Holder against Voter ID cards
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.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.
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 toIt 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.
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.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.Grace,
Great point about the doctors, hospitals, and specialists were all asking for photo ID these days.That is an indictment of your health care system rather than a justification for IDs.
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?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?
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.
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?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?
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?)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.
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.
I think of requiring an ID as a tweak to our system, no more, no less and HOW do they hinder?
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.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.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
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.
Not a problem Ann, I respect your view to oppose the voter ID and I appreciate your input.
"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.""YOU'VE already voted today!"" This has happened to you?
Yep, In Chicago., where the dead cast a vote!Well they are paranoid since James o'Keefe tried to cast a vote with Eric Holder's ballot and was told no id was needed.
Good ol' James O'Keefe. What we do without him.....oh yea, probably focus on real issues instead of making issues up?
Yep, In Chicago., where [right-wing nutjobs make up stories about] the dead cast a vote! There, fixed it for you.
"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.
"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.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?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.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.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.)
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
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.
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....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?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.....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.
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.
" 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.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.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?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
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.
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.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....
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.
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.
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?Ok, now is your chance, cite some sources that voter ID law will not stop the kind of election fraud that actually happens
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.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"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.
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.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 voteI 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?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.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).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?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....
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?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 differentNice, 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.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.
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.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 onIn 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.
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?
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?
- PrettyPantherposted 12 years ago
0I 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.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.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
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.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."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.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/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.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.So people taking part in absentee ballots have to send their ids in with their votes!
Oh and don't forget all the dead folks who vote in Chicago and Florida. They need an ID too.
Why shouldn't people make a copy of there I.D. and send it in? Just a copy of your D.L. would do
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.
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.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 factOh I know but I just can't let them sit around and pretend they are the shining ones who get to have private conversations with the unicorns. This administration is the most corrupt one I have ever seen and that includes Nixon.
Funny I provided links to actual convictions, including several who voted using dead people's identification, No, you provided links to people who voted fraudulently using absentee ballots, which showing ID at the polls WILL NOT CATCH.
What, do you think you have to show ID at the post office when you mail an envelope or something?
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.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.No but I do understand how liberal thinking works and you are giving us all a really good look at it today.
It matters not what people show you is actually happening you will not accept it and call us nut-jobs(thanks by the way).
Believe it or not there is corruption in your party. I know that is supposed to be physically mentally and spiritually impossible but their fecal matter doea produce odor. Particularly in election years.No but I do understand how liberal thinking works and you are giving us all a really good look at it today.
You mean, using y'know actual reason and logic, and not pretending that potentiality is the same as actuality?
Look, you're misinterpreting (and poorly comprehending) the data.
You're making the same mistake as the gun control crowd makes when they wave around the stats that (they think) say you're more likely to shoot a family member than a burglar.
Really, the data show that in most shootings, the shooter knew the victim, but the data don't generally say how the shooter knew the victim. In the real world, most shootings between people who know each other are two criminals having a dispute. But the gun control folks don't like to think about that: they just want guns banned.
You're doing exactly the same kind of thing.
Let's demonstrate the difference between actuality and potentiality in a way that you'll be sure to understand.
You have $5 in your pocket, and you're hungry. You can get a valu-meal at McBurger's for $5. Therefore, using your 'logic' you conclude that $5 is the same thing as a value meal. So you just eat the $5 and save yourself a trip.
if you get the answer to that then you will have the answer as to how a dead person voted
By absentee ballot, you poor-logic-using person, and an ID law won't catch someone using an absentee ballot.
SPIN SPIN SPIN,
Apple on the tree is not the same as the Apple that is still on the tree but yet showed up in town to vote. All I can say is the Apple that was on the tree that showed up to vote must a have a longstem. So how did that Apple on the tree show up in town and vote? if you get the answer to that then you will have the answer as to how a dead person voted
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?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..JEFF!!!!!!!!!!!!
James O'Keefe very nearly succeeded in doing so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you honestly not believe that occurred?
Man you need to wake up.JS! James O'Keefe is famous for his selectively edited videos. He is not a credible source!
And if he had done it I am sure he would have been caught and would be in jail now...
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.]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?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.
At least Josak understands how critical thinking works.
Yes that's why in recent elections they have tried to get rid of or not count the absentee ballots from the military which almost always swing things Conservative. Yes....let's make certain they ALL get counted.
That's another example of election fraud that won't be caught by a voter ID law.
Josak is actually a pretty good dude.
He does however view the world extremely left which is why you think he is a great critical thinker.
Come to think of it only the left consider those who never fail to agree with them to be critical thinkers.He does however view the world extremely left which is why you think he is a great critical thinker.
No. He may be liberal, but that has nothing to do with why I think he is a critical thinker. I think he's a critical thinker because he consistently demonstrates the ability to think critically.
Come to think of it only the left consider those who never fail to agree with them to be critical thinkers.
That's pretty funny, because Fenix and Evan G. Rogers also consistently demonstrate good critical thinking skills, and they're about as far from liberal as you can get.
Me and Josak may not agree on too many issues, but is a thinker and a good debater. At least Josak would agree when he reads about somebody who's been convicted and not deny it ever happened or spin it off into something that makes no sense.
Having said that under the current system in Texas, one must qualify under one of three reasons to get an absentee ballot. But before one can qualify or request an absentee ballot, one must become a registered voter in the state of Texas. You can become a registered voter in several ways, when you get your drivers license or renew your driver's license you can apply for it right there. All you have to do is just tell the attendant and it's done. No cost to anybody. But no matter which way you go to register as a voter, based on the 2002 voter law that was put in place by Democrats, a picture ID must be used to register. Once registered and you meet the other three criteria you can request an absentee ballot.Before the absentee ballot is sent to you will have to verify your voter registration. It's quick easy and simple, it can be done by phone, by computer, by mail, it is nothing more than several questions that you will have to answer that only you the registered voter will have the answer to.
So let you can say it is not easy at least in the state of Texas where they can be a lot of fraud as the Dems would suggest. In fact it's actually harder to get an absentee ballot that to show up at the polling place. And I know having done both here, I voted two midterms and one presidential election from a hospital bed. I speak from personal experience.
I ask you Josak the same question I asked earlier but was blown off and not given an answer. How is requiring a picture photo ID card at the voter booth disenfranchising the poor?The critical point to that question is who pays for the ID? Also how much document evidence do you need to get it? How far do you have to travel etc.
Here in Texas under the law that Eric holder is fighting, the ID was free
Does anyone have a figure on how much that is going to cost the state?
I would rather see some states pay for that than some of the other wasteful crap they will spend it on. I would happily drive down a bumpy street a couple more years if I know people have the proper voter registration.
I have no idea what the total cost will be but I suspect we could fix a lot of actual problems with it, I know a guy who used to make false passports, I have a feeling faking a voter ID card will be a joke.
Here is how I see it as an equation.
To legitimately affect an election result the people doing it have to be committed a little funded and well organized.
If they are the voter ID won't stop them.
If they are not then the election result will not be affected.
But the voter ID will cost money which we barely have and which many people desperately need, I don't find the idea repulsive or anything it's just pointless, unless it's paid for by people and or made hard to get, then it's repulsive.
I also see no evidence that voter fraud is particularly sided one way or the other though both sides like throwing around accusations with little evidence.Josak you r logic is it won't help....which it will,,,so don't try.
Ain't gonna cut it. That's head in the sand mentality. Nations have changed radically due to it.Hey if you have an answer that would work I am all ears.
Josak you r logic is it won't help....which it will,,,so don't try.
It would help, if in fact people were going to the polls and casting fraudulent ballots.
So far, the only evidence of voter fraud convictions the pro-voter-ID folks have been able to produce have been cases of people ballot-stuffing, or voting with fraudulent absentee ballots, which you don't do at the polls, so an ID check at the polls won't stop it.
Ain't gonna cut it. That's head in the sand mentality.
No, it's clear thinking. The only reasons you think people are voting under assumed names are either out-and-out falsehoods from pundits, deliberate confounding of other forms of voter fraud with fraud at the polls (done by the same pundits) or a poor understanding of what an absentee ballot actually is.
Nations have changed radically due to it [election fraud].
That's true, but again, a Voter ID law won't fix the election fraud that actually happens in the US.
If voter fraud were termites, the voter ID would be the equivalent of setting mousetraps.
I would rather see some states pay for that than some of the other wasteful crap they will spend it on.
Except free IDs to comply with a voter ID law would be wasteful spending: it 'solves' a nonexistent problem and creates a new one.
I would happily drive down a bumpy street a couple more years if I know people have the proper voter registration.
Why do these guys insist if you have ID's then Democrats can't vote?
They give me a headache with illogical logic. And I won't get a straight answer.
It will be couched in the disenfranchised and stuff like that that isn't even the question.And I won't get a straight answer.
You've already gotten the straight answer, several times.
It's not our fault you can't understand it.
I live in Oklahoma and did not pay one cent for my voter registration card?
I would really like to see a list of states that make people pay. Bet they are all blue states.
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.No it's not hateful or racist it's pragmatic, Republicans want it passed because it would prevent many democrats from voting, democrats don't want it passed for the same reason. But voted ID's will be expensive and they will prevent many people from voting.
It's simple math, if the state is going to fund them then it will cost the already dangerously poor country billions more. And I seriously question it's effectiveness considering I could get past it in a few minutes for an absentee Ballot (there is a reason why photocopies of documents are not accepted as valid), I can easily modify it. If I can do it then I suspect anyone who is actually trying to change the result of an election could definitely do it. So we just wasted money and prevented some people from voting without fixing the problem.HOW HOW HOW is it going to prevent Democrats, Republicans, Independents or anyone else from voting Josak?
Examples have been given of how easy it is to walk in a polling place and get a ballot just by saying Hi there I am so and so. Where I vote they never ask for an ID. Never. Now how do they know who I am or if I am even registered to vote.
As American View pointed out...The Democrats have tried to pass the same sort of thing because of course...you know....voter fraud.
They don't want this so people....bussed by the unions...can't go from place to place and vote. We know this to be true.Look I am not engaging the conspiracy theories and dirty talk because neither of us can prove that the unions do any such thing or that Republicans don't. There is no hypocrisy in saying I did not approve when the dems did it either, I am not a democrat anyway as you know.
How does it prevent voters? Ever been to ghetto? How many of the people there do you think have the money to buy the ID (if the state is paying for it that's a whole different issue), the documentation required to get it?, the transportation to get to right place to do so and the inclination to do any of those things? How many of those people do you think would vote Romney?Josak they all have Social Security cards and I am willing to be a program could be set up...to which I would not be opposed it would be money well spent to insure the sanctity of our voting system. It's not that complicated.
You have a group who doesn't want you to be able to have a clear picture of the actual number of registered voters. That's why the DOJ won't let you purge the rolls in Florida of the registered dead voters. Those names will be handy. Call that a conspiracy theory of you will. I believe it.
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 hypocrisyJeffs 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."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.Oh why don't you actually read what Jeff writes rather than what you hope he writes?
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.
Right: they were voting in someone else's name with absentee ballots, which a voter ID check at the polls would. Not. Catch.
In addition if there were voter ID laws, they would not be able to get an absentee ballot to use in the first place.
You don't have to show up in person to get an absentee ballot. Have you ever voted with one? I have. No ID was required; I just mailed in my application, and got the ballot by return mail.
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.
No. Reread my post.
It said:
"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?" [I put in the italics so you wouldn't miss the important bits.]
And as an aside, I ought to have called you on this earlier: I never once said I was for any voter ID law. You either made that up entirely, or you're confusing me with somebody else.
So, you're attributing to me things I never said, and somehow you reached the conclusion that being me being against two similar things means that I'm actually against one but for the other. Great use of the ol' critical thinking skills, there, mate.
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. ""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!!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.
here's another place where photo IDs are required at a democratic book signing
gotta laugh
http://nation.foxnews.com/michelle-obam … pFoxNationSee 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?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.
I think the difference lies in a Constitutional Right versus a privilege. Of course the Constitution can be amended.
That is for security reasons... any sane person can see that is necessary.
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?
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.
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.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.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?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.
Yes of course they have proof, they said so, and if that is good enough for them it should be good enough for you!
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.
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.
Anything in the universe except make a person prove who they are before they vote right?
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.................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.
And put no obstacle in the way of people exercising their right to elect those who would rule them.
How is it not an obstacle? Anything that gets in the way is an obstacle.
Gets in the way of what John? Citizens voting?
No problem there......just want to be certain they actually are citizens.
You know it doesn't work that a guy born and raised in say...Myanmar..can just get up out of bed one day...say hey I'm and American and come across and vote in our national elections.Well why is that really a problem? If he feels so connected with his new country that he feels he should have a say and registers to vote, what harm does it do?
Apart from the fact that he's more likely to be right wing that is!NO....you missed that I never said anything about registering because the whole point is some just come here and don't and want to vote and these folk I have been dealing with think that is just great and is why they don't want an ID system. That way you don't know who is and who isn't.
Also if they had registered they would have an ID. That's part two.You mean you have a system where people can vote without registering!
Well, I suppose we do too in the UK, we can't refuse anybody a vote but if they aren't on the register and demand the right to vote, the first thing the polling officer has to do is close the polling station and then produce a wad of forms which he and the putative voter must then fill in. Having done that and after a warning about the risk involved with fraudulent voting, the voter is then issued with a different distinctively coloured ballot paper on which he marks his vote.
Then the polling station is reopened.
Also you aren't a citizen because you stand on the soil and breath the air.
From a friend's facebook page: "AND I, who have NOT committed nor been convicted of a felony, have NOW had my sacred right to vote stripped from me, just because my SC State Driver's License expired and I could NOT afford to renew it. The state of SC wants $130 to renew my license because they claim that I drove 5 days with expired auto insurance, once upon a time, hypothetically in a car that did not even run and which had NO license tags on it. So EVEN though I've been registered at the same precinct for decades, and have even done a stint as precinct manager at same precinct, AND everyone who works the polls KNOWS me and my family, I am NOT allowed to vote without the official state photo I.D. I will return to DMV and try to get an I.D.card Monday and will take my long-form birth certificate, electric bill, water bill, DD-214, fingerprint card, dog tags, and am prepared to donate a urine sample to the SC DMV if so required."
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?have I ever done something like that JSC? I like sticking to facts and what can be proved, unless there is actual evidence of mass voter fraud I won't be complaining about it and those who do I will ignore just as I ignored your statements about union people being bused from place to place. I think the Wisconsin elections were fair and not significantly altered by fraud, I think the people made a dumb decision but that is besides the point.
It's usually Republicans I see complaining about voter fraud.Josak go look at all those threads this past week and YOU my friend are in there bemoaning the results.
There were accusations of paid off elections and all throughout that mess.
You know there will be caterwauling to the high heavens.Bemoaning the results sure, suggesting fraud? Not me. I am hardly responsible for what others do am I? If they don't have proof I regard their claims in the same light as this claim for the necessity of voter ID.
OK man......maybe not you on the fraud but you know that's going to be the very first thing followed by how we need investigations and a national ID system.
That's what will happen. They can do that but we can't
Because as you well know I am EEEEEEEEEVILLLLLLLL!!!!Understand this, it's very clear, I am not a democrat, I will not be asking for the ID if Romney wins, I will still think it's a bad idea, I don't think you are evil, I have no responsibility for what other say, you have been unable to prove that the ID would be better than giving the money to charity and have turned to some argument about how other people like might want it in future, it's pretty weak.
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?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.
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.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 onif 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?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.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.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?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."Jeff,
I know I cannot answer how things happen in every state, I have only lived in New York, Texas, Florida. I know how the systems work in those three states.
I think you're giving too much power to the Secretary of State.all they do is ratify the election based on the results that are given to them to review. Could they alter something, absolutely but then somebody in the lower districts would know something isn't right.
As far as the ballots themselves I agree there needs to be two-part system, an electronic with a paper backup. I also believe there needs to be two sets of teams to oversight that system one team oversees electronic, the other team oversees the paper backup. The two shall never meet or talk during the election counting process. They should be kept in separate locations until after the election is certified. That way if there are two different tallies they can be addressed.
The original voter act in 2003 discussed how to purge the voter rolls, but I agree with you it should be done by a committee. I get quite the chuckle as Eric Holder for not allowing Florida to purge the rolls of nonvoters. When he was told they were removing the dead people based on the death rolls provided by Social Security, he said that wasn't acceptable. Unreal, where else would be the best place to get an accurate count of the death rolls than Social Security. There is an automatic provision in the law that if you don't vote for two presidential elections in a row your name is supposed to be purged from the list. Holder is against that too, which would mean he's breaking the law. But as I said despite those things I agree purging should be done with a committee to avoid purging ineligible voter.
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.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.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.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.
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 excusesYou 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.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.Easy, you can google it, there's loads of examples especially for the 2000 Presidential elections.
Really, I do not find any articles showing there was widespread corruption at state levels, multiple ballots being discarded or discounted or even purged that were registered Democrats. No arrests, no warrants, no convictions, nothing
Really, I asked for a legitimate source to show the claims from above, and you use a link to a movie review. WOW, what a credible source.
Well when you innacurately cited HAVA to back up your assertions about voter IDs being required at polling places, I provided plenty of backup by linking to the actual law instead of just calling it a "democrat law" and by citing the actual sections that require a photo ID at the poll in one very specific situation. You were pretty much dead wrong about that, but when I provided solid proof it didn't convince you.
I could go do all your research for you once again but I think it would pretty much be a waste of my time.
The movie is quite good and it will be a good starting point for anyone who is actually interested in looking into the issue. For those who already have their minds made up, facts won't really matter.
Peace out.
First hit on google -
http://www.getreallist.com/new-info-on- … orida.html
try harder!John,
That was the first hit I got on Google to, the differences I don't consider that a credible source. A copy of an e-mail about an independent film that will be shown at the Sundance film Festival. Is this the best you can do, again can you show any articles, something legitimate not from a blogger or writing that is somebody's opinion, and please, no more movie reviews or promotions, that shows wide spread corruption on state levels, multiple ballots being discarded or discounted or even purged that were registered Democrats.Can you show any evidence that this did not happen? Of course excluding any government sources or any other partisan parties?
This conversation has gone the way so many on here go, no one is listening to anyone and everyone thinks they know best... Adios.
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..."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.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.
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.
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?
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 questionYou 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.
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.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
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!
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.
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!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.OK look...
they way this will work...
IF YOU ARE A REGISTERED VOTER YOU WOULD HAVE AN ID CARD.
Now unless you just left the thing in your other pants when you went to vote you wouldn't have a problem.
So you got to vote. You wouldn't want non-registered people to vote would you.
Or should anybody,,,just anybody...walk up and vote?JS, if you are a registered voter, you will be on the register . . . won't you?
Yes but the logic of all this pretzel twisting argument is an ID will keep people fro voting when it won't unless you weren't supposed to anyway.
And so would not being on the register.
Show me this massive problem with personation and I'll come down in favour of voter ID.
It's fairly simple.In the UK we have a register of voters, if your name is on that register you can vote, if it isn't, you can still vote but you have to jump through hoops to do so and your ballot paper will be easily distinguishable from all the rest.
There is no problem and no evidence of wide spread abuse.
I suppose it boils down to freedom, I live in this country and why should I have to prove to anybody that this is my home?But the whole point is that not everyone can easily get a photo ID. Seniors on a fixed income may not have a photo ID - so do they have to pay money to get one? Someone who doesn't drive and doesn't have a drivers license will have to pay to get a photo ID. Etc. It's basically making the very basic right of voting subject to a fee. Even if it's a small fee, it's still out of reach of some people.
Voting is a fundamental right, it should be refused to no one. Most of the fraud happens at higher levels, not because of an individual here or there who can somehow vote twice. Even if someone can vote 10 times, that's hard for them to do and easy to get caught.
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!
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.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!
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.No,you don't understand. What is to prevent your fraudulent voter from having that dead persons ID.
Related Discussions
- 44
Why don't I have to show an ID to vote for president or anyone else?
by Judy Specht 12 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...
- 562
Illegals Voting For Republicans
by American View 7 years ago
If all the I illegal Aliens said tomorrow they are voting Republican, would the Dems desire Voter ID cards, would they want the voter rolls updated, would they have backed Obama's amnesty for the young illegals?
- 32
Broward Election Fraud - Now Can We Finally Pass a Voter ID Law?
by Ralph Schwartz 5 years ago
The story sounds like a headline ripped from a third-world nation. Election supervisors illegally adding votes, more and more votes appearing from hidden alcoves, and when challenged, Brenda Snipes is refusing to allow anyone to see or count the votes. Florida election laws are violated...
- 58
The Brits Are Stealing Our Idiots
by ga anderson 19 months ago
It's just for chuckles, not a serious discussion. There have been countless Voter ID discussions and the 'anti's' are seldom able to support their opposition, but when I saw this tweet it brought a chuckle.The gist: apparently the UK government is now requiring an ID to vote. It also appears that,...
- 22
Most Americans Want Voter ID
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
I agree with voter ID. It seems that 80 percent of the nations want as well."Amid plenty of partisan rancor over election integrity and voter suppression, a new national poll indicates that most Americans support requiring voter identification to cast a ballot and easier access to early...
- 49
Democrats who won't accept Presidential election results
by Readmikenow 3 years 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...