Voter ID Issue

[homersapien 11,347]

Question for everyone. Is this motivated purely by politics or is there/has there been a real problem with voter fraud? Is this a practical solution to a real problem or is this a solution looking for a problem? Should we remove the volunteers who typically run the polling stations and put U.S. Marshalls in their place or should we wait for the problem to get worse? I doubt people so devious as to undermine the democratic process by committing voter fraud are going to be stopped so easily. Honestly, this sounds like partisan bickering over a very minor tactical advantage and frankly I don't care about either party. I am much more interested in the country.

I think this became of interest due to the 2000 race in Florida that was (supposedly) settled by a little over 500 votes.

But to answer your question directly, no, there is not a problem.

Is this truly the only example? Was there even any documented voter fraud in Florida in 2000? Was there even an accusation? All I remember is hanging chads and votes that were nullified because of multiple selections for the same office.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply the outcome in Florida was due to voter fraud. My point is that the Republicans understand a few hundred votes here and there, has the potential to make a difference, even if rarely.

It's obvious they think they can suppress the opposition vote enough to make a difference in their favor. It will be ironic if it backfires on them by inspiring more poor people to get politically involved, which some analysts feel happened in 2012.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Question for everyone. Is this motivated purely by politics or is there/has there been a real problem with voter fraud? Is this a practical solution to a real problem or is this a solution looking for a problem? Should we remove the volunteers who typically run the polling stations and put U.S. Marshalls in their place or should we wait for the problem to get worse? I doubt people so devious as to undermine the democratic process by committing voter fraud are going to be stopped so easily. Honestly, this sounds like partisan bickering over a very minor tactical advantage and frankly I don't care about either party. I am much more interested in the country.

I think this became of interest due to the 2000 race in Florida that was (supposedly) settled by a little over 500 votes.

But to answer your question directly, no, there is not a problem.

Is this truly the only example? Was there even any documented voter fraud in Florida in 2000? Was there even an accusation? All I remember is hanging chads and votes that were nullified because of multiple selections for the same office.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply the outcome in Florida was due to voter fraud. My point is that the Republicans understand a few hundred votes here and there, has the potential to make a difference, even if rarely.

It's obvious they think they can suppress the opposition vote enough to make a difference in their favor. It will be ironic if it backfires on them by inspiring more poor people to get politically involved, which some analysts feel happened in 2012.

I didn't infer that is what you meant. I am surprised that no one has offered any other examples of anything even remotely close. I guess that answers the question. You would think that after 9 pages of responses with such conviction, there would be at least one specific example. Someone could at the very least come up with the 1960 Presidential election. Or, maybe you are the only one who doesn't have me on ignore. Either way, I am more convinced than ever that this is nothing but partisan nonsense. In the end, they may stop 1 fraudulent vote but at the cost of eliminating hundreds of legitimate votes. It would appear that in fact is the goal. Once again, politics is more important than government.

[BamaGrad03 146]

This took about 30 seconds http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Dead-and-Still-Voting-177286281.html

So now we've gone beyond the assumption that you don't need to show your ID because nobody does any fraud. (We don't take anyone one's word for it that they are who they say they are in ANY OTHER THING, but ok). They're just all super nice people who, for some reason, refuse to show identification.

Now we are admitting that there's voter fraud, but it's not enough to impact an election? So does an election have to be fradulently won before you would support it? Or would that still be too mean?

[BamaGrad03 146]

In the end, they may stop 1 fraudulent vote but at the cost of eliminating hundreds of legitimate votes

How? What reasonable purpose would you have for refusing to show your ID at a polling station?

[homersapien 11,347]

Probably more to fear from the computers tabulating if you want to break it down.

I agree with that completely. Systems without a paper trail should not be allowed.

[homersapien 11,347]

It's just common sense to require someone to prove they are who they say they are with a photo ID to vote. Yes, it's a right. That doesn't mean we can't require valid ID that anyone would require for something as simple as writing a check.

There are ways to minimize the hiccups for people who don't have one...give plenty of lead time for getting one before the law goes into effect. If anyone is shutting down or shortening hours at the DMV, that's bull****. Have a least a few locations open after hours or one weekend, particularly in the months leading up to an election. If someone can demonstrate they cannot afford a photo ID, then make provisions to subsidize it. This is not a herculean task.

The only reason that someone could possibly have to oppose it if similar provisions are made is that they are up to no good. Period.

First, I understand that the North Carolina law also reduced early voting opportunities and eliminated Sunday voting altogether.

Secondly, in the absence of a problem that needs to be solved, one can oppose it in good faith if it simply serves to disenfranchise voters.

https://www.aclu.org...ion-infographic

1/10 of white voters do not have a photo ID whereas 1/4 of black voters don't have one.

http://www.delcotime...2c941248582.txt

It’s plain that vote engineering is the real motive behind voter ID campaigns. In Pennsylvania at least, the people most likely to lack an approved ID card are the elderly, the poor, minorities and those who live in cities — all solid Democratic constituencies that tend to occupy urban concentrations east and west.....

But the most loathsome aspect of suppressive voter ID efforts is the way they undermine a core right of American citizenship. The fact is simply this: If you’re an American citizen without a felony conviction, you have an unfettered right to vote, GOP-approved identification or not.

The disengenuous excuse for saying otherwise is that voter impersonation fraud at the polls — notice we said impersonation, not registration — demands that voters prove their identity with a piece of plastic. But voter impersonation fraud is such a non-issue that the state declined to make it a factor in this summer’s trial.

Other sites of interest:

http://www.democracy...lyer1-18-11.pdf

http://mediamatters....aims-but/189823

If the provisions I mention are put into place, how does it disenfranchise anyone except those up to no good and the lazy? If such minimal adjustments to ensure people are who they say they are can't be done, why bother with any ID at all?

I wouldn't characterize people without a picture ID as "no good and lazy" without some evidence. And apparently, identifying people hasn't presented a problem with the poll workers. But then, the voter typically provides their name and the poll worker looks it up on the lists, which also shows their address. I would expect that discrepancies (like two different people showing up to vote under the same name) would be immediately apparent. Don't forget that everyone has to sign the voter list also.

So how about explaining just how all these "no good and lazy" people are going to scam the system? Do you know how many of these "no good and lazy" people have caused a problem so far?

[homersapien 11,347]

This took about 30 seconds http://www.nbcbayare...-177286281.html

So now we've gone beyond the assumption that you don't need to show your ID because nobody does any fraud. (We don't take anyone one's word for it that they are who they say they are in ANY OTHER THING, but ok). They're just all super nice people who, for some reason, refuse to show identification.

Now we are admitting that there's voter fraud, but it's not enough to impact an election? So does an election have to be fradulently won before you would support it? Or would that still be too mean?

First, no one said you don't need to show any ID. Everyone has some sort of ID they can present, if asked. And I doubt that anyone "refuses" to show ID. I certainly don't have a problem with showing some sort of ID or even a bill with your name and address on it. This sounds more like a problem with the registrars office than a problem with ID's

But yes, if the photo ID requirement prevents 10 legitimate votes for every fraudulent vote it prevents, then it is obviously bad law.

If there is a problem with fraudulent voting it needs to be addressed in a way that doesn't disenfranchise people. You don't have a problem with that general statement do you?

[homersapien 11,347]

In the end, they may stop 1 fraudulent vote but at the cost of eliminating hundreds of legitimate votes

How? What reasonable purpose would you have for refusing to show your ID at a polling station?

Again, if you have some sort of ID to show who you are, nothing.

But, if you have no transportation or time to take off from work to go where ever you are supposed to go to get this new photo ID, it creates an unnecessary obstacle before you can vote. That may sound like a specious argument but I can assure you that people living in poverty have to deal with these sort of hassles on a regular basis.

This is more about creating obstacles by running people through the registration system anew, which will have a disproportionate effect on what Republicans assume are Democratic voters as Rep Mike Turzai, of Pennsylvania let slip:

The GOP is supposed to pretend that its 2012 strategy doesn't include the systematic disenfranchisement of lower-income blacks and Latinos. But in June, Mike Turzai, Republican majority leader of the Pennsylvania House, blew his party's cover by blurting out: "Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania? Done."

Of course there are several other voter suppression tactics employed by the GOP, including fraudulent phone calls:

Former Florida GOP Chairman Jim Greer (currently under indictment for stealing party funds) stated in a deposition released in July that a 2009 party meeting included discussion of "voter suppression and keeping blacks from voting."

In December, Paul Schurick, a top aide to former Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich, was convicted of election fraud for using automated phone calls to suppress the African-American vote during Mr. Ehrlich's unsuccessful 2010 bid. "The first and most desired outcome is voter suppression," stated one consultant's memo entered into evidence. It described a "Schurick Doctrine" to "promote confusion, emotionalism and frustration among African-American Democrats.

While the above represents facts, not opinion, I agree with the following opinion:

Voter ID

This is the preeminent tool. Attorney General Eric Holder has correctly likened voter ID laws, which have passed in 33 states, to poll taxes. Their popularity derives from their reasonableness. Why shouldn't we prevent imposters from committing electoral identity theft? Because it solves a nonexistent problem.

New York University Law School's Brennan Center for Justice has calculated that the incidence of individual voter fraud is equivalent to the incidence of individual Americans getting struck by lightning. Even the lawyers defending Pennsylvania's voter ID law stipulated in court that the state knew of no incidents of in-person fraud.

What voter ID laws are useful for is reducing voter participation by you know who. Requiring an unexpired government ID, a bank statement or a utility bill works well. Requiring an unexpired government photo ID, such as a driver's license or a passport, is better, because about 25 percent of African-Americans and 16 percent of Latinos don't have any -- as against 11 percent of the general population.

The nine states with the strictest photo ID requirements are mostly rural, which means the government offices where such ID can be obtained are likelier to be far away and to keep irregular hours. The Woodville, Miss., office is open only on the second Thursday of every month. Wisconsin's Sauk City office is open only on the fifth Wednesday of every month, and since eight months in 2012 don't even have a fifth Wednesday, the office will open its doors only four days this year.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/masters-of-voter-suppression-republicans-employ-many-techniques-to-keep-low-income-voters-away-from-the-polls-648218/#ixzz2d2waP9zy

[icanthearyou 4,462]

In the end, they may stop 1 fraudulent vote but at the cost of eliminating hundreds of legitimate votes

How? What reasonable purpose would you have for refusing to show your ID at a polling station?

I have never owned or driven a car and therefore I do not have a license. Will you please accept my social security card as ID? How about my AARP card? Now bammer, answer my question please. Do you have any evidence to support a case that voter fraud is or has been a problem. And, don't give me that bull that it doesn't matter, if there is any fraud it is too much. You can never totally prevent people from doing what you don't want them to do. Never in the course of human history has that been achieved on the kind of scale you are talking about. Okay, now that you cannot. Big thanks to you and Weegs for the giant waste of time. The country must be doing really well since you have time to solve problems that don't even exist. Or, maybe you guys are just ahead of the curve and can see into the future as a massive wave of voter fraud sweeps across the country. Maybe you would rest easier if we chip everyone. Hey, I've got a great idea. Why don't we talk about some real problems. Maybe we could get some interesting ideas on how to grow the economy. How about opinions on regulating the financial markets. No, that's all meaningless. Voter ID is much more important. Why don't we talk about two forms of ID. I used to go to a pool hall and you had to have two forms of ID to get a table. Of course that was only if Lou didn't know you. Maybe we could send everyone to the neighborhood pool hall to vote with two forms of ID. Would this help you. What will it take. Sorry for asking but I don't have that much experience trying to fix things that aren't broken. Please tell me if you hear any ideas that you like. I just don't know how to measure success in this sort of endeavor. How about picture IDs with 3D holographs that project the person in full scale. That way, people who just look like you wouldn't be able to take you ID and vote in your place. No wait, I've got it. This is brilliant, the perfect compromise. If you don't have a picture ID, your vote only counts as two-thirds of a vote. How about that? There, your monumental problem is taken care of. Seriously though, are you on dope? There is a fire in the kitchen and you want to put another deadbolt on the front door? Do you really believe this belongs anywhere on the list of priorities for this country, it's citizens, or it's government?

[Ouchyfish 67]

Paragraphs are cool.

[homersapien 11,347]

Paragraphs are cool.

Really!

Please, no offense ican, but I can't read that until some appear.

[TexasTiger 12,796]

In the end, they may stop 1 fraudulent vote but at the cost of eliminating hundreds of legitimate votes

How? What reasonable purpose would you have for refusing to show your ID at a polling station?

Not having one.

[MDM4AU 321]

Enough with the name calling, folks! Either discuss this like an adult or take your childish a$$ somewhere else.

If you can't get that rule through your thick head you're not as smart as you think you are.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Enough with the name calling, folks! Either discuss this like an adult or take your childish a$$ somewhere else.

If you can't get that rule through your thick head you're not as smart as you think you are.

To whom are you referring?

[TitanTiger 20,465]

So, if I saw a vulnerability in a system...be it computer, or physical security at a key facility. Even if I had no evidence that anyone had attempted to exploit the vulnerability, would it be reasonable not to address it and fix it? I should only move to correct an obvious exploit vector once someone has actually taken advantage of it? That makes no sense.

Photo IDs make it harder to get away with fraud, in all sorts of matters. It seems like a rather obvious thing to fix. I'm not sure I understand the resistance if the various hurdles can be adequately addressed. Because I'm not interested in depriving anyone who has the right to vote of that right. But I am absolutely interested in preventing anyone who doesn't have that right from doing so, or preventing people from manipulating that right to game elections.

[telling tiger 156]

[AUcivE09 582]

Ugh - I agree with the bammer.........

Liberals know good and well why the rest of us want ID laws. Racism as an excuse is just plain stupid. If you are over the age of 18 and still have absolutely no form of identification - you probably are not a good candidate to vote anyway. Every year after an election there are articles up about how many "dead" people voted, and if you go on youtube there is a video of a black woman bragging about voting 6 times.

[TitanTiger 20,465]

Would you mind addressing my post?

So, if I saw a vulnerability in a system...be it computer, or physical security at a key facility. Even if I had no evidence that anyone had attempted to exploit the vulnerability, would it be reasonable not to address it and fix it? I should only move to correct an obvious exploit vector once someone has actually taken advantage of it? That makes no sense.

Photo IDs make it harder to get away with fraud, in all sorts of matters. It seems like a rather obvious thing to fix. I'm not sure I understand the resistance if the various hurdles can be adequately addressed. Because I'm not interested in depriving anyone who has the right to vote of that right. But I am absolutely interested in preventing anyone who doesn't have that right from doing so, or preventing people from manipulating that right to game elections.

[MDM4AU 321]

Enough with the name calling, folks! Either discuss this like an adult or take your childish a$$ somewhere else.

If you can't get that rule through your thick head you're not as smart as you think you are.

To whom are you referring?

Everyone.

[telling tiger 156]

A lot of outrage over an issue that is mostly in effect for the segments of the country that the membership here will reside in for the most part. Alabama will soon join the ranks, North Carolina has, Pennsylvania is awaiting a court challenge. In some areas of the country I do believe it is to manipulate the electorate. I'm accustomed to not being part of the mainstream opinion here and am most comfortable that way. http://www.ncsl.org/legislatures-elections/elections/voter-id.aspx............ all this hubbub for an issue that is mostly decided in the southeastern US and many other areas, as well.

[TitanTiger 20,465]

It just seems to me that the sensible position is not to oppose photo IDs, but to make sure that such requirements have plenty of lead time to allow voters without IDs to acquire them, make sure that locations and means to get them are available to people who work all day (such as having some DMVs open into the evening and weekends), making sure that the cost is not prohibitive for the poor and so on. "Let's get every legal voter a photo ID" ASAP, not "Let's pretend photo IDs aren't necessary."

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

A lot of the people the liberals are concerned about already have photo IDs. They need one to get their food stamps, free cell phones, etc.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Enough with the name calling, folks! Either discuss this like an adult or take your childish a$$ somewhere else.

If you can't get that rule through your thick head you're not as smart as you think you are.

To whom are you referring?

Everyone.

The only post I have seen that included "name calling" was yours. ???????

[icanthearyou 4,462]

So, if I saw a vulnerability in a system...be it computer, or physical security at a key facility. Even if I had no evidence that anyone had attempted to exploit the vulnerability, would it be reasonable not to address it and fix it? I should only move to correct an obvious exploit vector once someone has actually taken advantage of it? That makes no sense.

You realize that such vulnerabilities are infinite? This is the sort of justification and logic that bureaucrats embrace. It is void of perspective and priority and generally serves a purpose other than the stated one.

Photo IDs make it harder to get away with fraud, in all sorts of matters. It seems like a rather obvious thing to fix. I'm not sure I understand the resistance if the various hurdles can be adequately addressed. Because I'm not interested in depriving anyone who has the right to vote of that right. But I am absolutely interested in preventing anyone who doesn't have that right from doing so, or preventing people from manipulating that right to game elections.

Embedded chips would do a better job.

[MDM4AU 321]

Enough with the name calling, folks! Either discuss this like an adult or take your childish a$$ somewhere else.

If you can't get that rule through your thick head you're not as smart as you think you are.

To whom are you referring?

Everyone.

The only post I have seen that included "name calling" was yours. ???????

I guess you calling BG, "bammer" must be blocked from your view.

In the end, they may stop 1 fraudulent vote but at the cost of eliminating hundreds of legitimate votes

How? What reasonable purpose would you have for refusing to show your ID at a polling station?

I have never owned or driven a car and therefore I do not have a license. Will you please accept my social security card as ID? How about my AARP card? Now bammer, answer my question please...

I didn't want to call you out specifically because I hadn't looked at all the posts. I was wanting to put the rule out there before things got worse. That happens quite a bit in this forum if you haven't noticed.

Have a good day.