jump to last post 1-15 of 15 discussions (233 posts)

Holder against Voter ID cards

  1. American View profile image59
    American Viewposted 4 years ago

    Here is a quote from Holder, do you agree? Do you find it interesting that no one can get into the Democratic National Convention if they do not have a picture ID, but you do not need one to vote?

    “…some of the achievements that defined the civil rights movement now hang in the balance.”
    -- Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking before the Council of Black Churches, decrying efforts in some states to require voters to show identification.

    1. LauraGT profile image87
      LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, I agree. From what I understand, the research is pretty clear that voter fraud is highly unusual and that these types of policies simply disenfranchise the poor and the elderly.  As the leading democracy in the world, we should show the world that we believe that everyone has a fundamental right to vote by making it as easy as possible to register and vote.

      1. American View profile image59
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I do not think that there is as much voter fraud as the Republicans say, but I do believe that there is fraud.

        I disagree that the poor and elderly are being disenfranchised. I have been able to vote despite my health issues and I have voted from my hospital bed. So it'll take a heck of an argument to get me to change my mind, but I am open to

        1. LauraGT profile image87
          LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It doesn't disenfranchise those groups entirely - obviously, many of them have IDs and vote, but for those who don't already have IDs, it puts up greater obstacles - having to pay fees to get birth certificates or other legal documents, etc and fees to get the IDs themselves. These types of obstacles disproportionately affect poorer groups and make it less likely for them to go through the hassle. Perhaps this is a hub topic - deserves more research/data than I can provide in a quick response here.

          1. American View profile image59
            American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Laura,

            I cannot speak for other states and their laws, but here in Texas the voter ID law that holder is fighting actually addresses everything that you're concerned about. Here they will accept seven different types of ID. Honestly I don't know what all seven are, but I do know it was a hardship clause for those who could not afford it they could get a free ID card from the state.

            Let me Ask you this, do you really think poorer groups do not have ID? If they work they will need ID to cash their check. If they live in an apartment, they will need ID in order to rent in the first place, if they are on welfare or section 8, they would have needed ID to get on the program. Again I don't see the obstacles there that everybody claims.

            I am a former New York firefighter, I was at 9/11. Over the years since then I have developed health issues. December 2010 I almost died. I've been sick for several years leading up to it, and ended up on a ventilator and life support. During that time, I obviously was not working. I lost my house and truck, my kids pack up all my belongings and put it in storage. Over time I ran out of money and lost the storage. In the storage was everything I owned, right down to my drivers license, social security card, birth certificate. When you are in long-term care, Social Security disability in its ultimate wisdom says while in a facility and recovering for your health you are only entitled to $30 per month. I guess you could understand how difficult it is for someone to live on $30 a month. Only recently, just three months ago, I finally was healthy enough to leave the facility. I won't bore you on how difficult it was to get my birth certificate, Social Security card, and state ID( they would not renew my drivers license because I was in the hospital for too long, I have to take a test to get back) but if I was able with no assistance from anyone else and my $30 a month income able to get all those, I'm sorry there's no excuse that anybody give me as to why they can't get it.

            1. gracenotes profile image92
              gracenotesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, I believe almost anyone already has an ID.  Elderly, poor, etc.

              Not only this, but more and more doctors' offices are requiring photo ID. I've had my picture snapped or my DL photocopied at my primary care doctor's office, as well as at a specialist's office, and at a surgery center.  They tell you that you must bring a photo ID, or the surgery won't happen.

              Apparently, the stealing of someone's insurance card to receive unauthorized medical benefits is happening more and more.

              1. American View profile image59
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Grace,

                Great point about the doctors, hospitals, and specialists were all asking for photo ID these days.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  That is an indictment of your health care system rather than a justification for IDs.

                  1. American View profile image59
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    SPIN SPIN SPIN

                2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Great point about the doctors, hospitals, and specialists were all asking for photo ID these days.
                  So, are you saying that you think health care is just like voting: a constitutional right?

                  Is that an argument you want to make?

                  1. American View profile image59
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Talk about spin it. How could you possibly come up with healthcare is a constitutional right because somebody wants to see ID, only on the left.

                    But since you brought up constitutional right you said several times is a constitutional right to vote. I have asked before to show me in the Constitution where it exactly says"citizens have the constitutional right to vote". Could you point that out for me?

    2. Ann1Az2 profile image61
      Ann1Az2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This whole issue is kind of ridiculous to me. What did we do before we had licenses? Everyone still voted. At any rate, how is having an ID going to solve voter fraud? Anyone want to commit fraud is not going to be stopped by having an ID - IDs have been targets of fraud for years.

      1. teamrn profile image81
        teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ann, it was brought up. Sure, in many years past there were no IDs or licenses, but everyone knew everybody and where/if they'd already voted.

        Sure, there are other more pressing issues for which this pales in comparison, but when confronted w/ ways to improve our society, we need to try. Think what would have happened if Thomas Edison decided to sit on the light bulb, Eli Whitney on the cotton gin or Fleming didn't pursue penicillin?

        1. Mighty Mom profile image90
          Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Are you seriously equating national voter IDs with the invention of the lightbulb,cotton gin or penicillin??

          Why don't we take the concept to the logical next level and use voter IDs to replace passports? Would that then elevate the importance of the "discovery" of these ID cards to the level of the Internet? Or maybe putting the first man on the moon?
          roll

          1. teamrn profile image81
            teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not equating, I'm simply stating that if those guys had been satisfied with mediocrity, we wouldn't have they developed.

            Why not develop an honest system for voting? All I said was that we shouldn't settle for a system that doesn't work. (which took me to my conclusion of: what would have happened if those guys had settled?)

          2. handymanbill profile image62
            handymanbillposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            At one time before 911 happened that was all you needed to go or come back from Canada or Mexico.Now you need a Passport. So why not picture I.D. voting. If you don't have one then get one.

        2. Ann1Az2 profile image61
          Ann1Az2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I fail to see how requiring ID cards to vote is improving our society. In fact, it may be hindering some members of our society who otherwise may have the right to vote.

          1. teamrn profile image81
            teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I think of requiring an ID as a tweak to our system, no more, no less and HOW  do they hinder?

          2. American View profile image59
            American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Ann,

            As I have said earlier, voter fraud does happen is just not a huge concern.

            When I was a kid a small town in upstate New York if I remember correctly it was like a town of 30 or 40 people inside of a huge County. When the returns came in during Nixon's reelection, this 100% Democrat voting town had 100 votes, something like 60 or 70 votes for Nixon.

            At the end of the day, it didn't affect the election in any way other than to show that there could be small pockets of fraud. Voter ID cards would eliminate any possibilities of fraud. It also eliminates those who should not vote such as convicted felons and illegal aliens.

            But ask yourself this question, does not matter to me who you were voting for or who you were supporting in 2000, but just think if there was a small pocket of voter fraud in Florida.

            1. Ann1Az2 profile image61
              Ann1Az2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I guess what bothers me about this whole issue is that voting is a right we have as American citizens; it's not a privilege, as some in our Government would have us believe. Therefore, why do I need an ID for something I have the right to do? Maybe a better way to handle it would be for voters to be required to have a birth certificate. Any illegal alien can come up with an ID card or a Green card. But if they aren't legal citizens, they don't have the right to vote as far as I'm concerned.

              Teamrn, I live in Texas and they have a law that you have to pay all tickets before they issue a driver's license or ID card. So suppose the election comes up and you still owe on a ticket and don't get it paid in time? No ID - no vote.

              American View - I don't think ID cards would not get rid of all the unwanted votes because ID cards can be forged. I'm not sure what you are referring to in Florida in 2000 unless you're talking about the problems they had with the chads.

              I just think requiring an ID for voting is just one more requirement we don't need. And it's the Government getting involved again in the people's business.

              1. American View profile image59
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                ANN,

                What I was referring to in Florida was the fact how close the election was. Imagine if there was voter fraud, Al Gore would've become President. Or look at the election where Al Franken was elected. He only one by 12 votes. Once more imagine fraud either having elected him or electing his competitor. Fraud can change an election especially in these times where people are so divided and elections are so close.

                Can voter IDs get rid of every unwanted voter, of course not because no system that could be proposed will be flawless, remember the old saying where there's a will there's a way. But voter IDs as of now would be the best course to illuminate fraud. Perhaps someday in the future technology will allow a person to walk in the door just stick their thumb on a pad and they would be identified.

                As you point out here in Texas about tickets, I think you missed the point about the person who did not pay his ticket. You do realize that getting a ticket for the crime, basically even though it's minor you broke the law. Getting a ticket is easier than having a police officer arrest you and bring you to court where a judge would release you on bail until the court date. So basically you are out on probation until your ticket is paid.  Not paying your ticket adds to the crime. Committing a crime as a punishment, in this case not voting is punishment. They could just as easily put you in jail. I know some will say that was a silly analysis, but that's how works. When people commit crimes they lose rights, if you're convicted felon you lose the right to vote. You can get that right back by applying to the courts and having you credit back, but not before your term and probation have been fully served. But there is not a system that cross-references is somebody is under probation or a convicted felon when they fill out a voter application form, so when they do that a car is just sent to them and they show up and voteyou

                You are correct that voting is a right, but it's also a privilege. Just because it's your right doesn't mean you have to, therefore doing something that is your right is a privilege. Wow, getting a little philosophical there, I'm starting to sound like Buddha LOL, I guess I should end it their smile

                1. Ann1Az2 profile image61
                  Ann1Az2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, and I think I will end it here, too! Too heated of a discussion for me. I think you can tell I'm apposed to the whole ID card thing anyway. You are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine. If it is alright with you, we'll agree to disagree.

                  1. American View profile image59
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Not a problem Ann, I respect your view to oppose the voter ID and I appreciate your input.

              2. teamrn profile image81
                teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                "Therefore, why do I need an ID for something I have the right to do? " You shouldn't need an ID to so something that is your right.

                However, too many people abuse YOUR right, MY right, and WE have to figure out a solution so that one day when you arrive at the polls, you're not told, "YOU'VE already voted today!"

                Enough people abuse our rights so that on occasion the results of elections are called into question. That needn't be in this era of high-tech. Surely, living in Texas, you see it; I see it in Colorado.

                1. Reality Bytes profile image94
                  Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  This has happened to you?

                  1. teamrn profile image81
                    teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    ""YOU'VE already voted today!"" This has happened to you?
                    Yep, In Chicago., where the dead cast a vote!

          3. teamrn profile image81
            teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "it may be hindering some members of our society who otherwise may have the right to vote."

            HOW, do you see that requiring IS a HINDRANCE? The only way I see that they may hinder is that if you're illegal and SHOULDN'T vote. they would keep you FROM voting.

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "And the problem is that we have passed a law requiring identification to be allowed to vote."
        Bottom line? It won't. At least, it won't do a darn thing to prevent the real election fraud that actually happens. Most (not just 51%, but like 99.9999%) election fraud is done by those who have access to the ballot boxes and/or the voter rolls: election officials.

        If you want to stop election fraud, you need to focus on the people who have both the motive and the opportunity to commit it.

        1. American View profile image59
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Jeff,

          I'm curious what part of having a law requiring identification would not allow someone to vote?

          Did I say that voter ID cards would eliminate all fraud? please show me where I said that. Also please cite the source that 99.999% of election fraud is done by those who access the ballot box?

          I don't care what system you put in place you can never eliminate 100% voter fraud. Somebody somewhere will always think of a way to beat the system. Computerize it, somebody will learn to hack it. Does that mean we should not go forward with rules and regulations to eliminate as much fraud as we can?

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
            Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            what part of having a law requiring identification would not allow someone to vote?The part where it requires someone who doesn't have an ID to have an ID.

            what part of having a law requiring identification would not allow someone to vote?
            No, but you said it would eliminate some fraud. In truth, it will eliminate practically no fraud.
            Also please cite the source
            Fair enough. Here you go:
            "Duplicate registration is normally just the result of a voter's moving from one district to another and not being dropped from the first locale's voter lists. However, deliberate fraud can happen: Fifty-two people have been convicted of federal election fraud since 2002."
            This article appeared in 2006. That's four years in which federal elections took place. Lots of people voted in those elections. In fact, according to these folks, 79,830,119 people voted in '02, 122,294,978 people voted in '04, and 80,588,000 voted in '06. That's a total of 281,783,097 people. Of those, 52 were convicted of federal election fraud.
            I have to admit that I didn't actually do the math to arrive at the 99.999% statistic, (but the number of people who cast fraudulent ballots is infinitesimal.

            Really, the best argument against focusing on individual voter fraud is this policy brief from NYU's Brennan Center.
            I recommend reading the whole thing, but the main points are these:

            * Fraud by individual voters is both irrational and extremely rare.
            * Many vivid anecdotes of purported voter fraud have been proven false or do not demonstrate fraud.
            * Voter fraud is often conflated with other forms of election misconduct.
            * Raising the unsubstantiated specter of mass voter fraud suits a particular policy agenda.
            * Claims of voter fraud should be carefully tested before they become the basis for action.


            Does that mean we should not go forward with rules and regulations to eliminate as much fraud as we can?
            No, not at all. But a voter ID law is about as rational as searching the Titanic for a guy with an auger trying to drill through the hull while ignoring the big wonking iceberg in your way. It focuses on something that might cause a problem while ignoring something that's actually causing a problem.

            Continuing the analogy, the Right-wing arguments for a voter ID law are basically this: There are guys aboard the ship, and there are augers aboard the ship. Clearly, there's the potential for one of those guys to pick up one of those augers and start drilling holes! They must be stopped, otherwise the ship might sink!

            In the meantime, the folks on the Left are trying to point out that the guys-with-augers scenario is pretty unlikely (since the auger-wielding saboteur would likely go down with the ship) while calling everyone's attention to the iceberg that's right. Over! There!

            Of course, the iceberg people are being dismissed as bleeding hearts who want to protect those criminals in steerage who everybody knows are just waiting for a chance to drill their tiny holes in the hull.

            1. American View profile image59
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              what part of having a law requiring identification would not allow someone to vote?
              No, but you said it would eliminate some fraud. In truth, it will eliminate practically no fraud."

              Prove it. Do not give me someones opinion that there is no voter fraud or that voter IDs will not make a difference.

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Do not give me someones opinion that there is no voter fraud or that voter IDs will not make a difference.
                If you cannot tell the difference between "someone's opinion" and a policy brief from a respected law school (supported by real data), then there's no point in continuing the discussion. Also, I never said that "there is no voter fraud." What I said was that the kind of election fraud that actually happens is not the kind of voter fraud that an ID law can prevent. There's a difference, and it's pretty important.

                And really, the burden of proof is upon the accuser. You and others are trying to convince us that individuals casting fraudulent ballots are a big enough problem that we have to create new laws and spend more money to solve it. But in reality, only a tiny number of people cast fraudulent ballots (52 out of millions, remember?). That there is what I call proof that this kind of fraud practically never happens.

                I can keep proving it over and over, if you like, but that would be a duplication of effort.

                Now it's your turn.

                Go and find me some evidence that individuals casting ballots under assumed names is a real problem. (Bet you can't.)

      3. Wayne Brown profile image85
        Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I just voted in a local primary election...begged them to check my ID but everyone refused. I see no legitimate reason why a photo ID would not be required to vote when it is required for so many other things of lesser importance. If one must register to vote, the one should be issued an identification in that process...WB

    3. SpanStar profile image60
      SpanStarposted 4 years ago

      Sadly a number of people can not look at America as just a Capitalistic System for the longest time government leaders have been trying to have complete control of their citizens so that means we must add the words totalitarian system when it comes to governing people.

    4. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 4 years ago

      Greetings, AV

      The way WE see it, is that all this is timed pretty close to the upcoming November election and the constiuencies more likely affected are those least likely to vote GOP, yet the GOP are in an orgasmic climax in pushing this.

      Nobody seemed  'hot to trot on this in either 2008 or 2004, why the push and emphasis now? What statitics and crisis support the need for it now? I am with Holder 100% and will put pressure on Southern States under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to prove that laws pass in regards to franchise do not either deliberately or inadvertently disenfranchise protected groups. 

      What happened in Florida in regards to this issue recently should be a 'shot across the bow' for the right that the left is very serious about this. At a minimum, I expect all states to pay for all ID cards for those that otherwise do not have a valid identification.

      Funny in Texas, you gun license is valid ID, but your student ID is not valid, Sorry AV, this is not a neutral issue and I see the GOP just up to its old trick of disenfranchise if you cannot win an election on the quality of your candidates and the merits of your ideas....

      Well, our Attorney General is not going to make it that simple....

      1. American View profile image59
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Cred,

        Always great to see you my friend.

        Lets look at this from a different perspective. Forget this election cycle, maybe wait until the next midterms before starting to use ID cards, that would be 2 1/2 years from now.

        If that was the case, would you be in favor of a voter showing an ID card to vote?

        1. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Nice to chat as always, AV

          Yeah I would much less resistant to the idea if it were phased in over 2-3 years to allow oldest, poorest and least sophisticated voter to do all that is necessary, gathering birth certificates and whatever needed to obtain the ID.

          The ID must be free of charge to anyone who qualifies , not otherwise having in their possession acceptable identification, to avoid the issue of having members of the electorate having to pay for the right to cast a ballot.

          Yes, I surely could work with the concept under the conditions you put forward.....

          1. American View profile image59
            American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I agree it should be free

          2. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You know all I ever had to do was fill out a very short form which included I think my SSN. Nothing really deeply involved. It's not like filing your taxes of anything. If they are active in society at all nowadays it shouldn't be an issue.

      2. teamrn profile image81
        teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Is there some reason that this has to be a WE/THEY issue? After all, to me, ALL American citizens benefit, when only American Citizens vote in an election.

      3. teamrn profile image81
        teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        " What statitics and crisis support the need for it now?"

        Oh, Lord, do we have to fund yet another study to prove what we know; that the New Black Panthers intimidated voters or that ACORN not only helped register people to vote, but was found guilty of tampering with that vote?

        The knowledge hat fraud/tampering exits, is enough to be our study. Next step, seems to me, to be to do something about it: IDs or DL/Voter registration card. Something that proves YOUR NAME and that YOU BELONG HERE.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
          Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, Lord, do we have to fund yet another study to prove what we know; that the New Black Panthers intimidated voters or that ACORN not only helped register people to vote, but was found guilty of tampering with that vote?
          Yeah, we do need proof of that.
          'Cos most of the time, what everybody 'knows' just ain't so. (By the way, if you could cite a source for those assertions about the New Black Panthers and ACORN, that'd be just peachy.)

          The knowledge hat fraud/tampering exits, is enough to be our study.
          No it isn't, because if it were, you'd also know that the kind of voter fraud that actually exists won't be hindered at all by the voter ID law.

          1. American View profile image59
            American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this
            1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Okay, good job on evidence that the Black Panthers intimidated voters at a polling place in Philadelphia.

              As for Acorn, it's not Acorn that's doing the fraud but its contracted workers. Did you see this bit of the article:
              Mitchell said ACORN threatened to close the office if he and his team didn't meet their quota to register 13 to 20 voters a day. So, without consulting their supervisors, he said, they came up with a plan.

              "We came up with the idea: Let's make fraudulent cards. I tell my crew, 'I don't care how you get 'em, just get 'em,' " Mitchell recalled.


              U of W's Professor Schnapper had the right of it when he said:
              "There are no known instances of fictitious people actually voting," Schnapper said. "You look at some of the names: Mickey Mouse. Dr. Seuss. Mickey Mouse only votes in Disneyland. He's not going to show up at a critical precinct in West Virginia or North Carolina."

              Schnapper said that if anyone should be upset, it's ACORN.

              "The victims of this are the people who paid these workers $8 an hour to go out and find legitimate voters, and ... they didn't get their $8 worth; they [the workers] put down phony names," Schnapper said.

              Add that to the fact that it may be* illegal not to turn in a completed voter registration form (and it's certainly unethical--otherwise the new voter will assume that he's registered only to be disappointed on election day, when it's usually too late to register). ACORN was fairly well screwed, not by intentional fraud from within their leadership, but by fraud from their contracted workers, who turned in faked forms to keep getting paid.

              *At least, this is true to the best of my knowledge. I haven't been able to confirm or debunk it yet. Any lawyers happen to know if I'm right or wrong?

              1. American View profile image59
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Jeff,

                True Acorn some workers did make up names on their own , but Acorn was apart of others too. I do not have time to show you every one of them, when you google there are many links to read on it. If you are that interested you can do it on your own.

                I just remembered an undercover story when this all hit the fan back then of Acorn officials advising people about how to create fake voter forms, I will have to think more about where I saw that

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
            Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, here's another interesting event. In January of 2012, South Carolina's AG claimed that about 900 dead people had cast fraudulent ballots in the past few elections.

            Well, that's pretty serious! Naturally the SC State Election Commission got right on that.

            You know what they found?

            "Election Commission: No evidence of voter fraud"

            They started with the most recent election, in which there were 207 ballots  that had supposedly been cast by zombies. Of those,
            "• 106 votes were clerical errors by poll workers – mistakes like marking John Doe Sr. instead of John Doe Jr.

            • 56 votes were “bad data matching” – meaning the state Department of Motor Vehicles, which raised concerns about zombie voters, was wrong in assuming the voters were dead.

            • 32 votes were “voter participation errors,” meaning someone was credited as voting in an election when they did not, most likely because of a stray mark on the voter rolls that was electronically scanned to record a voter’s participation.

            • Three ballots were cast absentee by voters who died before Election Day."

            As for the remaining ten,
            "• In seven cases, the voters’ signatures on poll records could not be matched to “another voter.”

            • In two cases, the poll list is missing “making it impossible to match the signature with another person.”

            • In one case, the voter’s signature appeared to match a voter in another precinct “but could not be verified.”"

            So with this data (that the AG is making stuff up and there were precisely zero cases of voters casting false ballots in the 2010 election) the State Election Commission wisely decided to spend their time and resources on more legitimate problems.

      4. teamrn profile image81
        teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Cred 2,
        Is there some reason that this has to be a WE/THEY issue? After all, to me, ALL Americans  benefit, when only American Citizens vote in an election.

        1. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hi, Teamrn, It just appears that those that are adversely affected by this are specific demographic groups and with a tendency to be of a certain political affiliation and I believe  that that  is more than a coincidence. Nice to hear from you....

          1. teamrn profile image81
            teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            CR2, I think the operative word here is "APPEARS." How about substituting a few facts instead of generalizing? The last I knew we were the United States of America, not the United States of ethnic and political America.

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I am not generalizing, it was stated by the Office of Attorney General that up to 300,000 people could be disenfranchised with the requirement of Voter ID in South Carolina. That source is good enough for me. . The demographics are prodominantly  minority and elderly voters, not science fiction, TeamRN.  This issue of inappropriate voters has been recently dredged up, it is documented that there has been little if any reason for concern. I would rather have 100 non citizens vote over having one eligible voter disenfranchised. But again, that is me an my libby heart speaking.... You have to be naive if you really believe that with the current contentiousness in the political envoironrment that we are really able to ignore that there are opposing ideological camps of belief and approach to the economy and politics. The ideal of kumbuya and the reality are often times far apart. There are many examples that support "appears', perhaps I should say highly probable. Ok lets pull together, but either side will have to be prepared to make concesssions as the other is not trusted. I need to see more evidence of that.

            2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I think the operative word here is "APPEARS." How about substituting a few facts instead of generalizing?
              Yeah, that'd be great. Let's start with some facts about how a voter ID law won't stop the kind of election fraud that actually happens?

              1. American View profile image59
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Ok, now is your chance, cite some sources that voter ID law will not stop the kind of election fraud that actually happens

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, here's a good list of the kinds of election fraud that are possible. They include:

                  Physical tampering (Ballot stuffing, theft or destruction of ballot boxes, or destroying election material.)
                  Asking me for an ID before I cast a ballot won't stop someone from doing any of those things, plus you need (unobserved) access to the box before you can stuff it, which voters can't get, but poll workers and vote tabulators can.

                  Inflation or deflation of voter registration lists This is what people are accusing ACORN of, when they talk about registering fake names, and what the GOP are actually doing when they purge voter rolls of legitimate voters.

                  By voters This is where an ID might catch someone who is voting under an assumed name. Voting by those who are not legally qualified to vote because they are underage, not registered, not a citizen, etc, will be caught when the individual can't be found on the list of voters for that precinct, no ID needed. Voting more than once (won't be caught by an ID law if the person is actually registered in both locations, and over a four-year period, only 52 people out of over 200 million did this nationwide) selling a vote (can't be caught with an ID check), trading a vote (can't be caught with an ID check), voter impersonation (can be caught by an ID check, but again, this doesn't happen).

                  Physical tampering with voting machines
                  An ID-check won't stop someone from doing this, and it probably can't be done by a voter at the polls anyway.

                  When votes are being tabulated
                  Checking my ID when I vote won't stop a vote-counter from intentionally miscounting the ballots.

                  Voter intimidation and coercion Which is what the GOP routinely does when it robo-calls people and tells them to vote in the wrong polling-place, or that their vote has already been counted
                  This can't be stopped by a voter ID law.

                  Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

                  1. American View profile image59
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    From your source

                    "In national elections, successful electoral fraud can have the effect of a coup d'état or corruption of democracy. In a narrow election a small amount of fraud may be enough to change the result. Even if the outcome is not affected, fraud can still have a damaging effect if not punished, as it can reduce voters' confidence in democracy. Even the perception of fraud can be damaging as it makes people less inclined to accept election results. This can lead to the breakdown of democracy and the establishment of a dictatorship."

                    I am not going to address them all because those are just generalizationsand in each while voter Ids will not cure them all , as I have said previously, they can help and reduce fraud.

                    Inflation of list by organizations like Acorn. I put a  link above where an Acorn person was convicted of creating 2,000 phony names and amazingly they voted too. I think an Id could have helped there

                    1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                      Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      "In national elections, successful electoral fraud can have the effect of a coup d'état or corruption of democracy."
                      This is true, and if there were fraudulent ballots being cast by individual voters, they should be prosecuted and punished. But--and this is the important bit--this. hardly. ever. happens.

                      If you look at the rest of the source, you'll see that there is no evidence to support right-wing claims of voters casting fraudulent ballots, which is about the only kind of fraud that an ID law can catch (that and an ineligible voter voting).

                      Face the facts: a voter ID law is useless except as a distraction from real problems.

    5. Jeff Berndt profile image91
      Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago

      The thing about this Voter ID law hype is that it's 'solving' a 'problem' that doesn't exist, and creating a couple new problems in the process.

      The new problems include the national ID. Lots of folks on the Right (and on the Left) really hate the idea of a national ID. It's not required in the Constitution (which, you'd think, would set the Right on fire with righteous indignation), and it's going to cost money, which brings us to the next problem it creates.
      Who's going to pay for the IDs?

      If it's the person who wants the ID who needs to pay, then congratulations: you've just implemented an unconstitutional poll tax, and the law will crumble the first time it's challenged. If they'll be free (that is, paid for by the government) well then congratulations: you've just proven that you don't care about wasteful government spending.

      Because voter fraud at the individual level practically never happens.

      From NYU:
      "Although there are a few scattered instances of real voter fraud, many of the vivid anecdotes cited in accounts of voter fraud have been proven false or vastly overstated. In Missouri in 2000, for example, the Secretary of State claimed that 79 voters were registered with addresses at vacant lots, but subsequent investigation revealed that the lots in question actually housed valid and legitimate residences. Similarly, a 1995 investigation into votes allegedly cast in Baltimore by deceased voters and those with disenfranchising felony convictions revealed that the voters in question were both alive and felony-free.

      ... the only misconduct that photo ID addresses is the kind of voter fraud that happens as infrequently as death by lightning. Therefore, it suits those who prefer photo ID as a policy to lump as much misconduct in with “voter fraud” as possible, to create the impression that the problem is far more significant than it actually is. Moreover, to the extent photo ID is suggested as a solution to the perception that voter fraud occurs, it behooves those who prefer photo ID to reinforce the unsubstantiated perception that voter fraud exists."

      Election fraud does happen, to be sure, but the idea that lots of individuals go around casting fraudulent ballots is pure fantasy.

      1. American View profile image59
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Jeff,

        I agree election fraud does happen, but I think the amount of fraud is blown out of proportion. But to me the potential of fraud means the potential of swinging an election, if nothing else floor in 2000 proved that to us no matter what side you are on.

        You have an interesting point if you look at paying for a voter ID card as being unconstitutional. And you have another point if the government pays for so that it's free that creates government waste.

        So what is your thoughts on those free Social Security cards we get? What about when you got your mortgage or rent your apartment and had to produce a photo ID? Point is we use photo IDs almost every day from purchasing alcohol to purchasing the car to going to a concert. You already have picture ID for all these things so what is wrong with using a picture ID to cast a vote

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
          Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I agree election fraud does happen, but I think the amount of fraud is blown out of proportion.
          Also, the kind of election fraud that happens has nothing to do with individuals casting fraudulent ballots. Real election fraud is done by people who have access to the ballot boxes/voting machines/voter rolls/etc.

          The folks pushing for a Voter ID law do not care about the integrity of our elections. They just don't. They're interested in getting everyone's attention focused on a kind of voter fraud that almost never happens, while they commit the kind that can actually swing an election (purging voter rolls, using Diebold electronic voting machines that can easily change votes to support the 'right'* candidate, etc).

          What about when you got your mortgage or rent your apartment and had to produce a photo ID? Point is we use photo IDs almost every day from purchasing alcohol to purchasing the car to going to a concert.
          That's a point, but it's not a very good one. I don't have a right to a mortgage. I can have a mortgage if I can convince a lender to give me one. If the lender insists on a picture ID, then I can either produce one, or not get a mortgage from that lender. Same with buying alcohol, or going to a concert.

          However, if I want to vote, that's a constitutional right, and therefore different from any of the private transactions you mentioned.

          Add that to the fact that a voter ID law will do nothing to stop the kind of voter fraud that actually happens (ballot stuffing, etc) and you'll see that it's a distraction tactic and nothing more.

          *Heh, see what I did there?

          1. American View profile image59
            American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Jeff,

            Voter fraud occurs at all levels, not just by officials at the voter boxes. Acorn has not only signed up ineligible voters, they were convicted of creating people that did not exist and cast those votes. Was it large scale, no, but since when does illegal only apply when it is large scale? Crime is crime period.

            Since I had a poor point on the use of IDs, then toss out the requirement of Ids on everything, no more getting carded to purchase alchohal, to drive a car, to pick up prescriptions, purchase a car. You can convince a mortgage lender to get a loan without ID, I would love to see that first hand.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Acorn has not only signed up ineligible voters, they were convicted of creating people that did not exist and cast those votes.
              Yes, but nobody actually tried to vote using those fake registrations, which is what we're trying to stop: the actual corruption of elections. Right?

              Creating a fake voter registration is bad. Actually casting a ballot as that fake voter can change the results of an election, but nobody's been convicted of doing that. Have they?


              Since I had a poor point on the use of IDs, then toss out the requirement of Ids on everything, Classic false dichotomy, which was to be expected after the false equivalency that you drew between voting (a constitutional right) and getting a mortgage (not a constitutional right).

              1. American View profile image59
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Jeff,

                they did use those names, maybe not all of them, but I guess since they did not use them all it is OK with you then.

                Jeff, I want you to show me exactly where in the constitution it says the exact words" people have the right to vote".

                Do you think the constitution does not afford you the right to get a mortgage? Are we not free people?

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  they did use those names,
                  Prove that a fake name was ever used to cast a vote.

                  I want you to show me exactly where in the constitution it says the exact words" people have the right to vote".
                  Amendment 26:
                  1:  The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. 

                  2:  The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. 

                  So if you're 18 and a US citizen, you get to vote.

                  Really, if you didn't know this....

        2. Cody Hodge profile image84
          Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          There is no mention of Section 8 or DSS in this statement...

          What does my age have to do with it? How does liking Calvin and Hobbes make me clueless or young?

          1. American View profile image59
            American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Reall Cody,

            Then you are the only one who does not see it, so I will post the original sentence again for you to read:

            " If they live in an apartment, they will need ID in order to rent in the first place, if they are on welfare or section 8, they would have needed ID to get on the program."

            Who said anything about Calvin and Hobbes? But since you brought it up.... LOL.

            However being a Buffulo Bills will be held against you, Being a life long Jets fan myself makes us football rivals.

            The point of you being young is you have no life experiences, in fact I would say I had more life experiences by 10 than you have had yet. That is not a knock on you and please do not take it that way. Times are different today than they were back then. It does not make me a smarter person than you, in fact you probably are smarter than me bookwise. But life wise is where you will start to see through things and check it out for yourself. You are still in the follower stage and fall for talking points as if they are law. Hey I did at one time too, but overtime you will see things different

            1. Cody Hodge profile image84
              Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Nice, someone I can talk trash to after the Bills week one victory (:

              Also, I'm certainly not old and wise, but I'm not that young either. I think society has just moved really quickly. I didn't have a cell phone until I was almost 18. Even then, it was still a time when the fact that it had a couple games on it and the ability to send text messages at all was still pretty cool.

              Facebook didn't exist until I was a almost 20. I definitely grew up in a time where we still went outside, played, lived life without the TV and video games to the extreme.

              BTW, Calvin and Hobbes is quite insightful if you read it carefully. Waterson made some good points out of what was a kid's book.

              1. American View profile image59
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                LOL,

                I will have to concede that first week loss to you. I admit things do not look good for my Jets again. But one can only hope.

                Not having a cell phone to you are 18 today only means you're a late bloomer LOL, truthfully did nothing wrong in that.

                I will take your word on the Calvin and Hobbes, I was Beetle Bailey reader.

      2. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The obvious first thought is that those really bent on fraudulent voting won't really be put off by an id card which will be easily forged.

        The second thought is that if fraud does take place it won't happen just within one party. Republicans will be as likely to cast fraudulent votes as democrats thus cancelling out each other.

        1. American View profile image59
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          John,

          While it is true and ID card can be forged, one with a picture and an internal seal which is current on our photo IDs or drivers licenses almost eliminates the possibility of forgery. So an ID card would significantly curtail any possibility of fraud, and the few that are able to do it would mean nothing.

          But on the the current system it's just a piece of paper, fill it out, you get a card in the mail that is nothing more than a postcard. Anyone can have it anyone can use it and you can print off thousands on a computer. It is very easily to rig a system under the current way we do it. Does it happen on a grand scale, of course not, but he can and does happen in a minor way. But in light of our recent elections being so close, a small pocket can change an election.

          I think that above all is the reason is becoming such an issue. Cred2 has a good point that Republicans are pushing so hard to get it in place now and possibly the time Frame for this election might be too short for everyone to get it ID card. That is why I suggest getting an ID card the phase it in overtime to allow for everyone to get on

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            In the UK it is very cheap to buy a "joke" drivers license along with your picture and all the holograms and seals. They pass for the real thing.

            1. American View profile image59
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              John,

              Years ago it was real easy to make fake drivers IDs, but today it is almost impossible. Can it happen, sure, can it be spotted a s fake, real easy. Nothing is 100% fool proof.

              So is it you view that since it can be faked we should do nothing about it? Since anyone can rob a bank, we should do nothing about it?

      3. teamrn profile image81
        teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        In every state I've lived in, a DL or a state ID was a must. Is the presentation of this to prove that you belong here so difficult?

    6. PrettyPanther profile image87
      PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago

      I have absolutely no problem with requiring Voter IDs as long as they are free  of charge and readily available with the proper paperwork, and as long as voters are given plenty of time (one year seems reasonable) to get themselves legal.

      The problem I have with the current spate of proposed Voter ID laws is that they are transparent attempts to restrict voting that have been shown to cause more problems than they solve.

      1. habee profile image91
        habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I pretty much agree, PP.

      2. American View profile image59
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        PP,

        Here in Texas one of the provisions in the Texas law was for those who could not afford the ID that would be provided free of charge. Yet Eric holder was still against it.

        The Texas voter ID law is a perfect example of if the people would just read the bill or law on their own and not listen to talking points there would be a different outcome.

        Voter ID cards and laws are indeed transparent attempts to restrict voting for those who are not eligible to. Those on probation, convicted felons, illegal immigrants, and more are not eligible to vote yet tens of thousands if not more do every election. It's not a conspiracy or anything grander on the part of those in eligible voters, but in today's environment because elections are so close those illegal votes can make a difference for one side or another. If you take a close look at the election cycles going back to the year 2000, even local elections for cities and mayors have come down to victories of 100 votes or less. I think that more than anything has fueled both sides of bringing up the rhetoric of voter fraud.

      3. handymanbill profile image62
        handymanbillposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        In our state you have to present a State I.D or Dl to buy Smokes or Alcohol. So most people do have I.D. I someone is running around with out ID then they need to get

    7. Cody Hodge profile image84
      Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago

      Eh, this is pretty much a non-issue. The GOP would be wise to drop it. Otherwise, they might look like they are blatantly keeping people off the rolls.

      AV,

      Comparing photo ID's as a requirement to vote with needing a photo ID to rent an apartment doesn't hold up. Most apartment complexes are private establishments. If we were talking about getting an apartment with government housing assistance, that would be something to talk about.

      Consider if HP decided to delete this point. Technically, the first amendment says I have the right to free speech. However, that only protects me against the government limiting my speech.

      1. American View profile image59
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Cody,

        Before I answered your last comment, based on comments from you in other forms in which we've had discussions over the last few days, I decided I wanted to go read your profile. I wish I had done that a few days ago. I should've realize earlier that you are very young and have no idea.

        So once more have to show you that you do not read. You make comment

        " If we were talking about getting an apartment with government housing assistance, that would be something to talk about"

        Here is my original statement:

        " If they live in an apartment, they will need ID in order to rent in the first place, if they are on welfare or section 8, they would have needed ID to get on the program."

        So what part of the"on welfare or section 8" part of that statement are you not understanding?  Do you think that the poor are sitting around waiting for the government to build a building for them to live in? you do realize that 99% of the poor live in apartments that are owned by the private sector.

      2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
        Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "The GOP would be wise to drop it. Otherwise, they might look like they are blatantly keeping people off the rolls."

        No, I think it's a deliberate GOP strategy, and it's working. The (false) conservative narrative is that liberals steal elections with voter fraud. The conservative base (erroneously) believes this to be true. When someone who knows what they're talking about says, "You know, voter ID laws won't solve the actual problem of election fraud, and here's why," the GOP and it's media sock-puppets can easily dismiss the expert as being liberally-biased, and their base will believe it.

        It's a way to mobilize the base, and it works. Unreasoning fear and anger are powerful motivators. Unfortunately, when people are scared and angry, they do stupid things. For example, they vote for Republicans.

        1. American View profile image59
          American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Jeff,

          I disagree its a deliberate GOP strategy, but it does have the potential to steal elections and I believe you can  agree with that. Franken is Senator by 12 votes, do you not think it is possible to change that election?

          Look, voter fraud is not as large as the Republicans are claiming it to be, but the fact is it does happen. I know you want to make this a GOP or Dem issue, I do not see it that way, it happens on both sides. I see it as a criminal action no matter who does it.

          If you want to make this a one over another issue, then google it and see how many articles there are about voter fraud convictions of Democrats and republicans

          http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12 … raud-case/

          http://eastaustinvoice.wordpress.com/20 … lars-blog/

          http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/0 … ter-fraud/

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
            Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            From story one:
            have entered guilty pleas in the case, in which numerous signatures were allegedly forged on absentee ballots
            Which would not be caught by a voter ID law, and in fact was caught without one.

            From Story two:
            November 1, 2011 – 8 were arrested for absentee voter fraud in Madison County, Florida.

            The case began when the Florida’s Division of Elections notified FDLE ad FBI that “an extraordinarily disproportionate amount of absentee votes,” had been cast in the District 1 school board race.
            ...which would not have been caught with a Voter ID law, and in fact was caught without one.

            From Story three:
            Yesterday, a jury found Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White (R) guilty on six felony counts of voter fraud, theft, and perjury.
            Which, again, would not have been caught with a Voter ID law, and in fact was caught without one.

            So, thanks for demonstrating the kind of voter fraud that actually happens, and thanks also for demonstrating that they can be--and are being--caught without an onerous and possibly unconstitutional Voter ID law.

            1. American View profile image59
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Jeff,

              From story one- are you kidding me?? forged signatures, faked Ids would not be caught with voter ID cards, So if you pull out your voter ID with your picture and signature on it you think the person at the voter booth could not spot the phony signature or that your picture does not match the one in the database.
              From story 3
              Tina Johnson was arrested on 10 counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, and two counts of absentee ballots and voting violations.
              Johnson Jr. was charged with 11 counts of fraud in connection with casting votes, as well as corruptly influencing voting, and perjury by false written declaration.

              Hmm it seems to say “in connection with casting votes” which means the votes have been casted and if there was a voter ID law they would have been caught then and not latter when someone thought there was too many write in votes cast in a particular area. If it was not for that, all those votes cast never would have been caught.
              I could post more form the stories but I think we can all see you only pulled small micosims and tried to spin it. Bottom line is Voter ID laws would have caught all those people earlier because they would have been caught red handed and not later after the elections were over and some decided to check on things.

              You truly do not understand voter ID cards or you are just so partisan on the subject that no matter what someone says you will spin and dismiss it. All of those stories are of people convicted AFTER THE ELECTIONS TOOK PLACE, where as if there was a voter ID law THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN CAUGHT IN THE ACT. Thanks for showing why voter IDs work and that the left will just spin no mater what the facts show.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                So people taking part in absentee ballots have to send their ids in with their votes!

                1. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh and don't forget all the dead folks who vote in Chicago and Florida. They need an ID too.

                2. handymanbill profile image62
                  handymanbillposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Why shouldn't people make a copy of there I.D. and send it in? Just a copy of your D.L. would do

                3. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh and don't forget all the dead folks who [don't actually] vote in Chicago and Florida [but who the Right love to talk about without producing evidence or convictions]. There, fixed it for you.

                  1. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Now Jeff you know exactly what I mean and the thing I was talking about above with O'Keefe is a patent and real on video example of just exactly that.
                    You know that.

                    1. American View profile image59
                      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      JS

                      Funny I provided links to actual convictions, including several who voted using dead people's identification, yet they were blown off. Some people just can't accept the truth, I think you will find you going to be beating your head against the wall on this one because the last will never concede the fact

                  2. JSChams profile image60
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76443.html

                    http://htpolitics.com/2012/06/01/feds-o … ter-purge/

                    There Jeff you have an article not only about dead people on the rolls in Florida but the DOJ trying to stop them from being removed.
                    I guess we really don't need ID's though. It's not fair to the dead.

                    1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                      Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Dead people on the rolls is not the same as dead people voting.

                      An apple on the tree is not the same as an apple in a pie.

                      Sheesh, some people don't understand how critical thinking works.

                  3. teamrn profile image81
                    teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Jeff, why do you think CHicago is called the "Windy City?" And let me give you a glue that it AINT for its weather; rather its politics. I lived there for nearly 30 years.

                    Left, right, middle, independent, federalist, green: what good reason can there be for NOT wanting and requiring that people show a recognized form of ID to vote?

                    Don't know want to know that a vote in YOUR name was cast by NONE OTHER than you?

                    1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                      Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Don't know want to know that a vote in YOUR name was cast by NONE OTHER than you?
                      I already know that, 'cos I know that voter fraud by casting someone else's ballot doesn't bloody happen except in the paranoid fantasies of the Right..

              2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                From story one- are you kidding me??
                No, I'm not kidding at all.
                So if you pull out your voter ID with your picture and signature on it you think the person at the voter booth could not spot the phony signature or that your picture does not match the one in the database.
                Well, yeah, if absentee ballots were cast at a polling place, you'd be absolutely right. But here's the important bit: the forged signatures were on absentee ballots and as such, there's no person at the voting booth to show your ID to!

                At first, I thought you were a reasonable person, but clearly, either you're a partisan scoundrel, or else reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Or both. I'm not fussy.

                You truly do not understand voter ID cards or you are just so partisan on the subject that no matter what someone says you will spin and dismiss it.
                No, I understand voter ID cards perfectly. You present them at the polls when you go to vote. They will not stop an election official from tapering with ballots, stuffing the ballot box, or changing an electronic ballot. Nor will they stop someone from mailing in fraudulent absentee ballots, which is what happened in the stories you linked to.

                Clearly, you have a flawed understanding of how voter IDs would work.

                I do not dismiss actual incidents of voter fraud, but I do know the difference between a kind of fraud that a voter ID check can catch, and the kind of fraud a voter ID can't catch. [protip: when the Sec of State is committing the fraud, an ID law isn't going to stop him. Also, if the fraud involved mailed-in absentee ballots, an ID law won't stop it.]

                1. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So if it can be done from one direction we just need to throw up our hands and keep it from being stopped from another?

                  Are you kidding me?

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Absentee ballots are how voter fraud is almost always committed, if you can't stop it with voter ID then passing voter ID will only cost an already impoverished country billions of dollars and prevent people who did not get one from voting and not at all prevent voter fraud. Success? But of course that is what Republicans want, the issue is not about stopping not citizens from voting or dead people but about preventing the poorest people and the ethnically different from voting because they usually vote Democrat.

                    1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                      Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      At least Josak understands how critical thinking works.

                    2. JSChams profile image60
                      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Josak....understand this.
                      All these "impoverished people" already have some form of government ID.
                      There is this incredible myth that the totally impossible is being asked. That's insane!

                      Hey let's make it a special photo ID to get food stamps and I am certain that will have occurred before I even finish suggesting it.
                      But a voter ID? Oh!!!!!!!!!!!! How Hateful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
                      How RACIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                      This is how the progressive left operates in our country and will willingly allow voter fraud because they know at the end of the day it will work for them. Just ask SEIU.

                2. American View profile image59
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Josak,

                  I know you will come to the conversation late. There are many ways that voter fraud can take place, and there's no doubt. Jeffs problem is he refuses to admit that voter ID can fix problems, he refuses to admit despite being shown actual convictions of people who actually fraudulently voted under somebody else's name, that a voter ID card would have stopped that. All the rest that he's doing is nothing but spin from the left using talking points and trying to blame Republicans.

                  I find it most interesting that he's against a law that I pointed out earlier put in place by Democrats in the voter law of 2002 requiring voter ID with a picture. talk about hypocrisy

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                    Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Jeffs problem is he refuses to admit that voter ID can fix problems,
                    If the kind of fraud that a voter ID could catch were actually a problem, then a voter ID law could solve it. But it isn't, so it won't.

                    e refuses to admit despite being shown actual convictions of people who actually fraudulently voted under somebody else's name, that a voter ID card would have stopped that.
                    Except the fraud that you showed (fraudulent absentee ballots) would not have been stopped by a voter ID law.

                    You do understand what "absentee" means, right?

                    I find it most interesting that he's against a law that I pointed out earlier put in place by Democrats in the voter law of 2002 requiring voter ID with a picture. talk about hypocrisy
                    Being against the voter ID law that the GOP wants, and also being against a voter ID law that the Democrats wanted, is somehow hypocritical?
                    Most people would call that "consistent."

                    1. American View profile image59
                      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Jeef,

                      Just keep living in denial. Any kind of voter fraud is a problem, is a crime, and needs to be corrected. Would you not agree? or are you saying it's okay to commit a federal crime?

                      The fraud that were shown was of people not only convicted of fraudulent absentee ballots, were convicted of casting an illegal vote, in other words they voted using somebody else's name. But you continue to ignore that. See if they use voter ID, they would have been caught in the act of attempting to vote. In addition if there were voter ID laws, they would not be able to get an absentee ballot to use in the first place. I explained to you, but of course you know better than the rest of us, how it works here in Texas so that it is almost impossible to get an absentee ballot in somebody else's name. You know the law that Eric holder is fighting. Do you understand?

                      So what you're saying is that you were for a Democrat law that required photo ID, a law that has been in existence but I guess you ignored that part of the writing too,  but you are against a voter law that required ID from the GOP and you call that consistent. Really?I think being for one and not the other is hypocritical.

    8. American View profile image59
      American Viewposted 4 years ago

      Interesting, guess this is not as new an issue as Dems want you to think it is, so much for disenfranchising since this is been going on for nine years now. Honestly I was unaware of the 2002 help America vote act requiring newly registered voters to produce photo ID. Interesting indeed.

      "The first Voter ID laws were passed in 2003, and as of September 2011, 30 U.S. states require some form of photo or non-photo identification. The identification required to submit a ballot differs by state law, and may differ by de facto voting procedures.

      Because of laws against any form of poll tax in the United States, voting must be made free to all voters. Several state governments have paid for and distributed free voter IDs to help them comply.[1]

      The 2002 federal Help America Vote Act requires any voter who registered by mail and who has not previously voted in a federal election to show current and valid photo identification or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter. "

    9. lovemychris profile image79
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

      "This time around, O'Keefe features a "dead voter" and a voter who he claims is illegally registered to vote because he was not a citizen at the time he was called for jury duty. Unfortunately for O'Keefe, he became a citizen in the 80s, a fact that was easily verifiable before publishing the video.

      As for O'Keefe's dead guy, it turns out James forgot that "Jr." at the end of a guy's name means he's the son of the dead guy and also happens to be a very much alive registered voter."

      ahahaha--Just like the brochure lady got Obama mixed up with his dad! Oh you silly Pubbies. You'd be cute if you weren't so sinister!!

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Nope....
        I was talking about when he went to vote and identified himself as Eric Holder and the voter dude just said sure and handed him the ballot. Now he stopped short of actually committing a federal crime and voting on the ballot.....something reserved for unions...but the guy WASN'T EVEN GONNA LET HIM PRODUCE ID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        So don't give me this crap about "pubbies"> That was in Chicago. It happened.
        It isn't a lie and there is evidence which of course the DOJ wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. They will allow people to stand at polling places with nightsticks so a little outright voter fraud is no big deal to them.

    10. SparklingJewel profile image66
      SparklingJewelposted 4 years ago

      here's another place where photo IDs are required at a democratic book signing

      big_smile   gotta laugh


      http://nation.foxnews.com/michelle-obam … pFoxNation

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        See people already have photo id's but God forbid you racist hateful thing that you wish them to use one when they vote?

        How friggin stupid are we supposed to become?

      2. American View profile image59
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You forgot to mention that no one can get into the Democratic national convention unless they present, drumroll please, you've got it, PHOTO ID!!!. But it's okay to vote without one.

        1. Reality Bytes profile image94
          Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I think the difference lies in a Constitutional Right versus a privilege.  Of course the Constitution can be amended.

        2. Uninvited Writer profile image84
          Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That is for security reasons... any sane person can see that is necessary.

          1. American View profile image59
            American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Would you not agree making sure that proper Americans vote and not outsiders, as has happened, is for security reasons? Would you not think showing ID at a voting place is for security purposes in light of accusations in the past of voter intimidation at polling places? Or to keep out the riff raff who may go postal?

      3. handymanbill profile image62
        handymanbillposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well Oboma could not be to upset about it. The photo I.D. Whats good for the Goose is good for the Gander. Great laugh.

    11. Cody Hodge profile image84
      Cody Hodgeposted 4 years ago

      But it's not an issue...

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What....the soda?
        Give me a break...

    12. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 4 years ago

      This whole Voter ID thing is just an attempt to disenfranchise poor people.  Nothing more. 

      What's more, it's probably unconstitutional under the 15th and 24th Amendments. 

      And as others have pointed out, it will solve a nonexistent problem. 

      Imagine with me, how someone could actually carry out voter fraud at the polling stations.  First, you would have to register a whole bunch of fake names (which is not too hard to do, although usually these fakes are caught and purged.)  Next, you would have to have one person vote multiple times using these fake names each time. 

      This would be hard for a group of people to do at a single polling station because:  1. There's a good chance the poll workers would recognize the person trying to vote twice. 2. the people trying to vote twice would each have to be assigned to a specific group of names so when they walk up to the poll workers they can say "I'm so and so."  This would require a great deal of prior planning and coordination.  Kind of hard to hide and to pull off. 

      So basically to make this work someone would have to create a whole bunch of falsely registered fake people, then bus a whole bunch of people from polling station to polling station all day long.  Each of these people would have to have memorized a list of names that they were going to use to vote - and this list of names would have to correspond to the fake registered names - and you would have to hope that the fake registrations had not been purged before that day.  Plus each person would have to remove the mark that is put on their hand each time they vote, between each polling station. 

      A pretty ridiculous scenario.  Other types of vote fraud are much more likely and an ID would not prevent these other kinds of fraud.

      1. American View profile image59
        American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        William,

        what if I told you a state congressman was convicted of voting twice for himself in an election? Well it happened. He did it in two different polling places.

        If you look at the links provided earlier in this thread, you will see an article of several in Florida convicted of just the same scenario.

        Are you aware the the Democrat law in 2003 that any new vote registration or renewal must have a picture ID otherwise they cannot become a registered voter? can you figure why? To eleiminate the fakes names from getting on the voter rolls in the first place. So your argument against holds no water.

        1. JSChams profile image60
          JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hey AV look...it's a nonexistent problem.

          Just make sure you don't look for any sign of it and it is then considered non-existent. Right?

          1. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Look do you have any proof that it has ever changed the result of an election in the modern era? If not then it's not worth wasting money on.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes of course they have proof, they said so, and if that is good enough for them it should be good enough for you!

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah I thought that might be it.

            2. JSChams profile image60
              JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Then most interesting thing in this whole thread is the concept that  a voter ID is a waste of money and we couldn't afford it. Aside now from the fact the liberals wanted to do this when Bush was in office, how much money exactly do you suppose states are already wasting? Well then let's cut that gravy train off an provide voter ID's. I can't imagine a state making an individual pay for and ID for a function that is his civic duty.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I would much prefer we gathered all the money we were going to waste on the ID and give it to a good charity. It would do a lot more good in the world.

                1. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Anything in the universe except make a person prove who they are before they vote right?

                2. JSChams profile image60
                  JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I mean it's just astounding the lengths and pretzels people ae twisting themselves over in this forum over the concept someone will have to produce an ID to vote. We have gone over the concept that they already have some form of ID anyway so getting one should be no big deal.
                  I keep hearing disenfranchising the poor and I can't see that if they don't have to pay for it.
                  Unless they are here illegally and don't have real ID and can't prove citizenship.................

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Prove to me that it would do more real good to this country than giving the money to a charity and I will support it. I have seen no evidence whatsoever that voter fraud has ever changed the result of an election or that any fraud is not balanced by the other side. On the other hand charities change lives, help people who are hungry and cold and even save lives in my eyes there are a million better things we could be doing with that money, it's very simple.

                    1. John Holden profile image61
                      John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      And put no obstacle in the way of people exercising their right to elect those who would rule them.

                    2. JSChams profile image60
                      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Ok so if Mitt Romney wins this election am I going to see you screaming on here about voter fraud?

                      Be honest with me Josak because we both know plenty of these folks here who are going to do just that because they already have just this week about Wisconsin.
                      You sure you won't to argue with me that it does not make a difference?

        2. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          AV, you are overlooking a very important word in that sentence - "convicted".

          Do you know what convicted means? It means that he didn't get away with it doesn't it?

          1. American View profile image59
            American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            John,

            That one was convicted, how many did not get caught. And this one was caught because of a whistleblower long after the fact, so they almost got away with it.

        3. Jeff Berndt profile image91
          Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          what if I told you a state congressman was convicted of voting twice for himself in an election? Well it happened. He did it in two different polling places.
          And if he was registered to vote in both places, guess what? An ID law wouldn't have stopped him from voting twice!

          If you look at the links provided earlier in this thread, you will see an article of several in Florida convicted of just the same scenario.
          Except they were convicted of using absentee ballots, which get sent through the mail, and the mailbox doesn't check your ID when you put an envelope in it. So a voter ID law wouldn't have caught that either.

          Look do you have any proof that it has ever changed the result of an election in the modern era?
          Well, even that isn't quite the right question. The right question is, "Would a voter ID law haves stopped either of these crimes?" The answer, of course, is, "No, a voter ID law would not have stopped either of these crimes."
          And that is why a voter ID law doesn't make sense: it won't stop the election fraud that actually occurs.

          1. American View profile image59
            American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            And guess what, if he had voter ID he never would have been registered into polling places.

            No, They were convicted of many crimes one of which was absentee ballots. They actually were also convicted of voting using somebody else's name which you continually ignore. Had they had voter ID they would have been caught on this are, not many months later because of a whistleblower. But you cannot see the facts because you refuse to take your blinders off.

            And for the last time in order to get an absentee ballot here in the state of Texas, one must verify their voter registration prior to a ballot being mailed to them. Basically they are questions that must be answered by phone by computer or by mail. Only the person who is the registered voter will know the answers to those questions, answer the questions incorrectly, you will not get an absentee ballot. Hence the voter ID would stop voter fraud even with absentee ballots. Sorry you're having a hard time comprehending this fact despite being told five or six times already.

            And so once more on the last question you spin spin spin to try and deflect from the fact and the answer to your question would voter ID laws stop any of those crimes the answer is a resounding YES!!!!!!.

            But once more you'll spin and will not say it. Have fun enjoy your life with your blinders on

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
              Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              if he had voter ID he never would have been registered into polling places.
              Wait, what? You're trying to claim that having a voter ID would somehow magically delete the second registration? No, it wouldn't. What you'd need to do to take care of the second registration is to purge the voter rolls of duplicate registrations That's a proposed solution to the problem of out-of-date info on voter rolls, which, if done right, could head off a lot of election fraud (the kind that actually happens), but, if done wrong (as it usually is) ends up accidentally(?) purging eligible voters from the rolls.

              They were convicted of many crimes one of which was absentee ballots. They actually were also convicted of voting using somebody else's name which you continually ignore.
              No: they were convicted of voting using somebody else's name with absentee ballots. Reading comprehension is a valuable skill.

              Basically they are questions that must be answered by phone by computer or by mail.
              So, what, would the voter hold his ID up to the phone's handset so the person on the other end could hear it?

              This is fun. No, really. You keep using misinterpreted data to support your poorly reasoned arguments, and then when I show you your mistake, you get mad and stamp your feet and say "SPIN!"

              When logic makes your head spin, perhaps you should sit down until the vertigo passes.

              A voter ID law would stop exactly one kind of fraud: Jim Schmim coming to the polling place and saying, "I'm Joe Schmoe, I'd like to vote please." When the poll worker asks for ID, Jim will have to show ID, and if it doesn't say Joe Schmoe with a picture that looks like Jim, then he gets caught.

              But this kind of fraud doesn't happen. Instead, the kind of fraud that happens (the kind that happened in the articles you linked to, by the way) takes place via mail, or is done by corrupt election officials, and an ID check will not fix it.

              You've been distracted from the real problem by a clever ruse. And what's more, you seem to be pretty proud of it.

              Hang on, lemme try something:

              These aren't the droids you're looking for.

              There, does that help?

              1. American View profile image59
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Jeff,

                You're absolutely right reading comprehension is a wonderful thing, it's quite a shame you lack it. Once more a copy and paste from the actual article that possibly maybe this time after you read it for the 10th time you may understand and comprehend. If it is above your reading level please let me know and I will Google and see if there is an article like it written on elementary school level.

                "Tina Johnson was convicted on 10 counts of fraud in connection with casting a vote, and two counts of absentee ballots and voting violations."

                Please take note were it specifically says she was convicted of 10 counts of CASTING  VOTE, and then separately to counts of ABSENTEE ballots. So she cast a total of 12 votes, 10 in person using phony names, two votes by absentee ballot. Was this broken down enough for you to understand this time, 10 votes in person, 2 by absentee.

                There, did that help?

                You can sit there and claim I'm spinning, that everybody here sees that I have given you the same layout on how it works here in Texas from the beginning. You refuse to accept it to be fact because it goes against your point of view and you cannot accept. Your ignorance comes clear on the subject when you make the statement what do they do put the voter ID card to the phone when clearly you have been told that there are questions that are asked that they must answer, and user questions that only the voter would know.Did that help, do you understand now, we you able to comprehend this time.

                Your inability to grasp the entire process on how to get a voter ID, how to properly register to get that ID, and how the system works after getting one is just typical of somebody who wants everybody to do it their way despite the fact that their way is wrong, a typical left indignation. It's truly a shame when somebody is so distracted by the following talking points blindly that they are incapable of rational thought.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                  Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You refuse to accept it to be fact because it goes against your point of view
                  No, I refuse to be distracted from the real issues.
                  Your voter ID law solve a problem that isn't really there and creates a new one.
                  Election fraud happens, but the lions share of it is committed by corrupt election officials. But you don't seem to care about catching big-time election fraud. You want to waste money and resources to catch (mostly mythical) two-bit fraudsters.

                  Oh, and I love this bit:
                  Your ignorance comes clear on the subject when you make the statement what do they do put the voter ID card to the phone when clearly you have been told that there are questions that are asked that they must answer, and user questions that only the voter would know.
                  Oh, so not having a voter ID will magically make it impossible for a potential fraudster to do a little research on the target and be able answer those questions? Identity theft happens all the time, in spite of people needing ID to get things like credit cards and access to bank accounts.
                  An ID card won't make us immune to stolen votes, either.

                  Look, I don't have a problem understanding how to get an ID. I also don't have a problem understanding that the ID card isn't some kind of magical anti-fraud talisman, and further, that it won't prevent the kind of voter fraud that actually happens, and that actually could sway an election.

                  It's truly a shame when someone is so distracted by a nonissue that they ignore real problems.

                  But you go ahead, and waste your time and resources on a solution that will work to prevent election fraud about as well as a magic wand will.

                  In the meantime, I'll be trying to find a real solution.

                  1. American View profile image59
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Jeff,

                    you continue to have reading retention problems. I have said many times there are many types of voter fraud. And I have also said many times the cost of the voter card in Texas is FREE, we do that now, well maybe not anymore since Holder said that was illegal. So maybe you will be right if the left gets there way and we have to start to pay.

                    But you said something that interests me, I believe Voter ID cards will reduce fraud despite your view it will not, but I will bite, what is your solution?

                    1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                      Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      what is your solution?
                      Let all interested parties have oversight over the ballot box--don't just leave it to the Secretaries of State, who are often either partisan appointees or elected on a partisan ballot, and who therefore have a conflict of interest. And we oughtn't limit it to the Dems and the GOP, but should open it to any party who has a candidate on the ballot. With all of those folks watching, it will be a whole lot harder to get away with any funny business.
                      This should solve most of the actual fraud that really happens.

                      Further: there must always be a verifiable paper trail of ballots, since the corruptibility of electronic machines has been demonstrated time and time again.

                      Any voter roll purge must have multi-partisan oversight, with the voter to be purged verified as ineligible, since purges often purge eligible voters from the rolls along with the dead.

                      Once these actual problems are taken care of, then if we have some money lying around that has no better use, you can have your Voter ID placebo. I hope it makes you feel better.

                      Your insistence on a voter ID law to stop election fraud is like a homeowner, who is told that he has a pest problem, and says, "Okay, let's set mousetraps."

                      The inspector says, "But, the pests you have are termites. Mousetraps will get any mice you might have, but termites are your real problem."

                      The homeowner says, "You said pests. Mice are pests. Setting mousetraps will take care of the pests."

                      Inspector: "But, they're termites."

                      Homeowner: "MOUSETRAPS, I TELL YOU!"

                      Inspector: "Fine, set your mousetraps, but you'll just be wasting time and money on a non-solution, and you'll still have termites."

                      A year goes by.

                      Homeowner: "One of my mousetraps caught a mouse, so I was right!"

                      Inspector: "Okay, you caught a mouse. But you still need to hire an exterminator to get rid of these termites, and now you need to hire a contractor to replace all the wood they've eaten. Look, I can poke my finger through your wall!"

                      Homeowner: "But I caught a mouse!"

                      Inspector: "Enjoy your termite problem."

        4. William R. Wilson profile image60
          William R. Wilsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Which law are you talking about?  "Democrat Law" doesn't tell me much.

          In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud

          This stuff rarely happens, and when it does it is not enough to influence an election.  I'm much more concerned about corrupt Secretaries of State or other election officials than I am about busloads of people trucking from polling station to polling station all day with a big list of fake registered voters.  That's just an absurd scenario.

          1. American View profile image59
            American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            William,

            Sorry, I guess what I said Democrat law that was kind of vague.
            In response to the presidential elections of 2000, namely because of what happened in Florida, the Democrats made accusations of a lot of voter fraud, fake ballots. In response they drafted an entire act to deal with voter standards, machines, modernization by eliminating punch cards, and one part of it was newly registered voters had to produce photo ID to prove who they were in order to become registered to vote. Now there is nothing that says you have to show a voter ID at a polling place, it was just to become a registered voter. Extended not just new registered voters, but to those renewing, and those who do changes of address.

            That is what I meant by it being ironic that Democrats are against voter ID when at one point they insisted on it.

            1. William R. Wilson profile image60
              William R. Wilsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Now there is nothing that says you have to show a voter ID at a polling place, it was just to become a registered voter.

              Exactly.  Your point is invalid.

              Further, they don't have to show a photo id to be registered (obviously you have never registered voters or you would know better) - they merely have to provide a drivers license number on the application or write the last 4 digits of their social security number on their registration, which the state will then verify.  No photo ID required.

              Look it up, it's called the Help America Vote Act, HAVA.

              1. William R. Wilson profile image60
                William R. Wilsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Also - the kind of voter fraud that happened in Florida was not the kind that would be fixed by showing a photo ID at the polls.

              2. American View profile image59
                American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Will,

                You said:

                "Further, they don't have to show a photo id to be registered (obviously you have never registered voters or you would know better)"

                Another assumption, I have been around many voter drives were voters registered and I'm here to tell you their applications are not accepted if they do not have a photo ID of any kind. In addition do you think four digits of the Social Security number will identify you? If that was the case Social Security numbers for everybody would only be four digits.

                From the act:

                "requires any voter who registered by mail and who has not previously voted in a federal election to show current and valid photo identification"

                I had looked it up before I posted it. Point valid

                So, you say the convictions in Florida would not have been fixed by showing photo IDs at the polls. Hmmmm, they were convicted of voting at a polling place, several of the people of voting multiple times in multiple polling places, and you don't think if they produced a valid photo ID that would not have stopped them from voting. Interesting. So you are saying if I show up at your polling place and claimed to be William Wilson and show my driver's license photo I day that they're going to let me vote for you. WOW. Or do you think that a photo ID system that has a printout at the ballot place where they could check your name, your signature, and look at the photo on the printout and then look at the photo you present and you think that a fraudulent voter would not be caught. I imagine if the FBI has the technology to pick a felon out of a crowd of 100,000 people by simply using the camera, I think that quite simple to pick up a fraudulent voter. All the excuses that you guys keep spending are just nothing but more than that excuses

                1. William R. Wilson profile image60
                  William R. Wilsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You are selectively quoting from the act.  Typical.

                  You can read the full law here:  http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107pu … ubl252.htm

                  Section 303 is the section that you assert requires a voter ID at the polls.  It does, in fact, but only in a certain, very specific situation - when a voter has registered by mail and not provided a drivers license number or the last 4 digits of their social security number. 

                  Here's a summary: 



                  and, skipping down a little:



                  You are wrong about this "democrat law."  Conversation finished.

                  So, you say the convictions in Florida would not have been fixed by showing photo IDs at the polls.

                  I am talking about the fraud in Florida which won Bush the 2000 election - which was widespread corruption at the state level, multiple ballots being miscounted or discarded, voters being purged from rolls even though they were eligible to vote (because they tended to vote democratic) etc.

                  1. American View profile image59
                    American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I guess you didn't read and realize some of those convictions were from the 2000 election.

                    Could you cite the source of the widespread corruption at state levels, the multiple ballots being discounted or discarded, voters that were purged even though there were eligible to vote and that they were indeed Democratic.

                    I wasn't selectively quoting, you said that there was nothing in there about photo ID, all I did we showed you the part where specifically said photo ID.

                    1. John Holden profile image61
                      John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Easy, you can google it, there's loads of examples especially for the 2000 Presidential elections.

    13. Uninvited Writer profile image84
      Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

      This conversation has gone the way so many on here go, no one is listening to anyone and everyone thinks they know best... Adios.

    14. SparklingJewel profile image66
      SparklingJewelposted 4 years ago

      just think of all the places we need some sort of identification...an ID is typical of our lives, why is it such an issue about voting?


      http://aclj.org/us-constitution/photo-i … oter-fraud

      "...As with many things in life, when someone opposes a commonsense solution to a problem the reason is because the problem benefits their interests..."

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Because they don't want us to know how many people are actually voting.
        They want people to vote in multiple locations...sometime even multiple states.
        They also don't really care if the voter is an American citizen.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
          Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No, because we're not stupid enough to think that a voter ID law will magically solve the problem of election fraud, since most election fraud would not be caught by an ID check at the polls.

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Should Romney win in November I will look and see how many have posted here against this and screaming about election fraud. They will because they don't believe Conservatism will win an honest election even though it does time and again.

          2. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'm reminded of the controversy over the 2000 election, hanging chads and ineligible votes being counted and wonder how voter id would have had any affect on any of this?

            1. American View profile image59
              American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              How, you answered your own question with your question. You just claimed there was ineligible votes being counted, hello, voter ID would have meant that there would have been only eligible votes being counted.
              That is the point of voter ID, eliminate ineligible votes. Thank you for answering your own question

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
                Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You just claimed there was ineligible votes being counted, hello, voter ID would have meant that there would have been only eligible votes being counted.
                Yes, because the only possible way to get an ineligible vote counted is to show up in person at the polls and cast a ballot. There's absolutely no other way to cast an ineligible vote. roll

                This argument fails for the reason above, for the reason that almost all fraudulent ballots cast are absentee ones, and also for the reason that the irregularities in Florida's y2k election had more to do with improper* voter roll purges, irregularities in the ballot counting process, and bad behavior on the part of both candidates: Gore wanted to recount only the areas he was likely to have won while Bush wanted no recount at all. Unfortunately for Democracy, the Supreme Court ordered an end to the proper, statewide recount that was already underway, and we'll never know who really won that election.

                *Improper because the purge was too broad: many eligible voters were purged because their names were similar to (not even the same as) a convict's or a dead person's name. Also, I use the term 'improper' because deleting names from the voter rolls willy-nilly with no regard for whether you're 'accidentally' deleting an eligible voter is--surprisingly--not technically illegal.

                1. American View profile image59
                  American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Again,  spin and try to change the subject. Where in the quote that you bolded did I say there's absolutely no other way to cast an ineligible vote. I love the way you keep changing your story.

                  How many times  have I said in this thread there are many ways to commit voter fraud, yet you continue to ignore it every time. there is no argument to fail because you created one out of thin air with what was being said.

                  I don't disagree with what you say about Gore and Bush, however a statewide recount was done by an outside group and according to them the final tally showed that Bush won the state even by a slightly larger margin that he was given credit for.

                  Again,  cite me a source that shows there was improper purging of voter rolls other than somebody's opinion.Otherwise all you're doing is just keep wasting our time with speculation

              2. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You'll have to explain to me how voter ID would have eliminated the votes ineligible because they had been posted after the dead line or posted unsignedor votes wrongly counted!

                1. teamrn profile image81
                  teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  A voter ID wouldn't eliminate ALL ineligible vote (like the ones you mentioned), but that's no reason not to eliminate the fraud we can.  Should we just let inequity exist, because we can't eliminate ALL inequity? I'd say, get rid of ALL THAT WE CAN. That is such a weak reason for NOT doing something.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    But surely better to tackle the big issues rather than tinker around the edges where there isn't really a problem.
                    Or are you really suggesting that for the sake of a few people who cast more than one vote you should prevent a lot of legitimate votes being cast!

                    1. teamrn profile image81
                      teamrnposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      How would voter ID prevent legitimate votes from being cast? Either you are legit, in which case you could easily get an ID; or you aren't legit, in which case you CAN'T get an ID.

                      Therefore, if you can't produce an ID:  no vote.

      2. SparklingJewel profile image66
        SparklingJewelposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        read again...

    15. lovemychris profile image79
      lovemychrisposted 4 years ago

      Like the Fox bullies.

      BULLY BULLY BULLY

    16. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 4 years ago

      This whole argument centres around those who profess to want smaller government with less control over our lives actually wanting government to have more control!

      1. JSChams profile image60
        JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You don't understand.
        In this country you have always had to be registered to vote...unless you live in Chicago where dead people vote.

        Enough of that....all that needs to be id the voter registration card be the ID and voila! You have it.
        NO even around where I live you can just waltz in and vote and they won't ask for ID of any kind at all. It's been shown this can be accomplished.
        It's not a problem of course unless Romney is elected and then all hell breaks loose from our Democrats about needing ID in the future because as we all know there was no way he should have been elected if it was fair.

        The screaming and whining will start about 1:00 a.M. the day after.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, I do understand. If you have a problem with dead people voting in Chicago the solution is to remove them from the register and not require voters to have that dead persons ID!

          1. JSChams profile image60
            JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You still don't understand....
            There are places in this country where they have tried to purge the rolls of the dead and the DOJ stops it.
            And no one is required to have a dead person's registration. that name will be used for fraudulent voting.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No,you don't understand. What is to prevent your fraudulent voter from having that dead persons ID.

              1. JSChams profile image60
                JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Computers that cross check against the registration rolls.

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The same computers that could pick up other kinds of voter fraud!

     
    working