By Daniel Shapiro

As the Presidential election rapidly approaches, millions of Americans are struggling with the question of which candidate to vote for. Unfortunately, in many states, individuals are not facing the difficulties of comparing stances on the economy or foreign policy, but rather, are faced with the obstacle of being able to vote at all. 

In 2011, thirty-four states introduced legislation that would require government-issued photo identification to vote. According to the Brennan Center, nearly 11 percent of potential voters in the 2012 Presidential election do not have the required photo identification. That number translates to nearly 3.2 million potential voters- YES, this amount can make a serious difference!

So why are legislators pushing so hard for this policy?

According to Texas Governor Rick Perry, “Texas has a responsibility to ensure elections are fair, beyond reproach, and accurately reflect the will of voters.” Election fraud prevention is the main justification for the policy changes. Yet, is election fraud even a real problem? I mean, sure we don’t want our election system to devolve into the Soviet Union, (or even Florida in 2008)but is election fraud really that prevalent in the United States?

Well, not really.

In Texas, over the last 10 years, only 50 voters have been convicted of election fraud, this in a state with a population of more than 25 million.

The rarity of fraud has caused opponents of the legislation to claim this policy shift, “a solution in search of a problem.”  Mr. von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation defends the policy shifts claiming, ” I don’t think anybody else says that there is massive fraud in American elections. But there are enough proven cases in the past, throughout our history, and recently, that show you’ve got to take basic steps to prevent people from taking advantage of an election if they want to.” Like any policy point today, this debate has become another divisive issue with strong opinions on each side of the aisle.

A democratic country like the United States should conduct business in a fair manner. As such, let’s weigh the pros and cons of photo-identification requirements.

In Texas, a Hispanic registered voter is at least 46.5 -120% more likely than a non-Hispanic voter to lack the required identification, resulting in the possible disenfranchisement of over one hundred thousand potential voters. So, we have over one hundred thousand voters in danger of not being able to vote, while an average of 5 illegal votes a year are prevented. Fair? Accurately reflect the will of voters? REALLY??

In an attempt to show the policy shift through both parties, Rhode Island passed similar voter ID requirements under the control of a Democratic Legislature and an independent governor. Ultimately, despite present in a Democrat state like Rhode Island, the issueis more prevalent in Republican controlled states. Some claim the Republican Party is attempting to block voters that typically prefer Democrats, and more and more regions across the country are following in Texas and South Carolina’s footsteps. As Attorney General Eric Holder stated, “The reality is that in jurisdictions across the country, both overt and subtle forms of discrimination remain all too common and have not yet been relegated to the pages of history,”The Republican Party with a possible Marco Rubio VP Run has targeted Hispanic voters, making their disenfranchisement imprudent for the future. As such, Republicans continue to claim the reasons for the shiftin policy are solely voter fraud prevention.

There is no legitimate reason these policies are being put into place, and there is more than one criticism shared by every opponent. Unfortunately, what is set in stone is that these legislative maneuvers have the potential to disenfranchise large portions of the voting public. Look to the future: 5 out of 11 battleground states have either restrictedvoting rights or are in the process, Texas and Pennsylvania included. Lately, it seems that all any candidate can speak about is the importance of he Hispanic vote, while attempting to sway the Hispanic base on their side- how about this idea? Let them vote.

The not-Romney candidates have proven time and again they have staying power. Even after a decisive victory by Romney in Illinois (which was expected), Rick Santorum had just as strong a showing in southern states. Newt Gingrich, struggling to pay his bills this week, has promised to stay in the race, even if it means running his entire campaign by himself.

Given the amount of time and money that Mitt Romney is having to spend to fend off his erstwhile Republican nominees, some are expecting the 2012 general election to be relatively more easy for President Obama to be reelected. For Republicans this almost seems like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory when just a few months ago the President’s approval ratings nearly dropped below 40%.

Although Obama’s approval ratings are on the up and up, American presidential elections are not decided by the popular vote. I would still bet Obama if I were in Vegas, but there is little room for error in his campaign and much potential for the GOP to win the election through the Electoral College.

The math is relatively simple: if Romney can take McCain’s 173 votes for 2008, and add Republican leaning states and toss-ups, this is a close race.

For example, Virginia, North Carolina, and Indiana typically lean Republican, and were picked up by Bush in 2000 and 2004. So let’s give those to Romney, bringing him to 212.

Ohio and Florida are big toss-ups, also won by Bush in 2000 and 2004, and would bring Romney to 261 electoral votes (Florida has gained 2 votes since 2008). Not quite to 270, but damn close. And there are a lot of states left in play: Iowa, Colorado, Nevada, etc.

Obama currently holds a statistically solid lead in most of the aforementioned states, but it is likely that lead will shore up in those states once a clear candidate emerges from the GOP and the race gets underway.

There is a lot of time and opportunity left in this election season, and while Romney will have to battle to win states like Ohio and Florida, it is not outside the realm of possibility. There are factors and events yet that might sway the American electorate, but above all, we should remember that you cannot call a November election in March.

Hispanics are all the rage today, as far as politics are concerned.  As the fastest-growing minority group, Hispanics are the focus of elections, consumer items, and the future as a whole.  In general, they are considered a solidly Democratic voting bloc, but there are nuances to this view that come into play when talking about a Republican primary.  Hispanic-Americans come from different countries and cultures and arrive in America in different ways and settle in different areas, which means you cannot label them one way and call it a day.  Politicians and voters are becoming more aware of this and will need to tailor their approaches accordingly, which may not be easy given the multitude of factors in play.  This is especially evident in the run-up to today’s primary in Florida.

The main issue that comes up during speeches and debates by GOP candidates is immigration.  In general, most Republican candidates oppose policies that provide amnesty, do not strengthen border patrols or citizenship checks and legislation like the DREAM Act (which provides a path to citizenship via education).  These policies have allowed millions of Hispanic families to come to the U.S. over the years and so they place the GOP at odds with most Hispanic voters.  In Florida, however, things are a bit different.

The two main Hispanic blocs in Florida are Puerto Ricans and Cubans.  Puerto Ricans are American citizens, so their concerns over immigration – while not non-existent – are slightly different.  Puerto Ricans are free to move anywhere in the U.S. and are not restricted by any immigration policy or law put forward.  Traditionally, they vote Democrat.

Cuban-Americans, however, have the Communism/Castro factor.  Most Cuban-Americans in Florida fled Cuba during the Castro era.  They were able to escape an oppressive government and come to a land of freedoms, much like the boatloads of the downtrodden arriving at Ellis Island a century earlier.  Republicans fought (and continue to fight) against the scourge of Communism, having toppled the USSR and gone to war against the Viet Cong, North Korea and Red China.  The GOP’s continued resistance to Castro and Communism attracts Cuban-Americans to their rolls and has ensured the bloc’s support for many years.  Also, because of the so-called “wet foot, dry foot” policy from the mid-1990s, Cubans who make it to American soil are allowed to stay (whereas those intercepted off the coast are turned back).  This means that arrival in the U.S. is a near-guarantee of safe haven, as opposed to those immigrants that come from Mexico, Central and South American, who risk being sent back even after crossing the border.

The Republican presidential candidates have had their time to oppose immigration while focusing on the Hispanic vote in Florida.  We will see what the impact of their statements is as the primaries move on to other states.  Will they alienate the most coveted voting bloc elsewhere?  Will they change course once Florida is done with and soften their stance in an effort to woo the voters?  Voice your opinions in the discussion section.

Not according to us.

Yesterday we were sitting around with the kids watching Men in Black. The first in the trilogy and, notwithstanding the language which made me question my parenting skills, a very funny movie.  Early in the movie K is showing J who all the aliens are who reside on the planet earth. Lo and behold on the lower left screen is the then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

We here at VOTIFI don’t have a dog in the GOP primary fight but we are just sayin’………..