So your argument is that it is ok to make it inconvenient and difficult to register to vote and disenfranchise voters so long as those votes wouldn't make a difference in the outcome of the election? Something that can't be known with 100% certainty in advance!
Shouldn't the policy be that no citizen, no matter what party, should not be disenfranchised and should be allowed to register to vote with no unnecessary roadblocks?
Oh, I know, next you'll argue that the massive degree of voter fraud makes this necessary. But the truth is, the actual level of voter fraud is far, far below the level of being significant.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
--- In ibmpensionissues@..., "zimowski@..." <zimowski@...> wrote:
It is possible to convince me that my view on something may be incorrect. Arguments that teach me something new and that support the point being made will have the best chance of success.
As far as Texas is concerned, I stand by the statement I made. Most rural Texans are Republican. If, in fact, a few rural Texans were unable to vote in the 2012 presidential election due to burdensome voter id laws, then I seriously doubt that these uncast votes if cast for Obama would have made any difference at all. From the wikipedia web site:
,_2012
"Mitt Romney won the state of Texas with 57.17%, over Barack Obama's 41.38%. As in past elections, President Obama and the Democrats won in major metropolitan areas such as Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston, but Republicans were able to overwhelm the urban vote by sweeping the vast rural areas and suburbs of Texas by large margins."
Take a look at the pictorial county by county results and draw your own conclusions:
