A very complete research document concerning voter fraud was done by the Heritage Foundation. It show how widespread voter fraud is in the United States. The report doesn't have it broken down by party, just incidents of voter fraud violations.
Could voter ID cards be the answer?
They are common in countries in South America, Africa as well as eastern Europe and others. I'm sure the United States is just as capable as these other countries in having a voter ID System.
Here is a link to the Heritage Foundation research concerning voter fraud.
Here is a link to National Review about it. The article has some interesting links in it.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/07/ … s-require/
I think it will improve voting system to a great extend. Great idea!
Fine, as long as it is free and effort is made to keep the impediments of any American citizen obtaining one to a minimum
I already have to show a government-issued photo ID card in Virginia before I can vote.
I don't see the need for a second one if the first one serves the same purpose.
Well, if DMVs continue issuing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants that presents a whole litany of possibilities for problems.
I'm not aware of any credible evidence of many illegal immigrants using Virginia photo ID cards to vote.
Even the database Mike links has only 17 convictions in 12 years, which is just 1.5 per year.
I don't know why we have to create a lot more cost and bureaucracy just to stop 1.5 cases per year.
So, your approach would be to wait until it is a problem? Could be too late by then.
We don't have a problem in Virginia or a lot of other states. Even Trump's own commission couldn't find any proof.
If Texas has a problem, it should solve it. I don't think the entire country should pay a price for incompetence in Texas.
BTW, that article said their "U.S. citizenship could not be confirmed". That doesn't mean they were fraudulent votes.
Simply because you don't know of any voting problems in Virginia does not mean there aren't any...it just means you don't know about them.
There are problems with illegal voting in EACH of the 50 states.
Prove it: The ONLY credible voting fraud case I can find is fraud by republicans in North Carolina and if you're truly concerned about election manipulation you should be advocating for BOUNCING Bozo and his Controlling Russian Operatives our of our oval office:
" because you don't know of any voting problems in Virginia does not mean there aren't any...it just means you don't know about them"
But it can easily be said that just because one does not know of any voting problems in Virginia, does not mean there aresome.Who has yet to prove that there are in fact problems?
Although I did not expect Jake to look at data showing what he didn't want to see, I'm surprised that you didn't bother either. Mike has posted it twice now, plainly showing voter fraud in Virginia spread over the last 11 years. 16 criminal convictions and one "judicial finding" (whatever that means).
SORRY wilderness, but I don't accept anything as valid from extreme alt-right wing propaganda outlets like the heritage foundation or national review and the fact is, there has NEVER been any proof offered to support the crazy right wing assertions from their weirdo TV and Radio schlubbs that we experience voter fraud on a mass scale:
I still havn't seen anyone quote the constitution as to where it states an American voter needs an id to vote:
Wilderness thanks, simply because you ignore a problem does not mean it does not exist. Reminds me of the story of the Emperor's clothes.
How is 1.5 convictions per year a problem for Virginia, a state with 8.5 million people?
If we really want to stop voter fraud, we should focus on keeping Russian government hackers out of our election databases.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story … ker-219374
Here Here promisem !! Heritage Foundation & National Review? They're actually citing two whacked out extreme right wing propaganda outlets as sources? REALLY? Well, a few voter fraud cases here and there does not an emergency make, it's to be expected out of MILLIONS of American voters especially when Donald received a gift of THOUSANDS if not more of manipulated votes from Vladimir Putin in 2016 which makes him illegitimate and sources say Russian Spies have already started on the 2020 election, perhaps it's one reason WHY Bozo Trump can't seem to condemn the powerful leader of Russia: Cesspool CORRUPTION
It is a problem. Let me explain. Many congressional races are decided by a few hundred votes. It is very possible many of these few hundred votes came from people who are not citizens or eligible to vote. This means, Virginia could be sending people to Congress as well as having state and local elections decided by non-citizens. So, it doesn't matter the number of convictions, it does matter what they have caused from their activities.
I'm going by the link you provided by the Heritage Foundation. The problems are minimal based on that link.
I also don't see how conservatives want to violate states rights by demanding a federal solution with a lot of cost and bureaucracy to fix small problems.
45 cases in the 2018 elections across the whole country is a problem? That's what the Heritage link says. But I like how they left out the North Carolina fraud that the GOP committed. Selective?
As for that Texas link, they've already amended it to note that 20% of the people who were included on those lists had already proved their citizenship and shouldn't have been there in the first place. So the validity of any conclusions taken from that data is suspect at best.
Very simple why NC has not been included, it is still being determined by the NC election board. At this point it is considered "Alleged."
The Heritage link is based on public records.
Again, many elections are decided by a few hundred votes, the votes cast by non-citizens could determine election outcomes.
That is why it is a problem.
Is Russian election interference a problem in your opinion?
What do you think is Russian election interference? Do you believe Hillary's type of foreign collusion in an election is a problem?
You still sticking to the false claim that Clinton knew that Fusion GPS had contracted out to Steele months after a lawyer representing her campaign had hired their AMERICAN firm? Even though the Fusion GPS CEO testified under oath to Congress that her campaign had no knowledge that Steele's services had been secured? How about some actual fact-based arguments?
Actually, Fusion CEO appeared before a Congressional committee AND he wasn't under oath. He made no direct reference to who had knowledge of their "contractors" but only spoke about how they handled different situations with clients. How do I know this? Here's the transcript from his testimony.
https://www.scpr.org/news/2018/01/09/79 … ny-releas/
When one testifies to Congress, as your article states, it is done under oath. Not sure where you got the claim that he wasn't under oath from.
Did you comb through the testimony? I did. I read the entire transcript the week it came out, and noted that Simpson claimed Clinton was unaware of the Steele work. Wiki backs up that claim with two separate links (10 and 11). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2% … ia_dossier
If you did read the entire manuscript you must have missed page 9 section 17-20 where it is stated "The Interview is not under oath."
Please show me the part of the testimony where it states Clinton was unaware. I don't care what Wiki says...I only care what the transcript from the interview by the Congressional committee says. It's going to be difficult since during his entire interview he is very basic and only refers to "clients."
Prove me wrong.
Here is the entire sentence from page 9 that you referenced:
Mr. Simpson, you should understand that although the interview is not under oath, by law you are required to answer questions from Congress truthfully.
So you are correct that he was not under oath. And yet, he was instructed that lying to Congress would be breaking the law. So you just argued semantics that because he wasn't under oath, he could have lied, even though he was told lying would be breaking the law.
At page 161, Simpson talks about Steele's decision to take his information to the FBI. That he and Simpson made the decision independently. Although multiple times during his testimony, he declines to answer about client communications.
"That's what the Heritage link says."
No, that is NOT what the Heritage link says. It says there were 45 known cases, that went to trial and got a conviction. It makes no attempt to estimate a total number of cases or even the total of cases that are known but never prosecuted and convicted.
It does not say there were only 45 instances of voter fraud across the country.
So you concede that the premise for the claims of voter fraud are just...guesses?
Court decisions and verdicts are not normally regarded as guesses.
Yes, 45 cases across fifty states in a single year were confirmed. The rest of the argument that it is more rampant is a guess, or what some like to call a conspiracy theory.
Or a reasonable deduction that with Democratic refusal to even consider or look for fraud, coupled with a lack of true effort anywhere, there is much more than is ever found.
Or, if one refuses to actually look and shuts down any discussion by consistently stating it never happens even in the face of court verdicts showing it DOES, they can call it all a conspiracy theory.
We now have solid evidence of tens of thousands of people that registered to vote without the right to do so. We have proof of illegal voting. We know that half of our exalted leadership regularly complains it never happens, without ever knowing if it does or not.
But it's all a conspiracy theory and there is no need to check further because we know it never happens. Right!
Refusal to look at fraud? That's a patently false statement. Take a look at any of the studies done on the topic that all come to the same conclusion:
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/ … fraud-myth
Your solid evidence uses words like might and possibly and has already had to amend the results because 20% were categorized wrongly.
But why is the risk of disenfranchisement of so many not weighed against the magnitude of the illegal voting problem as presented by Promisem?
I seem to picking up a vibe that Republicans simply prefer that not everyone vote, as their agenda is appealing ever fewer potential voters. So, you create as many bureaucratic and legalistic obstacles that you can toward that end.
Absolutely - our election system should be without doubt in any way shape or form. The zealots will immediately cite that no real credible voter-fraud cases have been established, but that's just not true. The mainstream media fails to report them. Here is a link that documents over 1,000 cases
https://www.heritage.org/election-integ … oven-cases
I have no opposition to voter ID cards. But how will we avoid counterfeits? I imagine they'll still have to be verified against voting rolls, leaving us pretty much where we are now.
Generally though, voter ID laws are usually used to suppress marginalized voters - the poor. Still, voting is a privilege and it's not asking very much for people to get an ID card. If we make it relatively easy for a citizen to accomplish, I see no problem.
You make an excellent point. Should we not move forward because of counterfeits? In the state where I live, if you don't drive, you can still get a FREE ID card if you are low income from the DMV. I believe a voter ID card should be provided at no direct cost to citizens. They will pay for it with tax dollars.
It's a good idea to have voter ID cards. They were introduced in India but have met with partial success. A little more streamlining will iron out the glitches
Ironic that the ONLY Credible evidence of voter fraud on a wide scale was perpetrated by REPUBLICANS in North Carolina: And by the way, nowhere to my knowledge is there a requirement for "voter id" in the constitution, the only reason WHY alt-right wing republicans are trying to suppress voter turnout with all these tricks is because they understand the fact that the more Americans who turn out to vote, the better the chances are of DEMOCRATS WINNING Elections and that's a fact:
"Republicans were upset about election fraud — before it threatened their candidate"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … e1d642def2
Are you kidding me? Democrats also have a history of voter fraud. Democratic volunteers went door to door to gather ballots and threw out votes that were Republican in Californa. Isn't that just as corrupt?
https://www.sacbee.com/news/state/calif … 82125.html
I think there is a serious voting problem that will only get worse. Non-citizens voting in elections. Democrats are for it, which is insane. Republicans are against non-citizens voting in U.S. elections. Should the Democrat party value American citizens more than non-citizens, this wouldn't be an issue. It is a shame Democrats have become the party of illegal alien support.
In Texas, 58,000 non-citizens voted in at least one election. Sometimes elections come down to a few hundred votes. This could mean non-citizens are determining the outcome of elections. This is wrong.
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/stat … 94315.html
American citizen overwhelmingly feel non-citizens should not be permitted to vote in elections.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-america … -rights-to
Hmmm, I wonder why would the GOP want to target these groups?
And the source? The DNC of course.
And to this I say...so what?
Are you telling me people in this group are less intelligent and capable than citizens in Mexico or India where they must have government IDs to vote?
I wonder about this number since having a government ID is required to do so many things. This includes everything from applying for food stamps to applying for welfare, buying alcohol and more. Here is a list of 24 things people must have a government issued ID to get.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/24-t … a-photo-id
And their source was a recent study by New York University's Brennan Center for Justice. And it turns out that more than three million Americans actually don't own a government-issued picture ID.
The most common form of government-issued ID are driver's licenses and so the people who are most unlikely to drive, as it is, is elderly, the poor, people who live in big cities, like African-Americans, especially young people, too, especially if they attend college. They may not have need for a car at the moment.
And then people who are in rural areas. The other challenge for them is they are not near the Department of Motor Vehicles offices, etc., etc. where you would get these IDs.
A study found that in California, New Mexico, and Washington, whites were more likely to have driver’s licenses than nonwhites. In Orange County, Calif., about 92 percent of white voters had driver’s licenses, compared with only 84 percent of Latino voters and 81 percent of “other” voters. Another study in Wisconsin similarly found that while about 80 percent of white residents had licenses, only about half of African-American and Hispanic residents had licenses.
Those figures alone can back the case that ID laws would be discriminatory.
'Are you telling me people in this group are less intelligent and capable than citizens in Mexico or India where they must have government IDs to vote?' Some serious inferred racism. Not shocked by it considering your stance on the topic.
There is no inferred racism in the comment you claim had it.
There is inferred racism in saying minorities would have a difficult time procuring an id.
Considering three of the five groups listed were minorities, to come out and question their intelligence is a clear case of inferred racism.
Providing actual stats that list the number of people who do not have government id, stats from studies that display there are clear differences based upon race, is far from racist.
Voting is a privilege, not a right. The comment made to you wasn't racist. Your argument was, because it implied a handicap of some sort prohibiting someone from going through the simple motion of procuring id.
If the system is set up to allow all to obtain id and nothing unduly prohibits any individual from obtaining one; the fact that any percentage of any subset does not go through the motions to procure one does not imply racism.
What exactly does asking if 'people in those groups are less intelligent' have to do with their needing or not needing a government issued id in their daily lives? Clearly inappropriate.
What reason would you propose? That was possibly the reason it was asked.
We know no one qualified is being prohibited from getting id. We know it isn't cost prohibitive. We know everyone qualified to vote has proven the capability to navigate the system to procure that, but somehow you advocate that some cannot do the same for id.
The question presented is why do you think that problem exists? Why do you think some can do some things and not others? I suppose a reasonable argument could be made that the elderly or disabled might need some concessions but why any other group?
You presented what you considered to be evidence, but no explanation. We know there are no obstacles which keep people you identified from going through the motions to comply. Other adults have proven it possible to comply. I come from an extremely poor county where everyone who wanted to vote made it to the polls and had id, so there is no evidence poverty prohibits compliance.
It's a simple question asked of you. Why do you think concessions should be made when there is no evidence the system is discriminatory? Why would you appear to advocate against id when everyone can access, and many states already have a system in place for it and it seems to function effectively?
There has to be some reasoning you could present. Don't fall back on the standard 'I can't back my opinion so I'll just accuse someone of racism'. Because, quite honestly, I consider it disgustingly condescending to imply some subsets can't do simple things.
I had a good laugh at your claim that everyone in your county who wanted to vote made it to the polls and had id. You know everyone in your county? You surveyed everyone who lived there? What evidence?
Aside from the elderly and disabled, the poor get disenfranchised by voter id laws. I believe I've shown the system is discriminatory by the data provided. However, the Supreme Court seems to disagree by allowing states, such as Texas, to keep in place their voter id laws.
Why should concessions be made? Because voting is a right afforded to every citizen and there are actual citizens being denied those rights under these laws. The hoops they need to jump through discourage them from being able to exercise those rights. Those in rural areas may not be near a Department of Motor Vehicles. Birth certificate information for some in those areas and some older Americans can be scant or contain spelling errors that disqualify them. The document system for those Americans was far from perfect, expecting it to be as a premise to vote is unfair, at best.
On the flip side, if you could prove that voter fraud is rampant, I think you'd have a case that voter id laws are needed. Most of the data from actual studies shows that kind of fraud does not exist. When 45 cases from across the country in an entire year are found, I don't see that as rampant.
"Aside from the elderly and disabled, the poor get disenfranchised by voter id laws"
Ah, do you know to get welfare, food stamps or participate in any type of government benefit program you have to have a govt. ID? Sooooo....how are the elderly, disabled or poor disenfranchised since they HAVE to have an govt. ID to get benefits? If they can get a govt. ID to get governmental benefits, such as social security, etc, they can get a govt. ID to vote. .
This is not about voter disenfranchisement...it is about protecting a system that encourages non-citizens to vote and influence elections in the United States.
So now every poor person, older American, and disabled person participates in a government assistance program?
The system has penalties for non-citizens who vote. It does not encourage them and every actual study concludes that that type of fraud is not happening.
It just makes the point there is no reason people can't get an ID to vote. If people in Mexico, India and even Pakistan can get voter ID cards, there is no reason people in the United States can't get them. If they don't, they're making a choice. Just like over 40 percent of people make a choice not to vote in each election.
I haven't said voter fraud is rampant. I am only pointing out that claiming certain groups can't do things which aren't difficult to accomplish requires some explanation as to why you think such. Something other than 'they just can't'. Otherwise, you appear to be condescending. Which comes off as you believing you are somehow superior.
by Readmikenow 22 months ago
If you want to know what Democrats are guilty of...simply see what they are accusing others of doing. THAT is what they're guilty of doing."Will Democrats accept election loss? New report says no.But there is another, equally pressing question: Will Democrats accept the results of the...
by Judy Specht 10 years ago
Why don't I have to show an ID to vote for president or anyone else?I have to show an ID to any policeman that asks, to get a prescription,see the doctor, get my blood drawn, board an air plane, get my taxes done, write a check, accept a job, withdraw money at the bank and sometimes when I use a...
by American View 10 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...
by Mike Russo 5 years ago
Should Trump have ordered major investigation into voter fraud of him not winning the popular vote?This is what Trump did with the Birther Movement. He made allegations of Obama not being born in this country and no record of his going to college. He never proved it one way or the...
by sunforged 10 years ago
Disenfranchisement Movement?Must have had my head in the dirt or clouds or something, but this topic is new "news" to me. Today I have read reports from Rolling Stone, 3rd party Think Tanks, Non Partisan Watchdog groups and many many traditional news sources.So has it been mainstream news...
by Joan Whetzel 9 years ago
What about the Photo ID requirent for voting?One side says it's necessary to prevent voter fraud. The other side argues that it's a form of disenfranchisement along the lines of the poll taxes. Which way do you lean on this issue and why?
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|