Leave it up to the Democrats to attempt to make this into a racial issue... just like they do with every other topic, event, or issues that comes up!

One of the problems with the photo IDs is how to get a good clear photo of the dead voters! I doubt that will be any real problem though!

I still haven't heard any national outrage over Maryland's new voting law.

AAR

How does requiring ID to vote "prevent" any registered voter from voting?

Please note, I'm NOT asking about the EFFECT of requiring ID.

I'm an indie so these matters aren't self-evident to me.

Thank you.

Imagine that -- needing an id to vote! If that's a problem for them, why don't they hold mass protests against every business that requires a photo i.d. when you use a credit card?

Many older and lower income people who either don't own a car or are unemployed don't have a driver's license or other state-issued photo ID. So unless they go to the DMV and specifically request a state-issued ID, they won't have one. Imagine showing up to the polls and finding out that you couldn't vote because the rules were changed and you now need an ID you don't have? And yes, many older and lower income people are traditionally Democratic voters.

And could you find any evidence of someone using a fake ID to vote as someone else? I've never heard of any case. If I had my position would be different, but if there's not a problem there's nothing to fix with a solution that will only disenfranchise others.

And the first answer that came to mind was "in prison."

I heard about this the other week, and I do not see the need for a voter ID card? Unless voting rules are different in IN than IL, I see this as another cost/hassle.

In IL you have to register to vote. To register you have to provide proof of residency (utility bill) and identity. To vote, your name and signature must match the registration form on file in your precinct, and once you vote, your registration is removed, so no one else can commit voter fraud by using your registration.

Voter fraud is committed by stuffing the ballot box (using the registrations’ of persons that did not vote, or making-up registrations of non-existing persons). If people can get fake driver licenses and SS numbers, than crooked precinct workers can get fake voter ID cards.

Ever notice it is the donks squealing about voter ID requirements? Thats because they know were are on to them. I am for the purple finger approach myself. Low cost too!

If you donk's are so worried about people who can't get ID's, why don't you drive them over to the DMV.

Mark,

If they can get to the voting booth, then they can get to the DMV...if they can read well enough to know who is running for office, then they can read well enough to know there is an ID requirement to vote. I don't accept that a person can be so stupid and uninformed that the one thing they won't know about and can't do is get an ID.

Let's see...

• If you want to buy cigarettes, they can (and should) ask for your picture ID.
• If you want to buy alcohol, they can (and should) ask for your picture ID.
• If you want to cash a check at a bank, they can (and should) ask for your picture ID.
• If you want to use a credit card, they can (and should) ask for your picture ID.

I don't hear any wail of concern from the Dems on those laws.

And it is abundantly clear to anyone who cares to check it out, that there is a much higher preponderance of liquor stores in and around lower income neighborhoods. So, it is reasonable to assume that many of these lower income people have found a way to get a picture ID in order to buy liquor and cigarettes. So what's the problem with requiring picture ID to vote?

The Great State of Georgia has twice passed a similar voter ID law as Indiana. The first time, the ACLU and the hysterical Dems shopped a judge to rule it unconstitutional based on his perception that it "targets" minorities and poor people, even though it passed muster of the Federal Elections Commission. This second time around, the state went so far as to put into the legislation a section where the state will send a van around to an individual's home to get them a picture ID. And to quash the squealing further, the state has adopted a "no cost" option for people who claim that they are too poor to cough up the $5.00 for the ID in question. Guess what?

It's STILL not good enough for the Dems, who are STILL crying "Foul!"

Porter Jervis suggested that the Dems might want to help people by driving them to the DMV to get their IDs. I guess that's just not an option for the Dems here in Georgia, because there's nothing in it for them. Plus, that would mean having to spend their own money to transport these "poor, oppressed, disenfranchised" people. Interesting, though, isn't it, that come voting day, they can muster up fleets of vans to find these people and haul them to the voting booth... It sort of parallels how just before Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, all those buses remained where they were, dooming thousands of people to the rigors of the storm. Yet, when it came time to vote for a Mayor this Spring, they managed to find fleets of buses to haul people in from surrounding states so that they could vote...

Maybe one day Howard Dean will grow up and grow a brain. Given his history, I doubt that day will come any time soon.

I'm originally from Chicago. Back there, in the city known for the Daley political machine, there is a famous saying. "Vote early... and vote often!"

Apparently, this infamous practice is in danger of taking its rightful place in the trashbin of history. That's why the Dems are troubled. They're seeing the writing on the wall, and they don't like what they're reading!

Chalk up another victory for Democracy!

Barney,

It is a lot harder to phony up IDs rather than just send 'round a guy to use all those voters on the rolls who are dead or moved away...this is the reason you Democrats also don't like it when we try to purge the voter rolls...

All we're doing, Barney, is trying to make it at least a little harder for you Democrats to steal elections.

Mark, “It is a lot harder to phony up IDs rather than just send 'round a guy to use all those voters on the rolls who are dead or moved away...this is the reason you Democrats also don't like it when we try to purge the voter rolls...”

I agree, the problem is with registrations and crooked precinct workers. A voter ID solves neither problem.

I lived in Wisconsin for many years and Chicagoans (corrupt Democrats mostly) would drive across the border and vote in Wisconsin because they have same day registration there. In other words, you show up on election day and say "hi, I'm here to vote" and away you go.

Twice the Wisconsin legislature has passed voter ID card requirements even allowing for FREE voter ID cards to everyone, and the Democratic governor (yes, aren't we shocked) vetoed it.

I always find it funny when the Democrats are for "everyone's vote to count" but they have no problem not protecting legitimate voters or the military's vote (2000).

Hypocrites all.

Mark N.,

"All we're doing, Barney, is trying to make it at least a little harder for you Democrats to steal elections."

If you could provide some proof that someone has tried to vote as someone else in an instance where showing ID would have prevented the cheating, then I'd change my position. But until you do, requiring voter ID at the polls just places another obstacle between citizens and voting. And please don't be so partisan to believe that voting fraud isn't committed by extremists on both sides.

For those of you who haven't heard about Maryland's new voting law, here are a few extracts from the WashingtonPost.Com article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040401755.html

Concerned about fraud in the polls, check out the last paragraph... I'll bet the illegal immigrants will love Maryland for this little doozy!

This gives REAL meaning to the saying "vote early and vote often"!!!

"...Maryland Democrats ... who dominate the state legislature in Annapolis, pushed through a bill allowing voting to take place for five days before Election Day -- but mostly at polling stations in Democratic strongholds."

"...Democratic lawmakers stripped the bill of provisions that would have permitted Republicans an equal role in deciding where to place the early-polling stations and that would have required that the stations' locations be geographically central. The conference committee that wrote the bill was composed of six Democrats and zero Republicans."

"The locations of many of the polling stations for early voting seem designed to mine Democratic votes, which tend to be in more heavily populated areas..."

"... Maryland voters will not be required to show any form of identification, and they will be able to cast provisional ballots practically anywhere in the state, regardless of their home address."

AAR

Hey Dean, maybe we should let dead people vote too! I'm sure you can handle that, can't ya?

AAR, if the voters rights legislation is such a bad deal for Republicans, why did the Republican governor sign it into law, and why do link to an editorial, and not the actual bill so we can read it, and make own conclusions? Why did you refer to the editorial as an article?

Sign the book, get a purple finger. The middle one in honor of the Republicans. This ain't rocket science and if it was good enough for the Iraqis it's good enough for us. Paece

Barney points out that "in IL you have to register to vote. To register you have to provide proof of residency (utility bill) and identity."

Notice that there is no requirement to show proof of U.S. CITIZENSHIP!!!!! Just a utility bill and proof of identity which could be any damn thing.

This gives real meaning to the illegal immigrant signs which said:

"TODAY WE MARCH, TOMORROW WE VOTE!!"

They actually meant vote in the next election, not some time in the future when they have citizenship.

Barneyg2000,

Why did the Republican governor sign the bill?

I found this in the Baltimore Sun...

"Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. and many Republicans have complained that the General Assembly has stacked the locations of the polling places in the so-called Big Seven to benefit Democrats. And in fact, legislation enacted this year (after the legislature overrode Mr. Ehrlich's veto) set the locations, and the authors were all Democrats..."

Other states have enacted early voting too, but that combined with no requirement for any identification is just asking for potential fraud and they have plenty of time to do it. Do you think illegal aliens or those who want to "stuff the ballot box" are going to give their real names and addresses when they aren't required? Just vote and move on to the next box... or come back tomorrow and hope another "watcher" is at the polling booth!

I personally see no reason for that much time to be permitted for voting. If people can't be at the ballot box on the scheduled day, vote early by absentee so it can be checked!

Why did I link to an editorial?

Because that's what I had available. I believe the story was also discussed on Rush Limbaugh and maybe Fox News, but I don't recall for sure. At least I did provide a legitimate link to a legitimate article in a legitimate paper for people to read. I could have just made a few one-line statements and flown off to the next liberal blog for more one-line sharp shooting!

I guess I missed the guidance on editorials! I didn't know that I am not permitted to quote from an editorial or link to it for you so you could read for yourself and make sure I didn't misquote them! After all, the Washington Post isn't the New York Times or I probably would have checked for more sources.

I personally don't have the time nor the desire to sort through the hundreds of pages of legislative paperwork. The Washington Post did that for me. If you think they are wrong or are making the story up, feel free to e-mail them.

Let us know the results of your research.

AAR

"• If you want to buy cigarettes, they can (and should) ask for your picture ID.
• If you want to buy alcohol, they can (and should) ask for your picture ID.
• If you want to cash a check at a bank, they can (and should) ask for your picture ID.
• If you want to use a credit card, they can (and should) ask for your picture ID."

These are all privileges. Voting is a right. Big difference.

The card is simply another hurdle. A blind 400 pound diabetic in a wheelchair with no legs has a right to vote, without have a gas-powered car, hired-labor driver haul him into a DMV photo line to undergo a process virtually incomprehensible to him as relating to his right to vote. He'll just take a pass. This is called "voter disenfranchisement" which seems to be some kind of Republican pastime right up there with shooting wingless quail.

Congressive

Yes, let's build a law to protect that blind, 400 lb diabetic (who can still vote absentee from his home) but not protect law abiding citizens who vote properly but have their votes canceled out by fraudulent votes.

Hypocrisy continues. Reward the lawless continues from the left. Amazing and not shocking at all.

A blind 400 pound diabetic in a wheelchair with no legs has a right to vote, without have a gas-powered car, hired-labor driver haul him into a DMV photo line to undergo a process virtually incomprehensible to him as relating to his right to vote. He'll just take a pass.

Cry me a !#@%$&*^ river, congressive. I voted in the Indiana primary yesterday. I asked the pol workers what the reaction had been to the ID requirement. They said the reaction had been overwhelmingly positive by both Republicans and Democrats.

This is called "voter disenfranchisement"

The only people this is going to disenfranchise are those who would abuse the system. Personally, I'd like to see a bar code system that could be used on both absentee and in-person voting, to ensure that nobody votes more than once. You would see a drastic change in election results in places like Milwaukee.

Spook

Amen. I lived in Milwaukee for 9 years. To say it's corrupt is an understatement. Low and behold, Kerry won in 2004 by about 10,000 votes yet you didn't hear Bush screaming about Wisconsin when Kerry was screaming about Ohio and 100,000+ votes difference.

In 2000, Gore won Wisconsin by a small margin as well and the fraud is rampant in Milwaukee yet the Democrat Governor overrides the legislative corrective measures. It's disgusting.

Every state has their own ways of doing things and many are much "looser" than the one in question.

For instance here in CA you don't need any proof of citizenship or much else for that matter to register to vote. Heck you can just walk up to a "get out the vote" thing and register to vote. You can mail them in from anywhere and have the stuff sent to anywhere.

Then, on election day you just show up, tell them your name and sign in the book. Sometimes they'll ask you to confirm your address (most of the time with a yes or no and not repeating your address). That's it. Anyone can vote then anywhere if you've got a name of someone still on the rolls.

I did some calls for the Repulbicans in my area based on registered voter lists and a good number of those that were still on the rolls had moved or were dead yet were still registered to vote in my town. It's not hard to get these lists and anyone who wanted to could just walk in and say "I'm Joe Blow." Then walk to another polling place and vote again with their real name or what have you.

Cheating the system is easy as it is. I'm actually for an ID AND the purple finger thing. Because with just the finger thing the current way of voter fraud still works, you just end up grabbing a bunch of random bums to pretend to be registered voters. An ID makes it a little bit harder. (Even if it just means they have to make fake ID's for everyone of their fake voters.)

In the end, why would anyone be against anything that helps stop voter fraud? Seriously, we've added amendments to make it FREE for crying out loud to have an ID. Folks drive around to pick you up to vote if you can't drive, they've offered to do the same if you can't get to a photo place to get your ID. What's your beef if it's not all a front to allow the continuation of these voter fraud holes?

Congressive,

So, you want someone who can't cross the hurdle of getting a photo ID to vote?

I mean, seriously...if the guy is so completely out of it that filling out a form for an ID is incomprehensible, how is he to make a rational decision on who to vote for?

Mark,

At work, so don't have the ability to provide the links...but you can do a search of this site for articles on the massive amounts of voter fraud in 2004...and, yes, every last bit of it was Democratic...you see, we Republicans don't try to steal elections...we fight it out and abide by the decision of the voters...

Sure, congressive is arguing that someone who is not competent enough to get an ID is somehow suddenly competent enough, at the ballot box, to cast a vote. He doesn't know his own name, but he does know who should be president. Sounds like a liberal to me.

I have been arguing that the feds should allot a certain amount of money to pay for postage and administration fees and require that, for voting in national elections, every precinct should have to send out a letter to each registered voter, at the address on the registration. No letter could be forwarded---it is delivered to the correct person at that address, or it is returned.

To retain ones' registration, one would have to still live at that address, and fill out and return a form stating that the person is either a naturalized citizen (with date and ID of citizenship records) or was born here, and is qualified to vote---under penalty of perjury, clearly stated on the form. Oh, and is registered only in that precinct.

Those who do not respond are removed from the registration rolls. Forms are kept for future examination if necessary.

Anyone who has moved or who has a legitimte reason for not receiveing his letter has to go to the precinct office to register.

No more Motor Voter. Absolutely no same-day registration. ID required at all voting locations.

And each person, when signing in to vote, signs a statement of understanding that a ballot is not the same as a vote, and that any ballot which is not executed clearly enough to make the voter's intent clear without any need for interpretation will not be considered to be adequately executed and will not be counted.

All votes are counted, whether or not they can change the outcome of a state's electoral commitment. If we are going to whine on and on and on ad infinitum about who won the "popular vote" then we need to actually KNOW who won the popular vote, which can only be known if all the military votes are counted, and all the absentee votes. This idea of discarding votes because a state's outcome cannot be changed by counting them is true disenfranchisement.

Blarney,

My wife is our Township Clerk. Which means she runs the elections in our Township (with a population of about 9,000 and a suburb of a state capital). I am an election official, which means I work the elections when needed.

In our state, we have a Qualified Voter File (QVF). It lists all wualified voters in the township. It does not have their signature. WHen they come in to vote, all the need to do is fill out a ballot application with their name, date of birth, and address, then sign it. Many offer to show an ID, but it is not required.

Knowing how the systems works, I can see how easily it would be to commit voter fraud if I had someone working as an election official helping me. By not having to show a picture ID, I could vote in different precincts if I knew who didn't vote and if their age was approximately the same as mine. Now, with only 5 precincts, I could only vote four more time, so alone, I wouldn't affect the vote totals much. But in a large city with scores of precincts, or if I had a gang of 100 or so helpers, I could definately change the results of an election.

Having a picture ID would bring a greater sense of validity to each election, unless there was market in fake IDs. That too can be combated by issuing ID specifically for voting with a magnetic strip with the voters information. It would be very difficult to counterfeit.

The cost of the ID would be minimal. The ID could be produced by the municipalities clerk, who now issues the voter registration. In fact, most jurisdictions issue voter registration cards, so all they would need to do is add the photo.

"• If you want to buy cigarettes, they can (and should) ask for your picture ID.
• If you want to buy alcohol, they can (and should) ask for your picture ID.
• If you want to cash a check at a bank, they can (and should) ask for your picture ID.
• If you want to use a credit card, they can (and should) ask for your picture ID."

Congressive responded,
"These are all privileges. Voting is a right. Big difference."

I beg to differ with you. It is not a privilege to buy cigarettes and alcohol. They are both strictly controlled and taxed by law. They are both legal substances, and people have a RIGHT to purchase them - provided that they satisfy the legal criteria - proof of age via picture ID in both instances. The law couldn't be clearer. There is no inherent "right" to banking and use of Credit Cards per se, unless one could argue that as an American citizen, they have the "right" to engage in commerce. As you may or may not know, "The Commerce Clause" has long been used by the Supreme Court and the US Government to regulate and enforce certain actions in the course of history such as desegregation, banking and credit practices. It may be a bit of a stretch, but I believe that your assertion that all of the above are "privileges" is way off base.

The same could be said, I suppose, of voting. If someone commits a felony, in some states, that "right" to vote becomes a "privilege" according to the whim of the state. Many convicted felons cannot vote unless and until they have served their time, sometimes including probation. So clearly, the state has an active interest in setting the criteria for a variety of social activities, from smoking and drinking, to banking and using credit cards, and even to voting...

Why do you object to someone having to prove that they are who they say they are in order to vote? Don't you want the state to make the effort to ensure to the best of its ability, that only those who fit the criteria are allowed to vote? If someone feels "oppressed" or that they are entering "a hostile environment" when they are asked to provide a simple piece of identification, then maybe they shouldn't be voting at all. The same goes for buying alcohol and cigarettes. If they balk when asked for ID in any of the situations cited above, there must be a good reason...

Good post dbogdan. I like WarriorNation's answer to Congressive's brain fart. Only the dems want to make a law to be precisely addressing the situation of a 400lb diabetic who can't see...yet drives to the polls to vote for a fricken democrat! Too funny. I too live in Wisconsin and WarriorNation is right....the slimeballs in Fib land would cross to vote same day. And the question Mark keeps putting forward of who can show someone attempting to vote with a fake I.D. is a completely stupid strawman. If they don't have the requirement there is no result...
As far as i've read, the voter I.D. supporters on here have kicked ass on the liberal's attempt to support their position. How, dumb that they agree with Howard Dean. The dems have among them people so stupid that they can't get an I.D. Nor can they remember it when they vote! Combined with registration it will be the standard going forward....and if not...we'll get to scan Congressive's retina when he vote. I'd like to laser that sucker myself!

SURROGATE... SUBSTITUTE... MULTIPLE... BUSING... DEAD... FELONS... VISITORS... and ILLEGAL voters!!!

I got it! ...I understand why liberal Democrats do not want to verify the identity of the voters, especially with a picture identity!

SURROGATE voters... Comb the Democratic neighborhoods for every [DEMOCRAT] who could but would not vote. Take their names and addresses. Vote [DEMOCRATIC] for them. A legitimate voter. Can't make it to the polls? Don't like the hassle and inconvenience of voting? Got other things to do? No problem... let our staff of SURROGATE voters vote for you. Oh, and here's a free pack of cigarettes for your "cooperation" and the use of your vote! No identity check! No problem! And who will ever know the difference even if the names are matched to the list of legitimate voters. (Oh, and we'll take care of that blind, 400 lb diabetic too!)

SUBSTITUTE voters... Can't speak English. Not a legal voter. No problem. Just give us your name and we'll take care of the rest for you! No identity check! No problem!

DEAD and FELON voters... We already know how that works. Check the obituaries and tombstones to "find" potential voters. Get a list of people in jails and prisons. Have a surrogate or substitute "vote" for them. No identity check! No problem!

ILLEGAL voters... Are you here in America illegally? Can't speak or read English? Would still like your [illegal] vote to count? No problem. Don't worry. No one will check your identity... and if they do, we will have our waiting staff or ACLU lawyers standing by in our fleet of planes to make sure your "rights" are not violated.

Still worried about voting in person but want your vote to count [along with the legal votes]? No problem there either. Our staff of SURROGATE voters is there to make sure that your vote "does count"! Let's help vote those out of office who oppose your illegal immigration. It's no wonder Democrats want to keep our borders open. No wonder they want to support the "rights" of illegal aliens. If they can enter the U.S. illegally, they will surely have no problem voting illegally. ...Millions of potential Democratic voters. Great idea! No identity check! No problem!

BUSING voters... Still don't have enough legal voters in a Republican dominated area? Don't have enough surrogate or substitute voters to handle the workload? No problem! We'll just bus some in from other areas to handle the workload. No identity check! No problem!

VISITORS... Visiting from another country -- France, Canada, others? Visiting relatives from another state? This week is election week. Let's all go vote. We need your help. No identity check! No problem!

MULTIPLE voting... After all of our hard work, why stop with one vote per "person". Demand at least a five days or a week to vote to maximize voting at multiple polling places. Encourage legal voters to "help" with the effort too (another free pack of cigarettes). Why should they have just one vote? Votes are important in a democracy and should be counted and counted and counted along with the other "illegal" votes! No identity check! No problem!

And if the above still doesn't get the desired results, there's recount after recount after recount, claiming fraud by the Republicans, double checking all of the Republican voters, and of course... those planes full of ACLU lawyers lined up on the runways ready to file their lawsuits!

...INTERESTING CONCEPTS ALL!

Liberal Democrats do not believe voting should be restricted to the residents of the city, county, or state where an election is held -- no identity check means no real or verifiable restrictions means just that!

Residents and citizens are voting on the very issues that affect their government and their lives, but liberal Democrats see no necessity or reason to verify the identity of those who are voting to make sure outsiders or even "visitors" from another country aren't voting in the election, diluting their votes, and possibly changing the results!

I would have thought that anyone with good common sense would have wanted to make sure that people from another city, county, state, or country don't just drop by during an election to cast their vote. I would have thought that residents of one town wouldn't want residents of surrounding towns to drop by and vote in their elections. I would have thought that anyone with good common sense would not want the dead to vote. I would have thought that anyone with good common sense would not want a person to vote in the election more than once. But... not the liberal Democrats.

Liberal Democrats insist everyone (literally) has a "right" to vote, but yet they don't want to protect that "right" to make sure that right isn't abused or to keep others from diluting their own votes. Interesting concept!

VOTE EARLY and VOTE OFTEN! ...Interesting Concept!!!

AAR

Virtually every response to my hypothetical voter is really sad. Basically, every single response was "screw that guy if he's blind/overweight/diabetic/paraplegic." Somehow he doesn't deserve to vote because he's disabled. Fascinating. Heartless. Constitutionally criminal.

You guys get pissed off because all the good parking spaces are "hogged by gimps"?

No Congressive, speaking for myself, I thought that your hypothetical voter scenario was ludicrous - it was begging the point. There are all kinds of recourse that this hypothetical voter had to vote. The first that comes to mind is absentee voting. No need to present ID. No need to worry about transportation. They could and probably should have hypothetically requested an absentee ballot. If they didn't do that, they could have and should have contacted their local preferred party HQ and asked for assistance before it came time to vote. And what about friends and family? Have they no role to play in assisting this individual whom you paint as somehow living in an isolated universe. If that person did live in such a parallel universe, apart from input from anyone on an matter whatsoever, then how would they even know when it came time to vote? Or who was on the ballot? Or where their precinct would be?

I just think your hypothetical was badly flawed. However, there are situations where people have special needs regarding voting. If they are interested in voting, then they are probably sharp enough to make plans to make sure that their vote is cast. Your hypothetical places too much of a burden on the state and not enough on the individual, to see to it that they are not disenfranchised, that they don't fall between the cracks. Do some people fall between the cracks? Yes. Is it the job of the government to see to it that this doesn't happen? No. That responsibility in my opinion, falls upon the shoulders of the respective political parties who stand to gain or lose by the vote in question. When a political party wants to get out the vote badly enough, they will do so under almost any conditions. The recent voting in New Orleans is a great example of how this effort can be made. During the Katrina debacle, it became clear that hundreds of school buses weren't used according to an evacuation plan that wasn't implemented by the Democratic Mayor, Ray Nagin. Why was that? I don't know. He never adequately explained his lack of responsibility and leadership in that instance. I suspect that it's because he didn't see any political advantage to do so. However... months later, facing opposition from many candidates eager to fill his position, he and the Democratic party managed to get together fleets of buses spanning several states to bus in voters for this special election. Using a variety of voting lists and Red Cross, FEMA and other lists, they hunted down hundreds, if not thousands, of former residents and made sure that they took advantage of their right to vote. Many of these individuals had lost virtually everything in their lives, including documentation as to their residency status and their identification. Yet that obstacle was overcome because it was deemed important enough in that instance by Mayor Nagin to make the special effort. The same zeal for purpose should be pursued by every party that stands to gain or lose by the votes of these individuals, as well as they individuals of the hypothetical variety that you so poorly put forth. But too often I see the argument putting the responsibility upon the government to resolve these obstacles. I believe that the model should be exactly the other way around. Responsibility and effort to vote should come from the grass roots up, not the other way around.

But thanks for your comments in any event. That's what makes for enjoyable debate.