Voter ID Issue

[TitanTiger 20,482]

First, I'd like to hear how the current system is going to be potentially gamed on such a scale

It doesn't have to be on a massive scale. 500 votes statewide in Florida could have changed the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election where almost 6 million votes were cast.

But it wouldn't take that much funny business going on to affect a Comgressional race, or a state legislative seat, or a judicial seat.

Secondly, one does not introduce "fixes" for "potential" problems when those fixes carry a high, known cost, in this case, voter suppression.

Photo ID, in and of itself, does not introduce voter suppression.

Republicans are pushing for this to make it harder for poor people to vote, which they assume will help them. We know that too, both from their history of such tactics and from the occasional slip up when they actually admit it.

Some Republicans may wish to do that. I, and probably the vast majority of the 70% or so of Americans that support requiring photo ID to vote, just want reasonable ID requirements for elections...be they for President or City Council. And I believe it can be done without adding on the disenfranchising elements I mentioned before.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

We require ID now, but it's stupid simple to copy. Any lobotomy patient with a laser printer could fake a voter ID card.

Yeah, one vote at a time. And it will be virtually undetected, because, well because somehow, they will know exactly what voters aren't going to show up to find they already voted.

That's going to happen on a massive scale. :-\/>

Yeah, because the only way to perpetrate voter fraud is by getting to the polling place before a live person makes it there to cast their ballot. No voting for dead people. No voting for people who didn't go to the polls (which even in national elections can hover around 45%...much higher in primaries and local elections).

[homersapien 11,373]

First, I'd like to hear how the current system is going to be potentially gamed on such a scale

It doesn't have to be on a massive scale. 500 votes statewide in Florida could have changed the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election where almost 6 million votes were cast.

That was a very unusual situation, but even so, it would be very unlikely that 500 votes would be fraudulently cast for one candidate via false ID without being detected.

And to address such a possibility with a method that would disenfranchise thousands of voters makes the cure worse than the illness.

But it wouldn't take that much funny business going on to affect a Comgressional race, or a state legislative seat, or a judicial seat.

Secondly, one does not introduce "fixes" for "potential" problems when those fixes carry a high, known cost, in this case, voter suppression.

Photo ID, in and of itself, does not introduce voter suppression.

You are repeating yourself. We already covered this.

Republicans are pushing for this to make it harder for poor people to vote, which they assume will help them. We know that too, both from their history of such tactics and from the occasional slip up when they actually admit it.

Some Republicans may wish to do that. I, and probably the vast majority of the 70% or so of Americans that support requiring photo ID to vote, just want reasonable ID requirements for elections...be they for President or City Council. And I believe it can be done without adding on the disenfranchising elements I mentioned before.

That's because they don't understand the realities of the issue, which is what makes it such a great tactic for Republicans. It sounds so reasonable. But if the poll question was rephrased to include the facts, you wouldn't see such support.

Requiring an ID itself is a disenfranchising element. Had they always been required and you got one when you registered it would be different. But the fact it disenfranchises voters is not really disputed. (see my "media matters" references.)

[homersapien 11,373]

We require ID now, but it's stupid simple to copy. Any lobotomy patient with a laser printer could fake a voter ID card.

Yeah, one vote at a time. And it will be virtually undetected, because, well because somehow, they will know exactly what voters aren't going to show up to find they already voted.

That's going to happen on a massive scale. :-\/>

Yeah, because the only way to perpetrate voter fraud is by getting to the polling place before a live person makes it there to cast their ballot. No voting for dead people. No voting for people who didn't go to the polls (which even in national elections can hover around 45%...much higher in primaries and local elections).

Then let's have some initiatives to purge the voter lists of expired people. Everyone has to have a death certificate, right? Why not link the issuance of a death certificate to the voter rolls.

And again, show me some large scale cases of voter fraud involving "no-shows". If such evidence existed, don't you think the Republicans would be shouting them from the rooftops?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

That was a very unusual situation, but even so, it would be very unlikely that 500 votes would be fraudulently cast for one candidate via false ID without being detected.

In a state with 6 million votes cast and many more registered voters than that, it could be done given that virtually the only check is that you chose to impersonate a living voter and had bad timing.

And to address such a possibility with a method that would disenfranchise thousands of voters makes the cure worse than the illness.

Only if you do it wrong or add extra elements to the law.

But it wouldn't take that much funny business going on to affect a Comgressional race, or a state legislative seat, or a judicial seat.

It would only take a few votes in these cases.

You are repeating yourself. We already covered this.

I repeat myself because you keep trotting out the same stuff about not having enough time before the next election, shortened early voting periods and other stuff that can be dealt with separately. Those things are not necessitated by a photo ID law for voting.

That's because they don't understand the realities of the issue, which is what makes it such a great tactic for Republicans. It sounds so reasonable. But if the poll question was rephrased to include the facts, you wouldn't see such support.

You mean facts about things that aren't photo I'd related, they've just been added on by unscrupulous politicians to tilt the field.

Requiring an ID itself is a disenfranchising element. Had they always been required and you got one when you registered it would be different. But the fact it disenfranchises voters is not really disputed. (see my "media matters" references.)

You've got to be ******* kidding me.

[Ouchyfish 67]

Bottom line...most honest people want there to be as little left to chance in voting as possible. Making sure everyone is who they say they are (by way of ID) makes perfect sense and hurts NO ONE if the ID can be free.

If the ID is free, get your butt down there and get one to vote. If you don't have ID, how the hell can we even assume you are legally entitled to the right to vote in the first place?

I guess the real problem isn't just the ID's but like i stated earlier: You are going to have to find a way to supervise the people running the precincts. They are ultimately the ones that can have a direct impact on the false votes. (Whether the people are who they say they are or not.)

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1. It is a solution looking for a problem.

I disagree. In other areas where there is motivation to fake an identity, we use photo ID all the time. And I doubt every situation that calls for it had reams of data showing rampant identity fraud before they acted.

2. The true motives are political, not practical.

I'm well aware of those problems but the things that make it political can be separated from the ID requirement itself.

3. It is bureaucratic and will lead to a never ending chain of even more bureaucratic actions.

We already have the infrastructure in place to issue photo IDs from the 80-90% of the public that already has and uses them on a daily basis. Aside from providing a way for the poor to obtain one free of charge, there's really not much in the way of added bureaucracy.

4. If there is a problem, it lies in registration and the solutions have nothing to do with photo ID.

A. Remove deceased voters

B. Remove convicted felons

C. Prevent loosely affiliated partisan groups from fraudulently registering voters in the first place. ACORN as an example.

All good ideas. Implement those too.

5. Photo ID would be a futile countermeasure against someone determined to commit voter fraud.

If someone is determined enough, no security measure will ever be enough. The idea is to make it harder to pull off and harder to get away with.

6. Your logic specifically is flawed on a galactic scale. Do you wear a bulletproof vest when you leave home? Why not? Why wait for someone to threaten your life?

You can't be too proactive. I see an obvious gaping personal security vector.

The logic that is flawed is the notion that if you don't take EVERY possible measure known in the universe then it makes no sense to take any. People take all manner of protective measure depending on what we're talking about, how practical it is, how affordable it is and so on.

7. Vulnerability? Loophole begging to be exploited? Find an example of a contested election in which the alleged fraud could have been prevented by requiring photo ID. It is simply not an efficient enough method to rig an election.

Given the lax ID standards in place now, how would you catch a perp doing this? If they've done their homework, the likelihood of getting caught is small. And again, we're not just talking about Presidential elections where the numbers might have to be much higher. There are Congressional district elections, state legislature and judicial seat elections, referendums and all other sorts of things where a small, well-planned voter fraud effort could easily tip the scales.

Finally, your analogy is as faulty as the rest of your logic. This is not analogous to repairing the lock on your front door. The lock is fine. It may stick a little but it is working. This is analogous to adding a deadbolt while there is a fire raging in the kitchen.

Utter nonsense.

This issue has no business anywhere on this country's list of priorities right now. Again, this is not a practical issue, this is political nonsense. And, it's not even smart as a political tactic. This is the country's big problem? Wow, Obama must be doing a great job if this is at the forefront of the political debate. If the Republicans divert the nation's attention away from the real problems and onto more matters like this, they may as well start thinking about how President Hillary Clinton sounds to them or maybe they like the sound of President Joe Biden better. Heck if the they really apply themselves, maybe they can get Obama the elusive third term.

As if this is the number one issue Republicans are pushing or as if Democrats are out trying to solve real problems. Give me a break.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

1. It is a solution looking for a problem.

I disagree. In other areas where there is motivation to fake an identity, we use photo ID all the time. And I doubt every situation that calls for it had reams of data showing rampant identity fraud before they acted.

2. The true motives are political, not practical.

I'm well aware of those problems but the things that make it political can be separated from the ID requirement itself.

3. It is bureaucratic and will lead to a never ending chain of even more bureaucratic actions.

We already have the infrastructure in place to issue photo IDs from the 80-90% of the public that already has and uses them on a daily basis. Aside from providing a way for the poor to obtain one free of charge, there's really not much in the way of added bureaucracy.

4. If there is a problem, it lies in registration and the solutions have nothing to do with photo ID.

A. Remove deceased voters

B. Remove convicted felons

C. Prevent loosely affiliated partisan groups from fraudulently registering voters in the first place. ACORN as an example.

All good ideas. Implement those too.

5. Photo ID would be a futile countermeasure against someone determined to commit voter fraud.

If someone is determined enough, no security measure will ever be enough. The idea is to make it harder to pull off and harder to get away with.

6. Your logic specifically is flawed on a galactic scale. Do you wear a bulletproof vest when you leave home? Why not? Why wait for someone to threaten your life?

You can't be too proactive. I see an obvious gaping personal security vector.

The logic that is flawed is the notion that if you don't take EVERY possible measure known in the universe then it makes no sense to take any. People take all manner of protective measure depending on what we're talking about, how practical it is, how affordable it is and so on.

7. Vulnerability? Loophole begging to be exploited? Find an example of a contested election in which the alleged fraud could have been prevented by requiring photo ID. It is simply not an efficient enough method to rig an election.

Given the lax ID standards in place now, how would you catch a perp doing this? If they've done their homework, the likelihood of getting caught is small. And again, we're not just talking about Presidential elections where the numbers might have to be much higher. There are Congressional district elections, state legislature and judicial seat elections, referendums and all other sorts of things where a small, well-planned voter fraud effort could easily tip the scales.

Finally, your analogy is as faulty as the rest of your logic. This is not analogous to repairing the lock on your front door. The lock is fine. It may stick a little but it is working. This is analogous to adding a deadbolt while there is a fire raging in the kitchen.

Utter nonsense.

This issue has no business anywhere on this country's list of priorities right now. Again, this is not a practical issue, this is political nonsense. And, it's not even smart as a political tactic. This is the country's big problem? Wow, Obama must be doing a great job if this is at the forefront of the political debate. If the Republicans divert the nation's attention away from the real problems and onto more matters like this, they may as well start thinking about how President Hillary Clinton sounds to them or maybe they like the sound of President Joe Biden better. Heck if the they really apply themselves, maybe they can get Obama the elusive third term.

As if this is the number one issue Republicans are pushing or as if Democrats are out trying to solve real problems. Give me a break.

Geez, I guess I was wrong about everything. Sorry for the utter nonsense.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

2. The true motives are political, not practical.

I'm well aware of those problems but the things that make it political can be separated from the ID requirement itself.

Sorry, but that's naive with the available evidence being to the contrary.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

2. The true motives are political, not practical.

I'm well aware of those problems but the things that make it political can be separated from the ID requirement itself.

Sorry, but that's naive with the available evidence being to the contrary.

My point is that rather than simply attacking the concept of photo ID requirements, the opposition should instead be supporting them while just attacking the extra provisions that disenfranchise. That would make more sense to the 70% of the public that supports such measures.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Geez, I guess I was wrong about everything. Sorry for the utter nonsense.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Awww, just start from here. By the time you get to 20 pages, it's all repetition anyway.

(jk about Texas. One of my sisters moved to Corpus Christi years ago and I now have "native born" Texans as part of my own family.)

Then you really do know about Texans... Few of the friends i've made here are native Texans, but rather transplants like myself. They are a rare breed here. For the first year I was here I got so frustrated because they think the fast lane is for pulling livestock at 10 miles under the speed limit. Moving from Atlanta to central Texas was like moving back in time.

[homersapien 11,373]

You are repeating yourself. We already covered this.

I repeat myself because you keep trotting out the same stuff about not having enough time before the next election, shortened early voting periods and other stuff that can be dealt with separately. Those things are not necessitated by a photo ID law for voting.

You have misunderstood me if you think that i am conflating all of these issues. I actually agree with your last sentence.

The only reason I brought those other aspects of voter suppression up was to illustrate the NC Republican governors real intent to suppress the vote of certain classes of people.

I agree, those measures have no direct relation to a photo ID, which suppresses the vote in its own right.

Sorry for that misunderstanding. But if you carefully re-read my post that started it, I think you will understand what I was saying.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Geez, I guess I was wrong about everything. Sorry for the utter nonsense.

I just wanted you to be happy. I'll go along with whatever you think. Seriously.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Geez, I guess I was wrong about everything. Sorry for the utter nonsense.

I just wanted you to be happy. I'll go along with whatever you think. Seriously.

Honestly, I've just stopped caring what you think about this.

[homersapien 11,373]

Awww, just start from here. By the time you get to 20 pages, it's all repetition anyway.

(jk about Texas. One of my sisters moved to Corpus Christi years ago and I now have "native born" Texans as part of my own family.)

Then you really do know about Texans... Few of the friends i've made here are native Texans, but rather transplants like myself. They are a rare breed here. For the first year I was here I got so frustrated because they think the fast lane is for pulling livestock at 10 miles under the speed limit. Moving from Atlanta to central Texas was like moving back in time.

LOL!

And I think they are responsible for keeping the US automotive industry viable with their "full size" truck. I drive a Tacoma. In Texas a regular truck is at dualie with a diesel. A Ford 150 is a "compact" truck.

I got the impression that small trucks, even of the domestic variety, aren't even available there.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

False. You have misunderstood me if you think that.

The only reason I brought those up was to illustrate the real intent behind the NC Republican governor to suppress the vote of certain classes of people.

They have no direct relation to the fact that a photo idea also suppresses the vote in it own right. I am not saying that there is a direct relationship among all the various means to suppress the vote other than their real purpose.

Sorry for that misunderstanding.

Thanks for clearing that up. We're on the same page then, or at least very close. I'm not for any photo ID for voting law that suppresses the vote artificially by bolting on arbitrary extra like I mentioned before. If that stuff won't be removed, then I won't support it.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Geez, I guess I was wrong about everything. Sorry for the utter nonsense.

:rolleyes:/>

I just wanted you to be happy. I'll go along with whatever you think. Seriously.

Honestly, I've just stopped caring what you think about this.

That's the great thing about you, always gracious.

[homersapien 11,373]

First, I'd like to hear how the current system is going to be potentially gamed on such a scale

It doesn't have to be on a massive scale. 500 votes statewide in Florida could have changed the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election where almost 6 million votes were cast.

But it wouldn't take that much funny business going on to affect a Comgressional race, or a state legislative seat, or a judicial seat.

First, I didn't say "massive" for that very reason. 500 votes is not many. In fact, using your example, it's 0.0083% of the total vote (if my math is correct.)

So it's not very likely that a coordinated effort to sway that many votes to one side is very likely. Why bother?

On the other hand, a photo ID would most certainly suppress the votes (presumably oriented toward one side) by many times that, certainly well up into the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands.

So which represents the greater threat to the integrity of our system?

[homersapien 11,373]

Requiring an ID itself is a disenfranchising element. Had they always been required and you got one when you registered it would be different. But the fact it disenfranchises voters is not really disputed. (see my "media matters" references.)

You've got to be ******* kidding me.

Not at all. Why in ******* would you say that?

[homersapien 11,373]

Bottom line...most honest people want there to be as little left to chance in voting as possible. Making sure everyone is who they say they are (by way of ID) makes perfect sense and hurts NO ONE if the ID can be free.

If the ID is free, get your butt down there and get one to vote. If you don't have ID, how the hell can we even assume you are legally entitled to the right to vote in the first place?

Easy for you to say, but for some people - actually a specific class of people who tend to vote for one particular party - it represents a hardship.

And you check to see if they are a legal voter by seeing if they are on the registered list in the voting roll and have an ID to prove who they are. It works perfectly well.

I guess the real problem isn't just the ID's but like i stated earlier: You are going to have to find a way to supervise the people running the precincts. They are ultimately the ones that can have a direct impact on the false votes. (Whether the people are who they say they are or not.)

I agree with that. It would be the same with photo IDs.

[Ouchyfish 67]

Do I have to show ID to get tickets for will call at Jordan-Hare? If not I am SO going to the game this Saturday.!!

[AUGradinTX 0]

Do I have to show ID to get tickets for will call at Jordan-Hare? If not I am SO going to the game this Saturday.!!

lol!

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Geez, I guess I was wrong about everything. Sorry for the utter nonsense.

:rolleyes:/>

I just wanted you to be happy. I'll go along with whatever you think. Seriously.

Honestly, I've just stopped caring what you think about this.

That's the great thing about you, always gracious.

I tend to respond in the same spirit in which I'm addressed.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Requiring an ID itself is a disenfranchising element. Had they always been required and you got one when you registered it would be different. But the fact it disenfranchises voters is not really disputed. (see my "media matters" references.)

You've got to be ******* kidding me.

Not at all. Why in ******* would you say that?

Any ID at all is disenfranchising?