Members of our media monopoly never differ with each other on the matter of
election integrity nor any other subject and they have unanimously declared
that to require picture ID for voting in the USA is the "moral equivalent of murder".
Here's a countering statement the judge and jury at The New York Times, CBS,
AT&T, Comcast, Disney, NBC, PBS, Zuckerberg, Larry Page and the whole gang wants
to make illegal:
from October 2021:
Sixteen years ago, in 2005, the Carter-Baker Commission on
Federal Election Reform issued a report that proposed a uniform
system of requiring a photo ID in order to vote in U.S.
elections. The report also pointed out that widespread absentee
voting makes vote fraud more likely. Voter files contain
ineligible, duplicate, fictional, and deceased voters, a fact
easily exploited using absentee ballots to commit fraud. Citizens
who vote absentee are more susceptible to pressure and
intimidation. And vote-buying schemes are far easier when
citizens vote by mail.
Who was behind the Carter-Baker Commission? Donald Trump? No. The
Commission’s two ranking members were former President Jimmy
Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James Baker
III, a Republican. Other Democrats on the Commission were former
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and former Indiana Congressman
Lee Hamilton. It was a truly bipartisan commission that made what
seemed at the time to be common sense proposals.
How things have changed. Some of the Commission’s members, Jimmy
Carter among them, came out last year to disavow the Commission’s
work. And despite surveys showing that Americans overwhelmingly
support measures to ensure election integrity—a recent Rasmussen
survey found that 80 percent of Americans support a voter ID
requirement—Democratic leaders across the board oppose such
measures in the strongest terms.
Here, for instance, is President Biden speaking recently in
Philadelphia, condemning the idea of voter IDs: “There is an
unfolding assault taking place in America today—an attempt to
suppress and subvert the right to vote in fair and free
elections, an assault on democracy, an assault on liberty, an
assault on who we are—who we are as Americans. For, make no
mistake, bullies and merchants of fear and peddlers of lies are
threatening the very foundation of our country.” Sadly but
predicably, he went on to suggest that requiring voter IDs would
mean returning people to slavery.
But the fact is that the U.S. is an outlier among the world’s
democracies in not requiring voter ID. Of the 47 countries in
Europe today, 46 of them currently require government-issued
photo IDs to vote. The odd man out is the United Kingdom, in
which Northern Ireland and many localities require voter IDs, but
the requirement is not nationwide. The British Parliament,
however, is considering a nationwide requirement, so very soon
all 47 European countries will likely have adopted this
When it comes to absentee voting, we Americans, accustomed as we
are to very loose rules, are often shocked to learn that 35 of
the 47 European countries—including France, Italy, the
Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden—don’t allow absentee voting for
citizens living in country. Another ten European
countries—including England, Ireland, Denmark, Portugal, and
Spain—allow absentee voting, but require voters to show up in
person and present a photo ID to pick up their ballots. It isn’t
like in the U.S., where a person can say he’s going to be out of
town and have a ballot mailed to him.
England used to have absentee voting rules similar to ours in the
U.S. But in 2004, in the city of Birmingham, officials uncovered
a massive vote fraud scheme in the city council races. The six
winning Labor candidates had fraudulently acquired about 40,000
absentee votes, mainly from Muslim areas of the city. As a
result, England ended the practice of mailing out absentee
ballots and required voters to pick up their ballots in person
with a photo ID.
Up until 1975, France also had loose absentee voting rules. But
when massive vote fraud was discovered on the island of
Corsica—where hundreds of thousands of dead people were found to
be voting and even larger-scale vote-buying operations were
occurring—France banned absentee voting altogether.
On the topic of buying votes, I should point out that we in the
U.S. did not always have secret ballots. It wasn’t until 1880
that the first state adopted the secret ballot, and the last
state to adopt it was South Carolina in 1950. Perhaps
surprisingly, when secret ballots were adopted, the percentage of
people voting fell by about twelve percent. Why was that? Prior
to the adoption of the secret ballot, lots of people would get
paid for voting. In those days, people voted by placing pieces of
colored paper in the ballot box, with different colors
representing different parties. Party officials would be present
to observe what color paper each voter put into the box, and
depending on the color, the voter would often get paid. Secret
ballots put an end to this practice.
France learned in 1975 that the use of absentee ballots led to
the same practice—it allowed third parties to know how people
voted and pay them for voting a certain way. This same problem is
now proliferating in the U.S. in the form of “ballot harvesting,”
the increasingly common practice where party functionaries
distribute and collect ballots.
Defenders of our current voting rules point out that in lieu of
absentee voting, some European countries allow “proxy voting,”
whereby one person can designate another to vote for him. And
while it is true that eight of the 47 European countries allow
proxy voting—meaning that 39 do not—there are strict
requirements. In five of the eight countries—Belgium, England,
Monaco, Poland, and Sweden—proxy voting is limited to those with
a disability or an illness or who are out of the country. In
Poland, it also requires the approval of the local mayor, and in
Monaco the approval of the general secretariat. In France and the
Netherlands, proxy voting has to be arranged through a notary
public. Switzerland is the only country in Europe with a
relatively liberal proxy voting policy, requiring only a
How about our neighbors, Canada and Mexico? Canada requires a
photo ID to vote. If a voter shows up at the polls without an ID,
he is allowed to vote only if he declares who he is in writing
and if there is someone working at the polling station who can
personally verify his identity.
Mexico has had a long history of election fraud. Partly because
its leaders were concerned about a drop in foreign investment if
it wasn’t perceived to be a legitimate democracy, Mexico recently
instituted strict reforms. Voters must present a biometric ID—an
ID with not only a photo, but also a thumb print. Voters also
have indelible ink applied to their thumbs, preventing them from
voting more than once. And absentee voting is prohibited, even
for people living outside the country.
Those who oppose election integrity reform here in the U.S. often
condemn it as a means of “voter suppression.” But in Mexico, the
percent of people voting rose from 59 percent before the reforms
to 68 percent after. It turned out that Mexicans were more, not
less, likely to vote when they had confidence that their votes
H.R. 1, the radical bill Democratic Party leaders have been
pushing to adopt this year, would prohibit states from requiring
voter ID and require states to allow permanent mail-in voting.
And mail-in voting, I hardly need to point out, is even worse, in
terms of vote fraud, than absentee voting. With absentee voting,
a person at least has to request a ballot. With mail-in voting—as
we saw in too many places in the 2020 election—ballots are simply
mailed out to everyone. With loose absentee voting rules, a
country is making itself vulnerable to vote fraud. With mail-in
voting, a country is almost begging for vote fraud.
If the rhetoric we hear from the Left today is correct—if voter
ID requirements and restrictions on absentee (or even mail-in)
voting are un-democratic -- then so are the countries of Europe and
the rest of the developed world. But this is utter nonsense.
Those opposing common sense measures to ensure integrity in U.S.
elections—measures such as those recommended by the bipartisan
Carter-Baker Commission in 2005—are not motivated by a concern
for democracy, but by partisan interests.