Voting is hard, claims the New York Times. Really, the New York Times is angry because voter fraud is getting harder. It’s the only way to make sense the editors’ four step voting reform program* proposed in this editorial.
The New York Times’editors recommend as follows, based on the Presidential Commission on Election Administration’s** findings:
Mandate multiday voting for elections. “Republican lawmakers have tried to cut back on it in the belief that it favors Democrats.”
America should adopt early voting because of a “bipartisan consensus of election administrators.”
Early voting is rife with opportunities for fraud. Keeping elections to one day makes it far more difficult to go poll hopping to stuff the ballot box for the Democrat of the day. But maybe that’s the entire point of this exercise, making it easier for Democrats to steal elections, whether through stuffing the ballot box or through letting ineligible voters vote.
Let voters register to vote online. Doing so apparently “reduces the chances of errors, makes registration easy, and is far less expensive than paper systems.” Further, the NYT notes voter registrations have “gone up significantly” in states permitting online registration.
This is a great idea! Why, no one ever lies online! Couple this with no voter identification requirement, and ‘Puter’s fairly certain turnout in Democrat precincts will soon be approaching eleventy gajillion percent of the precinct’s voting age population.
And let’s not forget the federal government’s sterling reputation for designing and implementing websites. ‘Puter just knows the online registration website would be a shining example of a well thought out, thoroughly secure venture.
Make Congress shell out money for replacement voting machines, even though Congress already paid for the replacement voting machines in 2000. Let voters print and fill out ballots at home, then bring them to the polling place for scanning.
‘Puter’s still fuming Congress made New York get rid of its old lever voting machines.
Rarely did they break, and they weren’t difficult to figure out. In the last several elections, ‘Puter’s watched old people spoil ballot after ballot trying to figure out how to fill in a bubble and feed it into what appears to be a giant paper shredder. ‘Puter’s fine with updating our technology, but let’s do it in a limited rollout over multiple years to make sure it works first, m’kay?
‘Puter doesn’t even know where to begin with the “fill in your ballot at home” idea. It’s called a secret ballot for a reason, folks. If your parents or your spouse gets to check your work, there’s probably going to be a little arm twisting going on. Heck, ‘Puter’s even betting some less than aboveboard employers (Teachers unions? ACORN?) would go so far as to check your ballots before they’re cast, then drive you to the polling place to make sure you voted.
Displace the retirees currently doing the work with college students and private-sector workers. Encourage colleges and employers to let workers volunteer. Require additional training.
‘Puter agrees that most poll workers are well-intentioned though unhelpful retirees, at least in his neck of the woods. But “encouraging” employers to let their employees volunteer sounds an awful lot like a stealth tax to him. Further, ‘Puter can just envision the entire workforce of New York State United Teachers showing up to work the polls. No opportunity for shenanigans there, nosiree. None at all.
This is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt by the New York Times on behalf of Democrats to rig the system in their favor. These recommendations make it far too easy for ineligible voters to vote and for those intent on voter fraud to be successful in that fraud.
Some readers may think ‘Puter’s overly suspicious of the New York Times
editors’ motives. Here. Read this.
Republicans may continue to fight to keep large groups of minorities, low-income people and students from participating in the democratic process, but after the commission’s report, there can no longer be any doubt that there are no legitimate reasons for their resistance.
Got it? EVUL RETHUGLIKKANS HATES TEH BLAKS AND THE LAYDEEZ! Anyone who believes that voting shouldbe difficult just hates minorities.
The proper response to this from conservatives is to agree with a sine qua non: a national voter identification requirement. Unless and until Americans can be assured that each voter casting a ballot is eligible to do so, no voting law should be relaxed.
Your move, New York Times.
* ‘Puter thought all hard Left programs contain five points. What’s with only four here? Maybe ‘Puter needs to rethink this.
** What the heck is a Presidential Commission on Election Administration anyway? This sounds like a giant boondoggle where the president appoints cronies to a do-nothing committee to rubber stamp a predetermined conclusion. But ‘Puter can’t believe government would ever be so cynical.