Quoted from Shadow

You don't read the local papers do you Box? There was voter fraud in Troy during the last election. Voter fraud in Indiana during primary elections. Acorn employees went to jail for forging signatures for voter registration. Much of the fraud was done with absentee ballots. Al Franken was elected due to prisoners voting when not eligible to do so and allowed Franken to become a Senator and cast a vote for Health-Care when one vote could have been the difference in pass or fail. Any voter fraud is too many.

Quoted from Shadow

Four NY Democrats Plead Guilty to Voter Fraud Felony Charges

Thursday, 22 Dec 2011 01:22pm

Four Democratic officials and political operatives have pleaded guilty to voter fraud-related felony charges in an alleged scheme to steal an election in Troy, N.Y., FoxNews.com reports.

The group forged signatures on applications for absentee ballots and on the ballots themselves in a 2009 primary of the Working Families Party, which was affiliated with now-defunct community group ACORN.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Four NY Democrats Plead Guilty to Voter Fraud Felony Charges
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Quoted from Shadow

    … At least 341 convicted felons voted in Minneapolis's Hennepin County, the state's largest, and another 52 voted illegally in St. Paul's Ramsey County, the state's second largest. Dan McGrath, head of Minnesota Majority, says that only conclusive matches were included in the group's totals. The number of felons voting in those two counties alone exceeds Mr. Franken's victory margin.

Quoted from Shadow

By your own admission people who should not be allowed to vote have been voting therefore the need to prove voter eligibility.

Quoted from Shadow

If people are citizens of the USA they can get the proper ID and therefore vote.

Quoted from Box A Rox

An OLD TRICK???
This woman has been voting for decades by showing a state issued identification... Under the Republican voter ID Plan,
She won't be eligible to vote.

Quoted Text

A History of Political Parties
Political parties are considered a relatively new phenomenon.  At the same time, however, parties remain an important part of American political history.  In one of his more famous addresses, President George Washington recognized the power and danger of political parties.  The Federalist Papers also warned of the dangers of factions, and especially those that can grow to a size larger than a numeric majority.  Despite these warnings, political parties began to form even during the signing of the Constitution: the Federalist and Anti-Federalist groups held opposing views on politics, governance, representation and power.  Since then, the country has had two-party battles.

The Federalists vs. The Democratic-Republicans (1790s-1820s)
The signing of the Constitution did not dissolve the intense debates between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.  To the contrary, the Federalists (under the leadership of such men as John Adams and Alexander Hamilton) emerged as a powerful political force.  In addition, many within the Anti-Federalist camp (including Thomas Jefferson) joined together to form the Democratic-Republicans.  At this time parties began to commit themselves to issue stances, and the first partisan race occurred in 1796.  In the original Constitution the President and Vice-President were chosen by a single ballot: the candidate with the highest Electoral College total would become President, the second highest total to become Vice President.  Thus, in 1796 John Adams (a Federalist) became President with a Democratic-Republican (Jefferson) as Vice-President.  Of course, this appears quite foreign to contemporary America, as the Twelfth Amendment provided for separate Presidential and Vice Presidential ballots.  This period also witnessed the first problems with the Electoral College system.  The Constitution requires that if no one receives a majority of Electoral College votes, the House of Representatives decides who becomes President.  In the race of 1800, with Thomas Jefferson running against Aaron Burr, both candidates received the exact same number of Electoral College votes; it required 36 separate votes in the House of Representatives to decide the winner!

The "Era of Good Feelings" (1820-1824)
For a very brief moment in the country's history, political partisanship played little role in American politics at the Presidential level.  During the 1820 Presidential race, James Monroe was re-elected with all but one Electoral College vote (one stubborn Elector refused to grant the vote to James, out of a desire not to let James have a unanimous victory!).  At the time, no issues divided the nation; to our ears this sounds virtually impossible, with social and economic issues leading to heated rhetoric and debate.  In addition, party competition remained quite minimal; after all, how can anyone disagree with no issues splitting the nation?  This time period also saw the emergence of King Caucus, in which members of each party's delegation in Congress nominated Presidential candidates.

Democrats vs. Whigs (1820s-1850s)
The 1824 Presidential election marked two significant events.  First, it marked the last Presidential election to be settled by the House of Representatives and is also considered a "stolen election."  Four candidates ran for office: Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and a Mr. Crawford.  In the initial election Jackson won 37.9%of the Electoral College vote, and Adams 32.2% of the vote.  Since neither had a majority, the House of Representatives needed to decide the fate of President. As Henry Clay had no chance of victory, he threw his support behind Adams (and not Jackson!).  Some members of Congress also considered Jackson a demagogue as well as a political outsider.  The 1824 election is thus considered "stolen" because despite his lead in the popular vote Jackson ended up losing in the House vote!  Grateful for Clay's support, and with a narrow victory, Adams ended up appointing Clay Secretary of State.

As a result of this election, Andrew Jackson led the movement to form the Democratic party in 1828.  (The Democratic party is currently the oldest living political party in the world.)  Jackson thus ran again for President, this time as a Democrat.  Political parties also began to realize the importance of electoral victories, with state governments increasing registration requirements.  After all, each political party believed they could achieve future victories by appealing to newly-registered voters.  The relaxation of such requirements led to a 300% increase in voter registration, all within four years!  Parties also began to use national conventions to select Presidential candidates and began to do away with King Caucus.  Soon after the formation of the Democratic party, a coalition of former Democratic-Republicans, Anti-Masons and Jackson haters merged to form the Whig party in 1834.  The Whig party proved quite successful at gaining congressional seats, and also managed to gain access to the White House with William H. Harrison and Zachary Taylor.  At the time, the nation divided itself because of the issue of tariffs.  To what extent should this emerging country initiate and maintain trade relations with other nations?

Democrats v. Republicans (1850s-1890s)
By the 1850s, some former Whigs and anti-slavery Democrats met in secret to discuss the potential of creating a new political party.  Some former Whigs became quite dissatisfied with the dissipation of the party's influence.  In addition, some Democrats began to change their mind about the Democratic party on the slavery issue (that began to divide the country much more than did tariffs).  This and similar meetings led to the Republican party, created to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854.  This new political party sent its first candidate (John Fremont) into the 1856 presidential race.  Four years later, the Republican party won the White House.  During the 1860 election, four serious contenders emerged: Stephen Douglas (northern Democrats), Abraham Lincoln (Republicans), John Breckenridge (southern Democrats) and John Bell (Constitutional Union).

The 1860 election became a critical election: a sharp change in the existing patterns of party loyalties among voter groups.  Prior to the 1860 election, voters had considered the importance of the tariffs issue among others; during the 1860 election, many voters changed their party loyalties due to a mis-match between their personal views on slavery and of their (formerly beloved) party.  For the next thirty years, both parties achieved a rough balance of power.  The Republican party won eight of the next ten presidential races, but both parties achieved a rough equality in Congress.  At the same time, critics of the election system began to assert that party bosses, sitting in "smoke-filled rooms," made various political deals without the assent of party followers.   This led to the Progressive movement, in which many states began to change their presidential nomination system away from caucuses and toward the adoption of political primaries.

Democrats vs. Republicans (1896-1932)
Around this time, political parties became much more organized and developed as party organizations.  In addition, both parties became more successful at attracting voters.  The 1896 represented another critical election: in response to an economic depression (back then called a "panic") people debated the importance of economic policy and tying the nation's money to the gold standard.  Republicans nominated William McKinley, a candidate who favored high tariffs and matching the nation's money to the value of gold.  The Democratics nominated William Jennings Bryan, who favored the unlimited coinage of silver as cheap money and an easy method of paying debts through inflation.

As one indicator of the importance of the gold standard in the  1896 election, Bryan delivered the "Cross of Gold" speech at the Democratic National Convention.  It included the following:

  "No private character, however pure, no personal popularity, however
   great, can protect from the avenging wrath of an indignant people a
   man who will declare that he is in favor of fastening the gold standard
   upon this country, or who is willing to surrender the right of self-
   government and place the legislative control of our affairs in the hands
   of foreign potentates and powers."
  
  
  

Have you ever wondered how the relationship between the Republican party and "big business" began, the same party that only thirty years pushed for the end of slavery?  The 1896 election solidified the tie between the Republican party and business and represented the first step.  It also signaled a Republican majority in industrial America, with conservatives fleeing from radical Democrats.

Democrats vs. Republicans (1930s-present)
1932-1968.  Since the 1930s both parties have seen their opportunity to hold a majority.  With the 1929 stock market crash, President Hoover (a Republican) told a panicking public that "American thrift" and state-level efforts will pull the country out of the depression.  As this did not prove successful, the Democratic candidate (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) offered a daring set of solutions and said to the voters, "I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people."  His 1932 campaign appealed successfully to a diverse coalition of groups, now known as the Roosevelt Coalition: Democrats in the Solid South (many of them quite conservative), urban workers in the North (many who were liberal), Catholics and Jews, and white ethnic minorities (not the greatest friends of Southern Democrats either).  With his economic reforms (which he considered to be a temporary measure), Roosevelt managed to bring these groups together.  The Roosevelt coalition, and the 1932 and 1936 elections, marked an electoral realignment: a sharp change in voter loyalties that lasts for a number of year.  From then on, Democrats began to dominate Congress.  The 1950s also marked the beginning of a newer phenomenon, that of a dealignment: party loyalties are perceived as less important in the minds of voters.  According to this idea, voters think about other factors (such as the candidate's previous political experience, his character, and so on) and less about the political party the candidate represents.

1968-1980.  The 1860, 1896, and 1932 elections represented fundamental changes in the beliefs and party loyalties of American voters.  Yet while researchers expected yet another sharp change within the electorate, this did not happen.  Even as the 1960s ended, with its emphasis on civil rights and liberties and questioning of traditional mores, this experience did not produce a fundamental change.  It produced a series of protests from college students, in diverse settings from Cornell University (New York) to fire bombs at the University of Wisconsin to massive protests at the University of California, Berkeley.



It also led to the controversial protests at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois: as the number of college students protested loudly outside the convention, Mayor Daley ordered the city police to disperse the rowdy crowd with riot gear and fire hoses.  (For more information about the ill-fated riots at the '68 convention, look here.)  At the same time, while it did lead to a schism within the Democratic party it did not lead to a realignment or a critical election.   With Johnson deciding not to seek re-election, the student protests, and the decision of Alabama Governor George Wallace to run for President, the Democratic party experienced a threat to its vitality.  The 1972 convention proved such difficulties: the convention permitted a great number of anti-war protesters, civil rights advocates and feminist organizations into the mix but their candidate, George McGovern, now appeared to the public as an unpatriotic liberal.  The Republican party continued to retain control over the White House until the election of Jimmy Carter (1976-1980).

1980-present.  In the midst of the oil crisis of the 1970s, as well as the lack of purpose in foreign affairs after the Vietnam War, the importance of economic and domestic policy became more prominent.  This led to the Reagan Coalition: former California Governor Ronald Reagan brought together economic conservatives (pushing for capital gains and income tax cut), social conservatives (caring most strongly about the breakdown of morality and the American family), religious fundamentalists (at odds with economic conservatives), Southern whites and anti-communists during his 1980 Presidential campaign.  All of these groups came together in their support for Reagan as President.  At the same time, the Democratic party appeared to be the captive of special interest groups.  For this reason, emerging leaders in the Democratic party formed the Democratic Leadership Council in 1980 to re-shape the party's image.  These "new Democrats" began to appeal to the economic welfare of its citizens.  The most important issue to "new Democrats" (such as Bill Clinton) was a healthy economy; the government should thus get involved in order to help stimulate economic growth.  Does this sound familiar?  Consider the slogan during the 1992 Presidential race: "It's the Economy, Stupid!"