Close Margins of Victory in Elections Demonstrate Need for Voter ID

Published Wed, Jan 4 2012 9:32 AM


Mitt Romney finished in first place at yesterday’s Iowa Caucus, edging Rick Santorum by 8 votes. The media is mostly reporting that this was the closest primary in history.  But that’s not true unless you are only talking about Republican primaries.  The closest caucus was actually between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in 2008.  Four years ago, the left’s primaries were chaotic and rampant with fraud, in particular in Nevada.

Except for a few outlets in 2008, the mainstream media did not report about the allegations of voter suppression, vote rigging, closing voting early and miscounting.  The irony of it all is that one of the largest opponents of voter ID today, Bill Clinton, actually spoke out against fraud in elections just four years ago.  

Bill Clinton said, “Today when my daughter and I were wandering through the hotel, and all these culinary workers were mobbing us telling us they didn’t care what the union told them to do, they were gonna caucus for Hillary.  There was a representative of the organization following along behind us going up to everybody who said that, saying 'if you’re not gonna vote for our guy were gonna give you a schedule tomorrow so you can’t be there.' So, is this the new politics? I haven’t seen anything like that in America in 35 years. So I will say it again – they think they're better than you.” 

Hillary Clinton’s Nevada campaign director Robert Mook said, “We did receive hundreds of examples of irregularities," such as “doors were closed early ... numerous examples of miscounting ... and others who were told they had to vote for Obama or they would lose a shift at their workplace.”

But the allegations of fraud cut both ways.

Apparently, Hillary did exactly what she criticized her opponent for doing.  Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe said, “We currently have reports of over 200 separate incidents of trouble at caucus sites, including doors being closed up to thirty minutes early, registration forms running out so people were turned away, and ID being requested and checked in a non-uniform fashion. This is in addition to the Clinton campaign’s efforts to confuse voters and call into question the at-large caucus sites which clearly had an affect [sic] on turnout at these locations. These kinds of Clinton campaign tactics were part of an entire week’s worth of false, divisive, attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself." 

Voter ID is important to have in place in the general election because close elections do happen and when close elections happen, the American public should have confidence in the result.  The 2008 Democrat Nevada caucus had both sides, the winner and the loser, casting doubt on the process because of Democrat and union tactics and irregularities.  Every voter wants to know their vote counts and is not cancelled out by someone who is not eligible to vote… especially in a close race.  Voter ID is an important tool in that process.  It’s the president of the United States we’re voting for.  Shouldn’t we have some integrity in that process and confidence in the result?


Share |


# The Republican Lawyer Blog said on Tuesday, September 25, 2012 3:56 AM

Departing from the party line of denial, Rep. John Patrick Julien (D-North Miami) has complained of vote

Leave a Comment