Wow! This sounds pretty bad:
Republicans rewriting election laws in ways that could hurt Democrats
Then the story tells you how Republicans are "rewriting" these laws:
They have curbed early voting, rolled back voting rights for ex-felonsand passed stricter voter ID laws. Taken together, the measures could have a significant and negative effect on President Obama's reelection efforts if they keep young people and minorities away from the polls.
Okay, what they are saying is: (1.) Fewer felons will be allowed to vote, (2.) You gotta be who you say you are, and (3.) More voters will have to exercise their privilege by showing up at the poll. Now this is what I call a vicious plan to kill democracy.
Voter fraud, by the way, is emerging as a huge problem. Holding office has always been desirable for many people, but now, with so much of our economy and lives controlled by politicians, becoming an elected official is even more attractive. Some candidates find they must first steal votes before they can steal the taxpayer's money.
John Fund's "Stealing Elections: How Voter fraud Threatens Our Demcracy" shows how absentee ballots and illegal voting by felons can swing an election. Also votes by dead people…what is it about dying that makes some people who were Republicans in this vale of tears turn Democrat in the great beyond?
Because I am an innate conservative, I do have a huge problem with one thing Republicans are considering in Pennsylvania:
Pennsylvania lawmakers are considering the latest, and perhaps most potent, legislation, a measure that would divvy up electoral votes by congressional district rather than use the winner-takes-all approach. The change would almost ensure a net gain of 20 to 24 GOP electoral votes in the 2012 presidential election.
"This is a very straightforward attempt to more closely conform the Electoral College process . . . with the will of the people," said the bill's sponsor, state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi.
I've often wished that California's electoral college votes could be divvied up–but I am basically nervous about tinkering with the electoral college, even if California, despite consevative counties, more often than not gives its electoral votes to candidates I don't support.
Rep. Pete Sessions, chairman of the House Republicans, also opposes the Pennsylvania plan. His reasons are practical. Sessions believes the proposed system would have a small impact on the 2012 presidential race but could make House races more difficult for Republicans:
In theory, it could allow Republicans to win the majority of Pennsylvania electoral votes even if they lose the popular vote. That's because many of Pennsylvania's rural congressional districts are heavily Republican.
The problem: Since statewide vote totals would no longer matter, Republicans worry Democrats will move campaign efforts out of safe Democratic districts in urban population centers and into the more moderate suburbs. That could put extra heat on GOP House candidates.
John Steele Gordon of Commentary cautions against what he calls the "electoral college hysteria" of those who oppose this change (in this particular instance, mostly Democrats-how did I end up with these bedfellows?).