dade County, for example, some of the 144 ineligible votes (those which officials actually admitted to) were cast by dead people, including a Haitian-American who’s been deceased since 1977

Mystery Voters. These “voters” cast votes anyway but are not even registered to vote. In heavily Democratic Broward County, for example, more than 400 ballots were cast by non-registered voters.

Military ballots. Many of these votes were disqualified for the most mundane and trivial reasons. At least 1,527 valid military ballots were discarded in Florida by Democratic vote counters.

Criminals. Felons are a natural Democratic voter and they’re protected on voter rolls across the country. In Florida at least 445 ex-convicts – including rapists and murderers — voted illegally on November 7th. Nearly all of them were registered Democrats.

Illegal aliens. These voters have long been a core liberal constituency, especially in California. In Orange County in 1996, Rep. Bob Dornan had his congressional seat stolen from him when thousands of illegal aliens voted for Loretta Sanchez

Vote-buying. Purchasing votes has long been a traditional scheme by Democrats, and not just with money. In the 2000 election in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Democratic workers initiate a “smokes-for-votes” campaign in which they paid dozens of homeless men with cigarettes if they cast ballots for Al Gore Ben Cooper, 64, the former mayor of a tiny coal town of Appalachia, VA,  who prosecutors say masterminded a scheme to buy votes with beer, cigarettes and even pork rinds, pleaded guilty to 243 felonies, including vote-rigging and corruption.

Phantom Voters. These voters don’t really exist, but their ballots do. In the 1996 Lousiana Senate race, GOP candidate Woody Jenkins had the election stolen from him when he discovered that 7,454 actual votes were cast but had no paper trail to authenticate them.

Dimpled chads. Those infamous punch-cards were a ballot bonanza for Al Gore. Democratic poll workers in Palm Beach, Dade and Broward counties tampered and manipulated thousands of ineligible ballots and counted them for Gore, even though no clear vote could be discerned.

Absentee ballots. Normally it’s assumed that Republicans benefit from absentee ballots. But in the case of Miami’s 1997 mayoral election, hundreds of absentee ballots were made for sale or sent out to non-Miami residents. Fraud was so extensive in the race that the final results were overturned in court

Voter intimidation: On Election Day, 2008, Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer and publisher of the left-wing Village Voice, says “the most blatant form of voter intimidation I’ve ever seen”—began when he and others witnessed two New Black Panthers in paramilitary garb at a polling place near downtown Philadelphia. One of them, they say, brandished a nightstick at the entrance and pointed it at voters and both made racial threats, including “You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!”

In the 2008 presidential election, Republicans charged that ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) fraudulently registered voters. The GOP also simultaneously tried to link then Senator Barack Obama to ACORN. Obama’s campaign did pay an ACORN affiliate — Citizens Services Inc — $800,000 to conduct “get-out-the-vote” projects during the 2008 primary; in August 2008 the Obama campaign amended its Federal Election Commission reports to record this expenditure. In addition, the ACORN political action committee endorsed Obama for president. The Election Assistance Commission, formed by the Help America Vote Act of 2002, is charged with “identifying, deterring, and investigating voting fraud in elections for Federal office” as well as “identifying, deterring, and investigating methods of voter intimidation.” The US House of Representatives, in September 2006, passed a bill that would require voters to show a valid photo identification in federal elections. This is a much more stringent bar than set by Congress with in 2000 with HAVA, the Help America Vote Act.

In 2007, before the election, there was a scathing documentary by Citizens United about Hillary Clinton. The film became the center of a huge legal battle over the free-speech-stifling McCain-Feingold campaign finance scheme. Parts of the law were struck down by the Supreme Court when the Wisconsin Right to Life group challenged advertising provisions in 2007 The law took an even bigger hit as a majority of the United States Supreme Court sided with Citizens United: In a stunning reversal of the nation’s federal campaign finance laws, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that as an exercise of free speech, corporations, labor unions and other groups can directly spend on political campaigns. Siding with filmmakers of “Hillary: The Movie,” who were challenged by the Federal Election Commission on their sources of cash to pay for the film, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that banned corporate and labor money. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states. The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the main opinion, which reads in part that there is “no basis for allowing the government to limit corporate independent expenditures. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers,” he wrote. “The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether.” Dissenters included Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. “The notion that the First Amendment dictated the ruling is, in my judgment, profoundly misguided,” Stevens wrote for the others. “In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it,” he added. The ruling is sure to send a jolt to political campaigns throughout the country that are gearing up for the 2010 midterm elections. It will also impact the 2012 presidential race and federal elections to come. This certainly is constitutionally correct. Unions will benefit from the ruling and spend more money, but sunlight is the best disinfectant. Also, Public Sector Unions will not exist, since I ordered that they be eliminated. Full, transparent, accessible disclosure is the ultimate campaign finance reform. As for viewing the decision through the “political plus” lens, the Constitution matters more than electoral consequences. Too bad more in Washington don’t see it that way.

With the black-robed justices of the Supreme Court sitting not far away, President Obama took aim at a recent court decision which said that corporations could spend as much as they wanted to sway voters in federal elections. “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign companies — to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said tonight. “Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.” Justice Alito mouthed, “Not true.”The court’s ruling overturned a century-old restriction. In a 5-4 decision led by the court’s conservative bloc, the justices said that corporations had the same right to free speech as individuals, and for that reason the government could not stop corporations from spending to help their favored candidates. Many analysts predict the ruling will benefit Republicans in next fall’s midterm elections.

Credits – Fox News

(marlindictator)