What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

How much Voter Fraud is Happening (2 Viewers)

Which is worse / which is MORE UNJUST?

  • An illegitimate vote being counted

    Votes: 73 27.4%

  • A legitimate vote not being counted

    Votes: 193 72.6%
  • Total voters
    266
FlapJacks said:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
BigSteelThrill said:
FlapJacks said:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=BYVUkVGh4tjjbM&tbnid=WfnCg2CSbESWrM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.heritage.org%2F2013%2F12%2F13%2Fvoter-id-worth-thousand-words%2F&ei=_lBiU-_iONLO2QWeuoDoBA&bvm=bv.65788261,d.b2I&psig=AFQjCNFvQG3ubFWgBHxbPUDC9MrhWzL7PA&ust=1399038586810001
Click to expand...
Not surprising they have that law in South Africa. Not. At. All.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't think that piece really helps the ID folks at all.
Click to expand...
You're going to have to unpack this. One would think that Nelson Mandela would be a champion of democratic principles...
Click to expand...
Well, I could get burned her because I don't know anything about the South African voter ID law, or all that much about politics there in general. I have no idea if it was the black majority or the white minority that pushed for it, or if there were other factors at work. But nothing in the article says that Nelson Mandela was a proponent of strict voter ID laws. All it says is that he signed the bill. He was the first President of a brand new democracy that people were very skeptical about. His whole thing was about reconciliation. Not signing a voting bill seems like it would have been tough. And then he wore a T-shirt telling people how they could vote after it was already law. Wearing the shirt does not indicate approval of the underlying law.

ETA: BigSteelThrill's answer above was better.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
MaxThreshold said:
Can someone explain to me how Voter ID disenfranchises people? How are they able to get to the voting booths on election day? Why can't they exert the same effort to get a Voter ID?
Click to expand...
Don't worry that one working voting both in that urban neighborhood where 10s of thousand wait all day in line will be reallocated soon enough to a suburban neighbor hood that only has a dozen or so booths that all work for the half dozen people waiting in line.
Click to expand...
And then dont worry that the same group stops people from handing out water to those in line all day long. Yeah, just skip that crap.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
FlapJacks said:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
BigSteelThrill said:
FlapJacks said:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=BYVUkVGh4tjjbM&tbnid=WfnCg2CSbESWrM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.heritage.org%2F2013%2F12%2F13%2Fvoter-id-worth-thousand-words%2F&ei=_lBiU-_iONLO2QWeuoDoBA&bvm=bv.65788261,d.b2I&psig=AFQjCNFvQG3ubFWgBHxbPUDC9MrhWzL7PA&ust=1399038586810001
Click to expand...
Not surprising they have that law in South Africa. Not. At. All.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't think that piece really helps the ID folks at all.
Click to expand...
You're going to have to unpack this. One would think that Nelson Mandela would be a champion of democratic principles...
Click to expand...
South Africa: The elections are run by an Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) who administers every part of the elections to ensure that they are free and fair.

They have registering abroad. So other citizens may sign them up and they pay nothing.

'96 was the Constitutional change, Mandelas shirt was in '98. The law was already implemented for '99 elections. (I typed it wrong first time)

It was possible for voters to call a toll-free telephone number or visit the IEC's website to check whether and where they were registered.

*this was also part of the negotiation to end apartheid.
Click to expand...
If you support voter ID, it would be disingenuous not to support measures like the 1-800 number to verify registration

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Absolutely! Are you suggesting that you would oppose some implementations of voter ID laws, but all of those that have been tried recently are "intelligent attempts"?
Click to expand...
I'm suggesting that I would oppose many possible implementations of voter ID laws. I would also favor many possible implementations of voter ID laws. There have been no proposals in my state. Some of the proposals in other states are clearly over the top.

 
Rayderr said:
wdcrob said:
Rich Conway said:
timschochet said:
Rayderr, for me, in order to justify having voter ID, voter fraud that is caused by voter ID failure would have to have been proven to impact election results. Otherwise, the purpose seems to be to discourage minority (and thus Democrat) votes, and therefore I think it's underhanded. The deceit of many of the people pushing for this is what bothers me most, not the inconvenience. I brought up inconvenience only because it's one of the arguments made by many who are opposed to background checks, and I find that ironic as I stated.

In order to justify having universal background checks, IMO all you have to do is prove that the possibility exists that felons are purchasing guns in this manner. As you know I think it's much more than a possibility, but the amount of times that it actually happens is ultimately irrelevant to my argument. I see it as a matter of security. Here's an analogy- everyone who wants to go to Disneyland these days is checked for weapons, as they are at most public arenas, ever since 9/11. So far as I know, there is not a single instance of terrorism at Disneyland. Hopefully there never will be. Yet I don't think anyone would want the Disney authorities to give up searching people...just in case.
Click to expand...
Isn't this exactly analogous to Voter ID?
Click to expand...
All except for the part where checking visitors for weapons prevents millions of law-abiding people from visiting Disney.
Click to expand...
This whole "Vote ID stops minorites from voting" meme needs to stop. It's not true.


Posted: 5:31 a.m. Monday, Sept. 3, 2012
Despite voter ID law, minority turnout up in Georgia
By Shannon McCaffrey

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

When Georgia became one of the first states in the nation to demand a photo ID at the ballot box, both sides served up dire predictions. Opponents labeled it a Jim Crow-era tactic that would suppress the minority vote. Supporters insisted it was needed to combat fraud that imperiled the integrity of the elections process.

But both claims were overblown, according to a review of by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of statewide voting patterns in the five years since the law took effect.

Turnout among black and Hispanic voters increased from 2006 to 2010, dramatically outpacing population growth for those groups over the same period.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Wonder if anything uniquely special happened in the years between 2006-2010 to help this occurrence along. Hmm.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FlapJacks said:
BigSteelThrill said:
FlapJacks said:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
BigSteelThrill said:
FlapJacks said:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=BYVUkVGh4tjjbM&tbnid=WfnCg2CSbESWrM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.heritage.org%2F2013%2F12%2F13%2Fvoter-id-worth-thousand-words%2F&ei=_lBiU-_iONLO2QWeuoDoBA&bvm=bv.65788261,d.b2I&psig=AFQjCNFvQG3ubFWgBHxbPUDC9MrhWzL7PA&ust=1399038586810001
Click to expand...
Not surprising they have that law in South Africa. Not. At. All.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't think that piece really helps the ID folks at all.
Click to expand...
You're going to have to unpack this. One would think that Nelson Mandela would be a champion of democratic principles...
Click to expand...
South Africa: The elections are run by an Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) who administers every part of the elections to ensure that they are free and fair.

They have registering abroad. So other citizens may sign them up and they pay nothing.

'96 was the Constitutional change, Mandelas shirt was in '98. The law was already implemented for '99 elections. (I typed it wrong first time)

It was possible for voters to call a toll-free telephone number or visit the IEC's website to check whether and where they were registered.

*this was also part of the negotiation to end apartheid.
Click to expand...
If you support voter ID, it would be disingenuous not to support measures like the 1-800 number to verify registration
Click to expand...
Conservatives don't want the states to pay for it. We've seen the votes in several states show us that.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Rayderr said:
wdcrob said:
Rich Conway said:
timschochet said:
Rayderr, for me, in order to justify having voter ID, voter fraud that is caused by voter ID failure would have to have been proven to impact election results. Otherwise, the purpose seems to be to discourage minority (and thus Democrat) votes, and therefore I think it's underhanded. The deceit of many of the people pushing for this is what bothers me most, not the inconvenience. I brought up inconvenience only because it's one of the arguments made by many who are opposed to background checks, and I find that ironic as I stated.

In order to justify having universal background checks, IMO all you have to do is prove that the possibility exists that felons are purchasing guns in this manner. As you know I think it's much more than a possibility, but the amount of times that it actually happens is ultimately irrelevant to my argument. I see it as a matter of security. Here's an analogy- everyone who wants to go to Disneyland these days is checked for weapons, as they are at most public arenas, ever since 9/11. So far as I know, there is not a single instance of terrorism at Disneyland. Hopefully there never will be. Yet I don't think anyone would want the Disney authorities to give up searching people...just in case.
Click to expand...
Isn't this exactly analogous to Voter ID?
Click to expand...
All except for the part where checking visitors for weapons prevents millions of law-abiding people from visiting Disney.
Click to expand...
This whole "Vote ID stops minorites from voting" meme needs to stop. It's not true.


Posted: 5:31 a.m. Monday, Sept. 3, 2012
Despite voter ID law, minority turnout up in Georgia
By Shannon McCaffrey

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

When Georgia became one of the first states in the nation to demand a photo ID at the ballot box, both sides served up dire predictions. Opponents labeled it a Jim Crow-era tactic that would suppress the minority vote. Supporters insisted it was needed to combat fraud that imperiled the integrity of the elections process.

But both claims were overblown, according to a review of by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of statewide voting patterns in the five years since the law took effect.

Turnout among black and Hispanic voters increased from 2006 to 2010, dramatically outpacing population growth for those groups over the same period.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Wonder if anything uniquely special happened in the years between 2006-2010 to help this occurrence along. Hmm.
Click to expand...
Nice try.

Georgia first adopted a voter ID law in 2005 and won court approval to implement it in 2007. The law has now been in place for two major statewide general elections: 2008, when the presidential race was on the ballot, and 2010, when voters selected a new governor. Prior to the new law, voters had been able to present one of 17 forms of identification, including a utility bill.

Elections data reviewed by the AJC show that participation among black voters rose by 44 percent from 2006 — before the law was implemented — to 2010. For Hispanics, the increase for the same period was 67 percent. Turnout among whites rose 12 percent.

It was expected that African American turnout would spike in 2008, when Barack Obama became the first person of color to win the presidency. And it did rise to historic highs in Georgia.

Black participation fell in 2010, as it did for all demographic groups. Still, a far greater share of black voters turned out in 2010 than in 2006, showing that Obama was not the only factor driving turnout.
Click to expand...
 
BigSteelThrill said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
MaxThreshold said:
Can someone explain to me how Voter ID disenfranchises people? How are they able to get to the voting booths on election day? Why can't they exert the same effort to get a Voter ID?
Click to expand...
Don't worry that one working voting both in that urban neighborhood where 10s of thousand wait all day in line will be reallocated soon enough to a suburban neighbor hood that only has a dozen or so booths that all work for the half dozen people waiting in line.
Click to expand...
And then dont worry that the same group stops people from handing out water to those in line all day long. Yeah, just skip that crap.
Click to expand...
Link to where anyone in this thread has come out in favor of laws restricting volunteers from giving water to prospective voters waiting in line?

 
Rayderr said:
BigSteelThrill said:
Rayderr said:
wdcrob said:
Rich Conway said:
timschochet said:
Rayderr, for me, in order to justify having voter ID, voter fraud that is caused by voter ID failure would have to have been proven to impact election results. Otherwise, the purpose seems to be to discourage minority (and thus Democrat) votes, and therefore I think it's underhanded. The deceit of many of the people pushing for this is what bothers me most, not the inconvenience. I brought up inconvenience only because it's one of the arguments made by many who are opposed to background checks, and I find that ironic as I stated.

In order to justify having universal background checks, IMO all you have to do is prove that the possibility exists that felons are purchasing guns in this manner. As you know I think it's much more than a possibility, but the amount of times that it actually happens is ultimately irrelevant to my argument. I see it as a matter of security. Here's an analogy- everyone who wants to go to Disneyland these days is checked for weapons, as they are at most public arenas, ever since 9/11. So far as I know, there is not a single instance of terrorism at Disneyland. Hopefully there never will be. Yet I don't think anyone would want the Disney authorities to give up searching people...just in case.
Click to expand...
Isn't this exactly analogous to Voter ID?
Click to expand...
All except for the part where checking visitors for weapons prevents millions of law-abiding people from visiting Disney.
Click to expand...
This whole "Vote ID stops minorites from voting" meme needs to stop. It's not true.


Posted: 5:31 a.m. Monday, Sept. 3, 2012
Despite voter ID law, minority turnout up in Georgia
By Shannon McCaffrey

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

When Georgia became one of the first states in the nation to demand a photo ID at the ballot box, both sides served up dire predictions. Opponents labeled it a Jim Crow-era tactic that would suppress the minority vote. Supporters insisted it was needed to combat fraud that imperiled the integrity of the elections process.

But both claims were overblown, according to a review of by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of statewide voting patterns in the five years since the law took effect.

Turnout among black and Hispanic voters increased from 2006 to 2010, dramatically outpacing population growth for those groups over the same period.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Wonder if anything uniquely special happened in the years between 2006-2010 to help this occurrence along. Hmm.
Click to expand...
Nice try.

Georgia first adopted a voter ID law in 2005 and won court approval to implement it in 2007. The law has now been in place for two major statewide general elections: 2008, when the presidential race was on the ballot, and 2010, when voters selected a new governor. Prior to the new law, voters had been able to present one of 17 forms of identification, including a utility bill.

Elections data reviewed by the AJC show that participation among black voters rose by 44 percent from 2006 — before the law was implemented — to 2010. For Hispanics, the increase for the same period was 67 percent. Turnout among whites rose 12 percent.

It was expected that African American turnout would spike in 2008, when Barack Obama became the first person of color to win the presidency. And it did rise to historic highs in Georgia.

Black participation fell in 2010, as it did for all demographic groups. Still, a far greater share of black voters turned out in 2010 than in 2006, showing that Obama was not the only factor driving turnout.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yeah it got them rolling in 2008. And then they still had more in 2010 then 2006? YOU DONT SAY?

brainiac

 
Rich Conway said:
BigSteelThrill said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
MaxThreshold said:
Can someone explain to me how Voter ID disenfranchises people? How are they able to get to the voting booths on election day? Why can't they exert the same effort to get a Voter ID?
Click to expand...
Don't worry that one working voting both in that urban neighborhood where 10s of thousand wait all day in line will be reallocated soon enough to a suburban neighbor hood that only has a dozen or so booths that all work for the half dozen people waiting in line.
Click to expand...
And then dont worry that the same group stops people from handing out water to those in line all day long. Yeah, just skip that crap.
Click to expand...
Link to where anyone in this thread has come out in favor of laws restricting volunteers from giving water to prospective voters waiting in line?
Click to expand...
Your group did it. Sorry if you took the day off or didn't make a post about it. :lol:

I doubt you directly made 10's of thousands stand outside in a line all day either.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For the past 20 years, the African National Congress has won every significant election in South Africs by a very large margin. Although it remains nominally a democracy, it is in very real terms even more a one party state than it was during the Apartheid era. I doubt the voter id laws have any real significance.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Rayderr said:
BigSteelThrill said:
Rayderr said:
wdcrob said:
Rich Conway said:
timschochet said:
Rayderr, for me, in order to justify having voter ID, voter fraud that is caused by voter ID failure would have to have been proven to impact election results. Otherwise, the purpose seems to be to discourage minority (and thus Democrat) votes, and therefore I think it's underhanded. The deceit of many of the people pushing for this is what bothers me most, not the inconvenience. I brought up inconvenience only because it's one of the arguments made by many who are opposed to background checks, and I find that ironic as I stated.

In order to justify having universal background checks, IMO all you have to do is prove that the possibility exists that felons are purchasing guns in this manner. As you know I think it's much more than a possibility, but the amount of times that it actually happens is ultimately irrelevant to my argument. I see it as a matter of security. Here's an analogy- everyone who wants to go to Disneyland these days is checked for weapons, as they are at most public arenas, ever since 9/11. So far as I know, there is not a single instance of terrorism at Disneyland. Hopefully there never will be. Yet I don't think anyone would want the Disney authorities to give up searching people...just in case.
Click to expand...
Isn't this exactly analogous to Voter ID?
Click to expand...
All except for the part where checking visitors for weapons prevents millions of law-abiding people from visiting Disney.
Click to expand...
This whole "Vote ID stops minorites from voting" meme needs to stop. It's not true.


Posted: 5:31 a.m. Monday, Sept. 3, 2012
Despite voter ID law, minority turnout up in Georgia
By Shannon McCaffrey

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

When Georgia became one of the first states in the nation to demand a photo ID at the ballot box, both sides served up dire predictions. Opponents labeled it a Jim Crow-era tactic that would suppress the minority vote. Supporters insisted it was needed to combat fraud that imperiled the integrity of the elections process.

But both claims were overblown, according to a review of by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of statewide voting patterns in the five years since the law took effect.

Turnout among black and Hispanic voters increased from 2006 to 2010, dramatically outpacing population growth for those groups over the same period.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Wonder if anything uniquely special happened in the years between 2006-2010 to help this occurrence along. Hmm.
Click to expand...
Nice try.

Georgia first adopted a voter ID law in 2005 and won court approval to implement it in 2007. The law has now been in place for two major statewide general elections: 2008, when the presidential race was on the ballot, and 2010, when voters selected a new governor. Prior to the new law, voters had been able to present one of 17 forms of identification, including a utility bill.

Elections data reviewed by the AJC show that participation among black voters rose by 44 percent from 2006 — before the law was implemented — to 2010. For Hispanics, the increase for the same period was 67 percent. Turnout among whites rose 12 percent.

It was expected that African American turnout would spike in 2008, when Barack Obama became the first person of color to win the presidency. And it did rise to historic highs in Georgia.

Black participation fell in 2010, as it did for all demographic groups. Still, a far greater share of black voters turned out in 2010 than in 2006, showing that Obama was not the only factor driving turnout.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yeah it got them rolling in 2008. And then they still had more in 2010 then 2006? YOU DONT SAY?

brainiac
Click to expand...
If that's what you want to think. But, if voter ID laws are designed to disenfranchise minority voters, shouldn't the numbers have gone down, or at the very least stayed flat, and not increase multiple times the growth rate of the minority population?

If anything, this shows that minorities aren't being disenfranchised, only the lazy are. And even that's a stretch.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Rich Conway said:
BigSteelThrill said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
MaxThreshold said:
Can someone explain to me how Voter ID disenfranchises people? How are they able to get to the voting booths on election day? Why can't they exert the same effort to get a Voter ID?
Click to expand...
Don't worry that one working voting both in that urban neighborhood where 10s of thousand wait all day in line will be reallocated soon enough to a suburban neighbor hood that only has a dozen or so booths that all work for the half dozen people waiting in line.
Click to expand...
And then dont worry that the same group stops people from handing out water to those in line all day long. Yeah, just skip that crap.
Click to expand...
Link to where anyone in this thread has come out in favor of laws restricting volunteers from giving water to prospective voters waiting in line?
Click to expand...
Your group did it. Sorry if you took the day off or didn't make a post about it. :lol:

I doubt you directly made 10's of thousands stand outside in a line all day either.
Click to expand...
Dude - WTF are you talking about? Didn't give out water? Is that a constitutional requirement? I'm going to need to see some proof here. Or maybe you're just trying to be funny? You've failed on both those parts, BTW.

Maybe we should just take Rich's advice.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold said:
BigSteelThrill said:
Rich Conway said:
BigSteelThrill said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
MaxThreshold said:
Can someone explain to me how Voter ID disenfranchises people? How are they able to get to the voting booths on election day? Why can't they exert the same effort to get a Voter ID?
Click to expand...
Don't worry that one working voting both in that urban neighborhood where 10s of thousand wait all day in line will be reallocated soon enough to a suburban neighbor hood that only has a dozen or so booths that all work for the half dozen people waiting in line.
Click to expand...
And then dont worry that the same group stops people from handing out water to those in line all day long. Yeah, just skip that crap.
Click to expand...
Link to where anyone in this thread has come out in favor of laws restricting volunteers from giving water to prospective voters waiting in line?
Click to expand...
Your group did it. Sorry if you took the day off or didn't make a post about it. :lol:

I doubt you directly made 10's of thousands stand outside in a line all day either.
Click to expand...
Dude - WTF are you talking about? Didn't give out water? Is that a constitutional requirement? I'm going to need to see some proof here. Or maybe you're just trying to be funny? You've failed on both those parts, BTW.

Maybe we should just take Rich's advice.
Click to expand...
It's true. A tea Party group objected to NAACP handing out water to people within the no-electioneering zone in Texas. There was a dispute of whether or not it was electioneering.

 
How many here would be on board with a compromise:

--have some voter ID validation to give people confidence in the process

-- take extra measures to enable people to get proper identification

yea or nay as a general principle?

 
I'll go the other way. I'll be willing to forgo voter ID entirely if a mechanism was put in place to set aside fraudulent elections after the fact.

We should have protection somewhere in the system. If we're not going to guarantee every vote is cast legitimately on election day, we should guarantee that only legitimate votes get counted the morning after.

 
Rich Conway said:
You need to remember that just because Ivan and I agree with some politicians on one facet of one issue doesn't mean we agree with those politicians on all facets of all issues, or even on their methods of implementation. Neither of us have argued that one person shouldn't be able to help another person obtain an ID. Neither of us have argued that one person shouldn't be allowed to drive another person to a voting location.
It would really help political discourse in this country if the rational folks simply stopped responding to the irrational on the other side, and only engaged the rational. As it is, the rational on both sides tend to ignore each other in favor of responding to the fringes, which then simply annoys the rational, since the responses aren't responsive to arguments they've actually made.
Click to expand...
It would help more if the irrational weren't allowed to vote!

 
FlapJacks said:
How many here would be on board with a compromise:

--have some voter ID validation to give people confidence in the process

-- take extra measures to enable people to get proper identification

yea or nay as a general principle?
Click to expand...
It's like we're living in two different universes here. Which people lack confidence in the process? And why?

 
Sarnoff said:
I'll go the other way. I'll be willing to forgo voter ID entirely if a mechanism was put in place to set aside fraudulent elections after the fact.

We should have protection somewhere in the system. If we're not going to guarantee every vote is cast legitimately on election day, we should guarantee that only legitimate votes get counted the morning after.
Click to expand...
What fraudulent elections are you worried about?

 
IvanKaramazov said:
BigSteelThrill said:
IvanKaramazov said:
pantagrapher said:
IvanKaramazov said:
fatness said:
Anything that weeds out the "apathetic" voters is OK with Ivan.
Click to expand...
And as fatness realizes, some of the things that you guys put in the "cost" column guys like me put in the "benefits" column. Basically this whole argument boils down to something like this:

Anti-ID Side: Voter fraud never happens. IDs are really expensive and hard to get. And they screen out apathetic voters.

Me: Voter fraud is at least a theoretical concern. ID's are trivial to obtain. And they screen out apathetic voters.
Click to expand...
lol at your characterization of the anti side. C'mon dude. You used to be better than that.
Click to expand...
I think my characterization is about right. The "really expensive and hard to get" is maybe a flourish too far, some posters in this thread do make it sound as if getting a drivers license is an ordeal ripped from the pages of Dickens.

Edit: Actually, somebody on this page compared it to having a leg amputated. I'm not the one that made up that analogy -- don't get on my case for ridiculing it.
Click to expand...
How come your side has tried to make it impossible for citizens to assist other citizens in getting IDs? Or reduce days, voting places, and mail ballots?
Click to expand...
I don't have any problem with people helping other people get IDs. I do prefer restrictions (to a degree) on the days and locations of voting.

You keep acting like I have some kind of hidden agenda on this. I've been super-open about the fact that I think that's a positive and good thing to screen out certain types of voters -- the lazy, the apathetic, those incapable of managing their own lives.
Click to expand...
So why don't you come out and say poor minorities instead of these BS euphamisms? Sorry dude this is racist as hell no matter what words you use. Those are the people you are in favor of taking the vote away from.

 
Clifford, you're very wrong about Ivan. He's one of the least racist people in this forum. If he says lazy and apathetic, he means lazy and apathetic. He doesn't use code words.

 
Clifford said:
IvanKaramazov said:
BigSteelThrill said:
IvanKaramazov said:
pantagrapher said:
IvanKaramazov said:
fatness said:
Anything that weeds out the "apathetic" voters is OK with Ivan.
Click to expand...
And as fatness realizes, some of the things that you guys put in the "cost" column guys like me put in the "benefits" column. Basically this whole argument boils down to something like this:

Anti-ID Side: Voter fraud never happens. IDs are really expensive and hard to get. And they screen out apathetic voters.

Me: Voter fraud is at least a theoretical concern. ID's are trivial to obtain. And they screen out apathetic voters.
Click to expand...
lol at your characterization of the anti side. C'mon dude. You used to be better than that.
Click to expand...
I think my characterization is about right. The "really expensive and hard to get" is maybe a flourish too far, some posters in this thread do make it sound as if getting a drivers license is an ordeal ripped from the pages of Dickens.

Edit: Actually, somebody on this page compared it to having a leg amputated. I'm not the one that made up that analogy -- don't get on my case for ridiculing it.
Click to expand...
How come your side has tried to make it impossible for citizens to assist other citizens in getting IDs? Or reduce days, voting places, and mail ballots?
Click to expand...
I don't have any problem with people helping other people get IDs. I do prefer restrictions (to a degree) on the days and locations of voting.

You keep acting like I have some kind of hidden agenda on this. I've been super-open about the fact that I think that's a positive and good thing to screen out certain types of voters -- the lazy, the apathetic, those incapable of managing their own lives.
Click to expand...
So why don't you come out and say poor minorities instead of these BS euphamisms? Sorry dude this is racist as hell no matter what words you use. Those are the people you are in favor of taking the vote away from.
Click to expand...
Seems like YOUR comments are the racist ones. You're flat out saying these "traits" apply to poor minorities and poor minorities only :lol:

 
IvanKaramazov said:
fatness said:
Anything that weeds out the "apathetic" voters is OK with Ivan.
Click to expand...
And as fatness realizes, some of the things that you guys put in the "cost" column guys like me put in the "benefits" column. Basically this whole argument boils down to something like this:

Anti-ID Side: In-person Voter fraud never seldom happens. IDs are really expensive and hard to get for some people. And they screen out apathetic voters.

Me: In-person(?) Voter fraud is at least a theoretical concern. ID's are trivial to obtain for many people. And they screen out apathetic voters.
Click to expand...
Fixed.

 
I don't really care one way or the other but if you can't find one day in four years to get an ID then you probably don't really want to vote in the first place.

 
The Commish said:
Clifford said:
IvanKaramazov said:
BigSteelThrill said:
IvanKaramazov said:
pantagrapher said:
IvanKaramazov said:
fatness said:
Anything that weeds out the "apathetic" voters is OK with Ivan.
Click to expand...
And as fatness realizes, some of the things that you guys put in the "cost" column guys like me put in the "benefits" column. Basically this whole argument boils down to something like this:

Anti-ID Side: Voter fraud never happens. IDs are really expensive and hard to get. And they screen out apathetic voters.

Me: Voter fraud is at least a theoretical concern. ID's are trivial to obtain. And they screen out apathetic voters.
Click to expand...
lol at your characterization of the anti side. C'mon dude. You used to be better than that.
Click to expand...
I think my characterization is about right. The "really expensive and hard to get" is maybe a flourish too far, some posters in this thread do make it sound as if getting a drivers license is an ordeal ripped from the pages of Dickens.

Edit: Actually, somebody on this page compared it to having a leg amputated. I'm not the one that made up that analogy -- don't get on my case for ridiculing it.
Click to expand...
How come your side has tried to make it impossible for citizens to assist other citizens in getting IDs? Or reduce days, voting places, and mail ballots?
Click to expand...
I don't have any problem with people helping other people get IDs. I do prefer restrictions (to a degree) on the days and locations of voting.

You keep acting like I have some kind of hidden agenda on this. I've been super-open about the fact that I think that's a positive and good thing to screen out certain types of voters -- the lazy, the apathetic, those incapable of managing their own lives.
Click to expand...
So why don't you come out and say poor minorities instead of these BS euphamisms? Sorry dude this is racist as hell no matter what words you use. Those are the people you are in favor of taking the vote away from.
Click to expand...
Seems like YOUR comments are the racist ones. You're flat out saying these "traits" apply to poor minorities and poor minorities only :lol:
Click to expand...
In aggregate numbers they do. It's fact. The people specifically targeted by these voter ID laws are in majority poor, ethnic minorities, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic. If it were any other way we would never, ever hear about voter ID laws.

So Ivan is in favor of disenfranchising those folks no matter how we cut it or phrase it.

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/07/study-minorities-more-likely-to-be-disenfranchised-by-voter-id-laws/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-laws-are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/01/voter-id-laws

ETA: I apologize for suggesting that Ivan is racist. I have no reason to believe he has any issue with minorities voting so long as they have IDs, but I think he is in favor of policies that would overwhelmingly keep poor minorities from voting. Furthermore to solve a boogeyman problem that at least one judge in Wisconsin has decided doesn't exist in any form that could affect elections. So to me, being in favor of a policy that you know would disproportionately target minorities and make it harder for them to vote, at least seems like you are supporting a racist policy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold said:
Can someone explain to me how Voter ID disenfranchises people? How are they able to get to the voting booths on election day? Why can't they exert the same effort to get a Voter ID?
Click to expand...
The judge in the Wisconsin case found that about 9% of eligible voters in Wisconsin lacked a qualifying ID. And for many of them, getting an ID would involve quite a bit of effort.

Alice Weddle testified that she is unemployed, receives Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid benefits and has no bank accounts or credit cards. She attempted to obtain an ID but was unable to do so because she does not have a birth certificate. Eddie Holloway testified that he would be homeless if his sister did not agree to take him in, and that he is on various forms of public assistance. He testified that he attempted to obtain an ID but was unable to do so because of an error on his birth certificate that he cannot afford to have corrected. Rickey Davis testified that he is unemployed, has no bank accounts and attempted to obtain a photo ID but could not get one because he does not have a birth certificate. Shirley Brown testified that she lives on Social Security disability and attempted to obtain an ID but was unable to do so because she does not have a birth certificate. Melvin Robertson testified that he has no education beyond grade school and that he would like to obtain an ID but cannot because he lacks a birth certificate. Rose Thompson testified that after Act 23 was enacted, she attempted to obtain an ID but could not afford to pay the fees associated with obtaining her birth certificate from Mississippi. Sim Newcomb testified that he does not drive, relies on public transportation, has not recently traveled outside the United States, does not travel on airplanes, and that to the extent he needs a photo ID for banking, he is able to use his Veteran’s ID card, which is not an acceptable ID under Act 23. He testified that he attempted to obtain a Wisconsin ID card but could not satisfy the DMV’s documentation requirements.

...

For almost all low-income voters who lack an ID, the easiest ID to obtain will be the free state ID card, which is issued by the DMV. To obtain a state ID card, a person generally must present documents that satisfy four requirements: (1) proof of name and date of birth, (2) proof of United States citizenship or legal presence in the United States, (3) proof of identity, and (4) proof of Wisconsin residency. The DMV will only accept certain documents to satisfy each of these requirements. ...

To prove name, date of birth and United States citizenship, most people will need to produce a birth certificate. The evidence at trial showed that a substantial number of eligible voters who lack Act 23-qualifying IDs also lack birth certificates. Professor Barreto, in his survey of Milwaukee County eligible voters, found that 25,354 persons lacked both a qualifying ID and a birth certificate. ...

To obtain a Wisconsin birth certificate, a person must produce either a driver’s license or a state ID card or two documents from the following list: (1) a government-issued ID with photograph, (2) a United States passport, (3) a checkbook or bankbook, (4) a major credit card, (5) a health-insurance card, (6) a recent, signed lease, or (7) a utility bill or traffic ticket. The person must also pay a fee of $20. Those who were not born in Wisconsin will need to determine how to obtain a birth certificate from their place of birth. It generally takes more time and expense to obtain a birth certificate from outside one’s state of residence than it does to obtain a birth certificate from within the state. Professor Barreto found that 46.9% of eligible voters in Milwaukee County who lack both an accepted photo ID and a valid birth certificate were born outside Wisconsin.

Individuals who need a free state ID card must also produce a document that the DMV will accept as proof of identity. Professor Barreto found that there are approximately 1,640 eligible voters in Milwaukee County alone who do not have qualifying photo IDs and do not have any of the documents the DMV accepts to prove identity. ...

Most voters who do not have proof of identity will need to procure a social security card, as this is the most commonly available document to use to prove identity. To obtain a social security card, a person must visit the Social Security Office and show “convincing documentary evidence of identity.” Such evidence “may consist of a driver’s license, identity card, school record, medical record, marriage record, passport, Department of Homeland Security document, or other similar document serving to identify the individual.” Id. Voters who need free state ID cards to vote will not have driver’s licenses, state ID cards or passports, so they will need to present one of the other items on the list. If they do not have one of these items, they will need to procure one by visiting a school, hospital or another governmental agency, where they may again be asked for an ID, and the document may cost money.

The remaining documentary requirement to obtain a state ID card is proof of residence. For most voters, this requirement will be easy to satisfy, as the DMV accepts a variety of documents that most individuals are likely to have on hand. Still, homeless voters who do not have a relationship with a social-service agency will be unable to prove residency. And they will be unable to provide the DMV with a physical address where it can send their ID cards once they are ready. Id. This will make it impossible for them to obtain a state ID card because the DMV does not allow individuals to pick up ID cards in-person.

So if you want to get a free state ID card, the first thing you have to do is figure out what documents you'll be required to bring with you to the DMV. The judge described all the requirements above, but she cheated by looking them up in state statutes. That's not a realistic option for many voters, especially the illiterate ones.

Once you've figured out what documents are required, you've got to figure out how to get them. To do that, you've got to figure out what documents are required to get the required documents. For example, in order to get a birth certificate, it'd be helpful to have a driver's license -- but if you had that, you wouldn't need the state ID card in the first place. So you need a bunch of other documents instead -- and you have to figure out what they are and where to get them. It's turtles all the way down.

In order to round up the documents you'll need, you may have to visit various government agencies that are open only on weekdays during business hours, and may not be accessible by public transportation. You might have to pay a fee. This is quite a hardship for people who work 9-5 at or near the poverty level.

And then there are special cases with unusual snafus. Maybe a person's name is spelled differently on his social security card and on his driver's license, etc. Try getting that stuff corrected by government bureaucrats...

Getting a qualifying ID may be pretty easy for most people, but certainly not for everybody.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well consistent with my history I suppose, but consider a different source, this time from a Pennsylvania judge

On January 17th a Commonwealth state judge agreed. “Disenfranchising voters through no fault of the voter himself is plainly unconstitutional,” wrote Judge Bernard McGinley (in reference to the state constitution, not the US constitution). Not only was the law was “fraught with illegalities and dubious authority”, but also Mr McGinley found that the state's $5m campaign to explain the law to voters was full of inaccuracies. The ruling comes after 18 months of litigation.

Also, if we are really concerned with what everyone but Ivan claims is the reason, fighting voter fraud, explain this provision of Pennsylvania's bill:

Not even government-issued welfare cards and military identification cards were acceptable.

 
I think we can all agree that if a newborn child is too lazy and apathetic to correctly fill out their own birth certificate, they certainly don't deserve to vote twenty years later.

 
I do give Ivan props for being honest enough to admit that he favors voter ID because he knows it will deliberately disenfranchise voters. At least he admits the actual intent of the bills and doesn't resort to a boogeyman argument like the pols. But that doesn't mean I don't find his desires in that area reprehensible.

 
timschochet said:
Sarnoff said:
I'll go the other way. I'll be willing to forgo voter ID entirely if a mechanism was put in place to set aside fraudulent elections after the fact.

We should have protection somewhere in the system. If we're not going to guarantee every vote is cast legitimately on election day, we should guarantee that only legitimate votes get counted the morning after.
Click to expand...
What fraudulent elections are you worried about?
Click to expand...
Any that should occur in the future.

In the past, there have been occasional elections, usually on the small/local level, where it's known votes were fraudulently cast, but there's no mechanism in place to resolve the situation. I think that sucks.

My support for Voter ID is based on it being a relatively small inconvenience to pay up front that is favorable to the major disaster that could happen theoretically that would be a huge hassle to deal with. It seems to me like one of those things that, after the fact, looks like it would have been smart to do beforehand, but we didn't, and then afterward we'd wonder why we didn't do it sooner. I'm a 'close the barn doors before the horses escape' kind of guy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
FlapJacks said:
How many here would be on board with a compromise:

--have some voter ID validation to give people confidence in the process

-- take extra measures to enable people to get proper identification

yea or nay as a general principle?
Click to expand...
It's like we're living in two different universes here. Which people lack confidence in the process? And why?
Click to expand...
Look at the poll results on this very thread...about 30% think it amounts to a million or more votes nationally...that's pretty significant

 
If a million people think there are dragons should we construct a national dragon defense? Besides I thought we had already established that this was an ill-concealed BS argument the actual intent of which was not to preserve the integrity of elections but to disenfranchise a certain block of voters who overwhelmingly vote Democrat?

Let's not go backwards here.

 
Clifford said:
If a million people think there are dragons should we construct a national dragon defense? Besides I thought we had already established that this was an ill-concealed BS argument the actual intent of which was not to preserve the integrity of elections but to disenfranchise a certain block of voters who overwhelmingly vote Democrat?

Let's not go backwards here.
Click to expand...
so I'll put that as you are unwilling to compromise...

 
Put me down as unwilling to believe this is an issue for any reason other than the Republicans desperately needing to thin out voting blocks that don't favor their policies. I'd rather discuss it for what it is rather than what it is not.

 
parasaurolophus said:
How do all these people without ID cash their checks?
Click to expand...
Some of them probably just deposit them into their checking accounts with their ATM cards, same as most people.

Others probably endorse the check to a relative who gives them cash. Others may use a Money Mart or similar place. Others may just receive cash.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Has anyone pointed out the irony of a party that constantly decries big government consistently campaigning for the requirement of a government issued ID to practice the most fundamental right a citizen has in a representative democracy?

 
Clifford said:
Has anyone pointed out the irony of a party that constantly decries big government consistently campaigning for the requirement of a government issued ID to practice the most fundamental right a citizen has in a representative democracy?
Click to expand...
Governments have an inherent obligation to spell out the procedures required to cast a ballot. That's not what people mean when they talk about "big government." For example, no libertarian that I know of complains about the government maintaining polling places, buying polling equipment, hiring election officials, etc.

Also, I strongly disagree that voting is THE most fundamental right. I'd far prefer to live in a dictatorship that allowed freedom of speech and refrained from unreasonable searches and seizures than a democracy that routinely trampled on things like that. So would you, I'm guessing.

 
Clifford said:
Put me down as unwilling to believe this is an issue for any reason other than the Republicans Democrats desperately needing to thin out retain voting blocks that don't favor their policies. I'd rather discuss it for what it is rather than what it is not.
Click to expand...
See how much fun this is?

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
In order to round up the documents you'll need, you may have to visit various government agencies that are open only on weekdays during business hours, and may not be accessible by public transportation. You might have to pay a fee. This is quite a hardship for people who work 9-5 at or near the poverty level.
Click to expand...
Kinda losing me there. There are SOME places in this country where the only way to open a bank account and conduct banking is to show up to the bank during business hours. There are SOME places in this country where to go to the dentist or doctor, you'll need to pay a visit during business hours. I wouldn't call that a hardship. You just ask your boss for a day off. Or even a half day off. Doesn't seem like hardship applies.

But I have no dog in this fight. Whatever.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
  • Poll
How Much Voter Fraud Happened In 2020?
110 111 112
Replies
6K
Views
210K
apalmer
apalmer
massraider
Trump campaign officials, led by Rudy Giuliani, oversaw fake electors plot in 7 states
2 3
Replies
147
Views
4K
Roy L Fewks
R
GordonGekko
Newsweek: "Democrats Have Forgotten The Working Class. It Will Cost Them" (7/14/22 14:39 PST)
Replies
19
Views
946
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top