Which is worse; requiring ID to vote or disenfranchising Michigan and Florida voters?
Posted By admin on December 21, 2009
Capt. Lee asked:
At least you are allowed to vote with the ID thing.
The demorats are ignoring the votes of Michigan and Florida.
At least you are allowed to vote with the ID thing.
The demorats are ignoring the votes of Michigan and Florida.
The latter
Requiring ID is common sense
Apparently they think the people in Florida and Michigan do not matter.
If they had voted Obama they would have counted them by now!
I totally disagree with the premise of the question. I would advise more research on your part.
I see no problem with requiring proof that you are who you say you are when you go to vote. Keeps the dead people, unregistered, minors, and illegal aliens from voting.
The demorats are ignoring the votes of Michigan and Florida.
The Dems in Michigan Florida have no one to blame but themselves. Each state choose to break national DNC rules.
HRC should have followed the rules set by the DNC.
That way, their votes would have been counted, and their delegation seated. They can blame her for that. She agreed to not do what she did, but she’s the exception to every rule, you know?
They should split it 50/50; that’s as fair and economical as it can get. We don’t have time or money to re-vote.
So to answer your question, I would have to go with requiring ID to vote. Ha.
Exactly. Yesterday’s elections were disenfranchised due to those who knew not that there was a new rule to have photo id. They were punished and FL MI are punished. If you can’t do anything for one, then you can’t come up with another rule for the others either. Live and learn, the Clintons are corrupt and are going down.
The voters in Michigan and Florida have a right to be upset, but they should focus their anger at two things:
(1)their state representatives who screwed them out of representation by breaking the rules (even the Republican voters had half of their delegates stripped, which everyone seems to forget)
(2)the DNC and its stupid, crazy primary rules. Let’s have a single national primary day with no superdelegates so every vote is counted and there isn’t a race to see who can put their primary before Iowa and New Hampshire.
It wasn’t Obama who disenfranchised them. The Obama camp just argues that you can’t change the rules in the middle of the contest – if you want to change them for next time then by all means do it.
Requiring Id’s to vote should have always been standard procedure- that’s just common sense.
Michigan and Florida getting screwed out of their primaries is well kinda sad.
Florida and Michigan disenfranchised themselves by not following party rules. Now they need to play by the rules. But I’m sure that Hillary will make a federal case out of it. She reminds me of my dog hanging on to an old sock.
I do agree with the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Indiana’s law regarding ID’s however. Any old 98 year old lady could have dressed up as a nun just so she could vote twice. I’ll bet she wanted to vote for Hillary. Her loss.
Obama for America!
disenfranchising Michigan, i wish would have turned out better, But Florida I’m pretty happy they didn’t get a say in this election, I’m tired of old people choosing this counties future, and let us not forget Florida elected Bush in the 1st place, you want to lay blame for this mess? Blame Florida 2000.
ID is not requiered in california, i wonder how many illegal aliens are voting ……this year
Hillary supporters get over it! That’s whats worse Sore losers NEVER WIN!
Obama 2008!
Ebony Ivory President!
Requiring ID is disenfranchisement in the real election. MI and FL are just Democratic party events.
No they aren’t. They were told that if they voted early, they would not be counted. The states held them early, the votes will not be counted.
The DNC has no constitutional obligation, or any form of obligation, to count the votes of FL and MI.
Well, since neither one violates the Constitution, I would have to say that neither is bad.
I will say that Voter IDs should be required.
Also, I have to point out that you are not guaranteed the right to vote in the primary since that is not a Constitutionally mandated election.
Your assertion is absolutely false and I think EVERYONE knows it by now.
The politicians in FL MI wanted to move those elections up so that they could control the momentum of the race. The were told that if they did, the votes wouldn’t count. HILLARY agreed to that.
IT WAS THE FLORIDA POLITICIANS THAT DISENFRANCHISED THEIR OWN VOTERS. THE ONLY CHOICE THEY HAVE NOW IS TO NOT VOTE FOR THEM NEXT TIME AROUND.