How much Voter Fraud is Happening (1 Viewer)

[njherdfan]

District Judge Lynn Adelman ruled that the state didn't make a compelling case that voter fraud exists and needs to be combated. He also ruled that it's not clear that it would be easy for people without valid photo ID to obtain it and said the law unduly targets minority voters."The evidence at trial established that virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin," Adelman said. "The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past."

The decision comes a week after an Arkansas judge struck down that state's new Voter ID law. The Justice Department is also challenging such laws in North Carolina and Texas.

Guess the SC will have to weigh in on this. It was based on Indiana's Voter ID law, which did pass muster, so i'm not so sure this is the final judgement.

Here is all you really need to know:

Adelman, a former Democratic state senator, expressed deep skepticism of Republican claims...

That doesn't help me understand why the defendants couldn't produce a single instance of voter impersonation.

Does that help?

 

[Todd Andrews]

District Judge Lynn Adelman ruled that the state didn't make a compelling case that voter fraud exists and needs to be combated. He also ruled that it's not clear that it would be easy for people without valid photo ID to obtain it and said the law unduly targets minority voters."The evidence at trial established that virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin," Adelman said. "The defendants could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past."

The decision comes a week after an Arkansas judge struck down that state's new Voter ID law. The Justice Department is also challenging such laws in North Carolina and Texas.

Guess the SC will have to weigh in on this. It was based on Indiana's Voter ID law, which did pass muster, so i'm not so sure this is the final judgement.

Here is all you really need to know:

Adelman, a former Democratic state senator, expressed deep skepticism of Republican claims...

Good point:

MaxKooK

 

[pantagrapher]

Voter ID Is the Real Fraud

By THE EDITORIAL BOARDAPRIL 29, 2014

For the first time since the Supreme Court junked a core provision of the Voting Rights Act in June, a federal court has used the strongest surviving part of the act to strike down a state’s voter-identification law, and, in the process, has set out a detailed road map for upcoming challenges to similar laws around the country.

Supporters of these laws insist they are necessary to prevent fraud at the polls, though such fraud is basically nonexistent. The real point is to deter from the polls significant numbers of Democratic voters, particularly minorities and the poor.

That was the heart of the reasoning by Judge Lynn Adelman of Federal District Court in Milwaukee, who issued an extraordinarily thorough 90-page ruling on Tuesday invalidating Wisconsin’s voter-ID law as a harmful solution in search of an imaginary problem. The law was passed by a Republican-controlled statehouse in 2011 and required that a prospective voter present a government-issued photo ID, like a driver’s license or passport.

“Virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin, and it is exceedingly unlikely that voter impersonation will become a problem in Wisconsin in the foreseeable future,” the judge wrote.

“A person would have to be insane to commit voter-impersonation fraud,” he added, pointing to high costs of being prosecuted for that crime compared with the low benefits of casting one additional vote.

On the other hand, the judge found that 300,000 Wisconsin voters, or 9 percent of all registered voters, lack the required ID — more than twice the margin of victory in the most recent election for governor. “A substantial number” of those voters, the judge found, are lower-income and poorly educated residents who face a “unique barrier” to getting the underlying documents needed to obtain a photo ID. Some cannot afford the $20 for a birth certificate; others must spend weeks tracking down documents at government agencies inaccessible by public transportation.

In the end, it was easy for Judge Adelman to find the law unconstitutional under the equal protection clause. “It is absolutely clear,” the judge concluded, that the law “will prevent more legitimate votes from being cast than fraudulent votes.”

Equally important, the judge found that the law also violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits laws that have a disproportionate impact on minority voters. That’s because those voters are more likely to be poor and undereducated, the judge found, which “is traceable to the effects of discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and housing.”

Until now, Section 2 has been used primarily in redistricting lawsuits, but its application in the voter-ID context gives a potent weapon to challengers of similar laws in Texas and North Carolina. When the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s ID law in 2008, it found no evidence of actual harm to voters. The Wisconsin ruling is important in part because it shows the power of the testimony of real, everyday people whose right to vote is demonstrably burdened by these laws.

Judges are at last starting to see voter ID for what it is: a concerted political effort by Republicans to keep opponents from the polls. Even former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the 2008 opinion, now accepts that view as “dead right.” For those still unsure of voter ID’s true nature, Judge Adelman has paved the path.

 

[Koya]

History will not look kindly upon those who went through such efforts to purposely leave out those who would not vote for them. It's one of the more sad episodes in our recent history, imo, and those who support it will be looked upon in that vein.

 

[timschochet]

I wonder if the SC will even bother to hear this.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

History will not look kindly upon those who went through such efforts to purposely leave out those who would not vote for them. It's one of the more sad episodes in our recent history, imo, and those who support it will be looked upon in that vein.

Perhaps, although its neither a recent phenomena nor one limited to one party or one nation. More or less since the first political election in world history, candidates and their reps have been engaging in different forms of the same thing. In Wisconsin for example, although the Voter ID law was struck down yesterday and most likely won't be in effect for the November elections, the party in power has successfully taken several other steps to limit voting access of opposition supporters, the same as the other side would do if it had power.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I wonder if the SC will even bother to hear this.

It will go to the 7th Circuit first. What they decide and how they frame the decision will make a big difference in terms of the likelihood of SCOTUS review.

 

[timschochet]

History will not look kindly upon those who went through such efforts to purposely leave out those who would not vote for them. It's one of the more sad episodes in our recent history, imo, and those who support it will be looked upon in that vein.

Perhaps, although its neither a recent phenomena nor one limited to one party or one nation. More or less since the first political election in world history, candidates and their reps have been engaging in different forms of the same thing. In Wisconsin for example, although the Voter ID law was struck down yesterday and most likely won't be in effect for the November elections, the party in power has successfully taken several other steps to limit voting access of opposition supporters, the same as the other side would do if it had power.

I'm not aware of Democrats attempting to limit voting. Do you have examples of this?

 

[Koya]

History will not look kindly upon those who went through such efforts to purposely leave out those who would not vote for them. It's one of the more sad episodes in our recent history, imo, and those who support it will be looked upon in that vein.

Perhaps, although its neither a recent phenomena nor one limited to one party or one nation. More or less since the first political election in world history, candidates and their reps have been engaging in different forms of the same thing. In Wisconsin for example, although the Voter ID law was struck down yesterday and most likely won't be in effect for the November elections, the party in power has successfully taken several other steps to limit voting access of opposition supporters, the same as the other side would do if it had power.

I don't recall anything like this in my 40 years... not to say it has not always been around (whomever is in power to draw the voting maps, for example), but never has it risen to this level and coordinate effort.

 

[Koya]

History will not look kindly upon those who went through such efforts to purposely leave out those who would not vote for them. It's one of the more sad episodes in our recent history, imo, and those who support it will be looked upon in that vein.

Perhaps, although its neither a recent phenomena nor one limited to one party or one nation. More or less since the first political election in world history, candidates and their reps have been engaging in different forms of the same thing. In Wisconsin for example, although the Voter ID law was struck down yesterday and most likely won't be in effect for the November elections, the party in power has successfully taken several other steps to limit voting access of opposition supporters, the same as the other side would do if it had power.

I'm not aware of Democrats attempting to limit voting. Do you have examples of this?

Anytime the Dems had held the power to redraw district maps, they have done so with the intent on bettering their political power base (same with Reps).

 

[timschochet]

History will not look kindly upon those who went through such efforts to purposely leave out those who would not vote for them. It's one of the more sad episodes in our recent history, imo, and those who support it will be looked upon in that vein.

Perhaps, although its neither a recent phenomena nor one limited to one party or one nation. More or less since the first political election in world history, candidates and their reps have been engaging in different forms of the same thing. In Wisconsin for example, although the Voter ID law was struck down yesterday and most likely won't be in effect for the November elections, the party in power has successfully taken several other steps to limit voting access of opposition supporters, the same as the other side would do if it had power.

I'm not aware of Democrats attempting to limit voting. Do you have examples of this?

Anytime the Dems had held the power to redraw district maps, they have done so with the intent on bettering their political power base (same with Reps).

But that's gerrymandering. It's not limiting voting. Very different.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

History will not look kindly upon those who went through such efforts to purposely leave out those who would not vote for them. It's one of the more sad episodes in our recent history, imo, and those who support it will be looked upon in that vein.

Perhaps, although its neither a recent phenomena nor one limited to one party or one nation. More or less since the first political election in world history, candidates and their reps have been engaging in different forms of the same thing. In Wisconsin for example, although the Voter ID law was struck down yesterday and most likely won't be in effect for the November elections, the party in power has successfully taken several other steps to limit voting access of opposition supporters, the same as the other side would do if it had power.

I'm not aware of Democrats attempting to limit voting. Do you have examples of this?

I honestly think most Democrats would instantly switch sides on this issue if it was shown that ID laws somehow gave them an electoral advantage. It has so much common-sense appeal that it would be really hard to resist.

Edit: And of course, Republicans would switch sides too in that case.

 

[timschochet]

History will not look kindly upon those who went through such efforts to purposely leave out those who would not vote for them. It's one of the more sad episodes in our recent history, imo, and those who support it will be looked upon in that vein.

Perhaps, although its neither a recent phenomena nor one limited to one party or one nation. More or less since the first political election in world history, candidates and their reps have been engaging in different forms of the same thing. In Wisconsin for example, although the Voter ID law was struck down yesterday and most likely won't be in effect for the November elections, the party in power has successfully taken several other steps to limit voting access of opposition supporters, the same as the other side would do if it had power.

I'm not aware of Democrats attempting to limit voting. Do you have examples of this?

I honestly think most Democrats would instantly switch sides on this issue if it was shown that ID laws somehow gave them an electoral advantage. It has so much common-sense appeal that it would be really hard to resist.

Edit: And of course, Republicans would switch sides too in that case.

I used to agree with you. But I've since changed my mind. If no voter fraud is happening, what's the point of this requirement?

 

[pantagrapher]

History will not look kindly upon those who went through such efforts to purposely leave out those who would not vote for them. It's one of the more sad episodes in our recent history, imo, and those who support it will be looked upon in that vein.

Perhaps, although its neither a recent phenomena nor one limited to one party or one nation. More or less since the first political election in world history, candidates and their reps have been engaging in different forms of the same thing. In Wisconsin for example, although the Voter ID law was struck down yesterday and most likely won't be in effect for the November elections, the party in power has successfully taken several other steps to limit voting access of opposition supporters, the same as the other side would do if it had power.

I'm not aware of Democrats attempting to limit voting. Do you have examples of this?

I honestly think most Democrats would instantly switch sides on this issue if it was shown that ID laws somehow gave them an electoral advantage.

There are some who have speculated that it will do just that. And I'm still against it.

 

[Rayderr]

History will not look kindly upon those who went through such efforts to purposely leave out those who would not vote for them. It's one of the more sad episodes in our recent history, imo, and those who support it will be looked upon in that vein.

Perhaps, although its neither a recent phenomena nor one limited to one party or one nation. More or less since the first political election in world history, candidates and their reps have been engaging in different forms of the same thing. In Wisconsin for example, although the Voter ID law was struck down yesterday and most likely won't be in effect for the November elections, the party in power has successfully taken several other steps to limit voting access of opposition supporters, the same as the other side would do if it had power.

I'm not aware of Democrats attempting to limit voting. Do you have examples of this?

I honestly think most Democrats would instantly switch sides on this issue if it was shown that ID laws somehow gave them an electoral advantage. It has so much common-sense appeal that it would be really hard to resist.

Edit: And of course, Republicans would switch sides too in that case.

I used to agree with you. But I've since changed my mind. If no voter fraud is happening, what's the point of this requirement?

Voter fraud is happening. Maybe not the kind that would be solved by a photo ID, but it is happening.

 

[pantagrapher]

I love this. The new defense is that both sides do it. It's the Godwin's Law of fallback positions for the GOP these days.

 

[timschochet]

History will not look kindly upon those who went through such efforts to purposely leave out those who would not vote for them. It's one of the more sad episodes in our recent history, imo, and those who support it will be looked upon in that vein.

Perhaps, although its neither a recent phenomena nor one limited to one party or one nation. More or less since the first political election in world history, candidates and their reps have been engaging in different forms of the same thing. In Wisconsin for example, although the Voter ID law was struck down yesterday and most likely won't be in effect for the November elections, the party in power has successfully taken several other steps to limit voting access of opposition supporters, the same as the other side would do if it had power.

I'm not aware of Democrats attempting to limit voting. Do you have examples of this?

I honestly think most Democrats would instantly switch sides on this issue if it was shown that ID laws somehow gave them an electoral advantage. It has so much common-sense appeal that it would be really hard to resist.

Edit: And of course, Republicans would switch sides too in that case.

I used to agree with you. But I've since changed my mind. If no voter fraud is happening, what's the point of this requirement?

Voter fraud is happening. Maybe not the kind that would be solved by a photo ID, but it is happening.

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

 

[pantagrapher]

History will not look kindly upon those who went through such efforts to purposely leave out those who would not vote for them. It's one of the more sad episodes in our recent history, imo, and those who support it will be looked upon in that vein.

Perhaps, although its neither a recent phenomena nor one limited to one party or one nation. More or less since the first political election in world history, candidates and their reps have been engaging in different forms of the same thing. In Wisconsin for example, although the Voter ID law was struck down yesterday and most likely won't be in effect for the November elections, the party in power has successfully taken several other steps to limit voting access of opposition supporters, the same as the other side would do if it had power.

I'm not aware of Democrats attempting to limit voting. Do you have examples of this?

I honestly think most Democrats would instantly switch sides on this issue if it was shown that ID laws somehow gave them an electoral advantage. It has so much common-sense appeal that it would be really hard to resist.

Edit: And of course, Republicans would switch sides too in that case.

I used to agree with you. But I've since changed my mind. If no voter fraud is happening, what's the point of this requirement?

Voter fraud is happening. Maybe not the kind that would be solved by a photo ID, but it is happening.

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

This one guy in Oregon cast an absentee ballot for his dead father in 2008. It was an outrage.

 

[tommyGunZ]

History will not look kindly upon those who went through such efforts to purposely leave out those who would not vote for them. It's one of the more sad episodes in our recent history, imo, and those who support it will be looked upon in that vein.

Perhaps, although its neither a recent phenomena nor one limited to one party or one nation. More or less since the first political election in world history, candidates and their reps have been engaging in different forms of the same thing. In Wisconsin for example, although the Voter ID law was struck down yesterday and most likely won't be in effect for the November elections, the party in power has successfully taken several other steps to limit voting access of opposition supporters, the same as the other side would do if it had power.

I'm not aware of Democrats attempting to limit voting. Do you have examples of this?

I honestly think most Democrats would instantly switch sides on this issue if it was shown that ID laws somehow gave them an electoral advantage. It has so much common-sense appeal that it would be really hard to resist.

Edit: And of course, Republicans would switch sides too in that case.

Surprised to read this from you IK.

 

[Koya]

History will not look kindly upon those who went through such efforts to purposely leave out those who would not vote for them. It's one of the more sad episodes in our recent history, imo, and those who support it will be looked upon in that vein.

Perhaps, although its neither a recent phenomena nor one limited to one party or one nation. More or less since the first political election in world history, candidates and their reps have been engaging in different forms of the same thing. In Wisconsin for example, although the Voter ID law was struck down yesterday and most likely won't be in effect for the November elections, the party in power has successfully taken several other steps to limit voting access of opposition supporters, the same as the other side would do if it had power.

I'm not aware of Democrats attempting to limit voting. Do you have examples of this?

Anytime the Dems had held the power to redraw district maps, they have done so with the intent on bettering their political power base (same with Reps).

But that's gerrymandering. It's not limiting voting. Very different.

It's really not that different... the root reason is to help elections go your way, often AT THE EXPENSE of providing the electorate with a true voice.

I can gerrymander to make your vote not count, or I can come up with laws that make your vote not count (or let you not vote). Same thing at the root imo.

 

[Koya]

History will not look kindly upon those who went through such efforts to purposely leave out those who would not vote for them. It's one of the more sad episodes in our recent history, imo, and those who support it will be looked upon in that vein.

Perhaps, although its neither a recent phenomena nor one limited to one party or one nation. More or less since the first political election in world history, candidates and their reps have been engaging in different forms of the same thing. In Wisconsin for example, although the Voter ID law was struck down yesterday and most likely won't be in effect for the November elections, the party in power has successfully taken several other steps to limit voting access of opposition supporters, the same as the other side would do if it had power.

I'm not aware of Democrats attempting to limit voting. Do you have examples of this?

I honestly think most Democrats would instantly switch sides on this issue if it was shown that ID laws somehow gave them an electoral advantage. It has so much common-sense appeal that it would be really hard to resist.

Edit: And of course, Republicans would switch sides too in that case.

I used to agree with you. But I've since changed my mind. If no voter fraud is happening, what's the point of this requirement?

Voter fraud is happening. Maybe not the kind that would be solved by a photo ID, but it is happening.

So, even though study after study has demonstrated that no fraud is happening (none of any significant especially), and there is no evidence that it is, you want to claim that it's happening.

 

[Rayderr]

History will not look kindly upon those who went through such efforts to purposely leave out those who would not vote for them. It's one of the more sad episodes in our recent history, imo, and those who support it will be looked upon in that vein.

Perhaps, although its neither a recent phenomena nor one limited to one party or one nation. More or less since the first political election in world history, candidates and their reps have been engaging in different forms of the same thing. In Wisconsin for example, although the Voter ID law was struck down yesterday and most likely won't be in effect for the November elections, the party in power has successfully taken several other steps to limit voting access of opposition supporters, the same as the other side would do if it had power.

I'm not aware of Democrats attempting to limit voting. Do you have examples of this?

I honestly think most Democrats would instantly switch sides on this issue if it was shown that ID laws somehow gave them an electoral advantage. It has so much common-sense appeal that it would be really hard to resist.

Edit: And of course, Republicans would switch sides too in that case.

I used to agree with you. But I've since changed my mind. If no voter fraud is happening, what's the point of this requirement?

Voter fraud is happening. Maybe not the kind that would be solved by a photo ID, but it is happening.

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Go back a couple pages to the story of the woman who was convicted for voting for Obama 6 times in the 2008 election (and then was literally embraced by former Democrat Presidential Candidate and MSNBC host Al Sharpton at a, get this, voting rights rally.)

 

[Koya]

History will not look kindly upon those who went through such efforts to purposely leave out those who would not vote for them. It's one of the more sad episodes in our recent history, imo, and those who support it will be looked upon in that vein.

Perhaps, although its neither a recent phenomena nor one limited to one party or one nation. More or less since the first political election in world history, candidates and their reps have been engaging in different forms of the same thing. In Wisconsin for example, although the Voter ID law was struck down yesterday and most likely won't be in effect for the November elections, the party in power has successfully taken several other steps to limit voting access of opposition supporters, the same as the other side would do if it had power.

I'm not aware of Democrats attempting to limit voting. Do you have examples of this?

I honestly think most Democrats would instantly switch sides on this issue if it was shown that ID laws somehow gave them an electoral advantage. It has so much common-sense appeal that it would be really hard to resist.

Edit: And of course, Republicans would switch sides too in that case.

I used to agree with you. But I've since changed my mind. If no voter fraud is happening, what's the point of this requirement?

Voter fraud is happening. Maybe not the kind that would be solved by a photo ID, but it is happening.

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Go back a couple pages to the story of the woman who was convicted for voting for Obama 6 times in the 2008 election (and then was literally embraced by former Democrat Presidential Candidate and MSNBC host Al Sharpton at a, get this, voting rights rally.)

CHANGE THE WHOLE SYSTEM! WE'VE RUN AMOCK!

Come on, we need to do better than that. And please, Sharpton's Nuts.

 

[Rayderr]

History will not look kindly upon those who went through such efforts to purposely leave out those who would not vote for them. It's one of the more sad episodes in our recent history, imo, and those who support it will be looked upon in that vein.

Perhaps, although its neither a recent phenomena nor one limited to one party or one nation. More or less since the first political election in world history, candidates and their reps have been engaging in different forms of the same thing. In Wisconsin for example, although the Voter ID law was struck down yesterday and most likely won't be in effect for the November elections, the party in power has successfully taken several other steps to limit voting access of opposition supporters, the same as the other side would do if it had power.

I'm not aware of Democrats attempting to limit voting. Do you have examples of this?

I honestly think most Democrats would instantly switch sides on this issue if it was shown that ID laws somehow gave them an electoral advantage. It has so much common-sense appeal that it would be really hard to resist.

Edit: And of course, Republicans would switch sides too in that case.

I used to agree with you. But I've since changed my mind. If no voter fraud is happening, what's the point of this requirement?

Voter fraud is happening. Maybe not the kind that would be solved by a photo ID, but it is happening.

So, even though study after study has demonstrated that no fraud is happening (none of any significant especially), and there is no evidence that it is, you want to claim that it's happening.

You're not too bright are you?

 

[Rayderr]

History will not look kindly upon those who went through such efforts to purposely leave out those who would not vote for them. It's one of the more sad episodes in our recent history, imo, and those who support it will be looked upon in that vein.

Perhaps, although its neither a recent phenomena nor one limited to one party or one nation. More or less since the first political election in world history, candidates and their reps have been engaging in different forms of the same thing. In Wisconsin for example, although the Voter ID law was struck down yesterday and most likely won't be in effect for the November elections, the party in power has successfully taken several other steps to limit voting access of opposition supporters, the same as the other side would do if it had power.

I'm not aware of Democrats attempting to limit voting. Do you have examples of this?

I honestly think most Democrats would instantly switch sides on this issue if it was shown that ID laws somehow gave them an electoral advantage. It has so much common-sense appeal that it would be really hard to resist.

Edit: And of course, Republicans would switch sides too in that case.

I used to agree with you. But I've since changed my mind. If no voter fraud is happening, what's the point of this requirement?

Voter fraud is happening. Maybe not the kind that would be solved by a photo ID, but it is happening.

What evidence do you have to support this claim?

Go back a couple pages to the story of the woman who was convicted for voting for Obama 6 times in the 2008 election (and then was literally embraced by former Democrat Presidential Candidate and MSNBC host Al Sharpton at a, get this, voting rights rally.)

CHANGE THE WHOLE SYSTEM! WE'VE RUN AMOCK!

Come on, we need to do better than that. And please, Sharpton's Nuts.

"There's no Voter fraud!!"

"Yes there is"

"Uhuh!! Prove it!!!!"

"OK, here's a recent case."

"Well, uh, that doesn't count. Because.. um.... I said so!"

 

[timschochet]

History will not look kindly upon those who went through such efforts to purposely leave out those who would not vote for them. It's one of the more sad episodes in our recent history, imo, and those who support it will be looked upon in that vein.

Perhaps, although its neither a recent phenomena nor one limited to one party or one nation. More or less since the first political election in world history, candidates and their reps have been engaging in different forms of the same thing. In Wisconsin for example, although the Voter ID law was struck down yesterday and most likely won't be in effect for the November elections, the party in power has successfully taken several other steps to limit voting access of opposition supporters, the same as the other side would do if it had power.

I'm not aware of Democrats attempting to limit voting. Do you have examples of this?

Anytime the Dems had held the power to redraw district maps, they have done so with the intent on bettering their political power base (same with Reps).

But that's gerrymandering. It's not limiting voting. Very different.

It's really not that different... the root reason is to help elections go your way, often AT THE EXPENSE of providing the electorate with a true voice.

I can gerrymander to make your vote not count, or I can come up with laws that make your vote not count (or let you not vote). Same thing at the root imo.

I disagree. I'm not a fan of gerrymandering, but the root of that problem lies in the fact that too many people tend to vote for political party consistently rather than taking an independent view of each camdidate. That's what really makes my vote seem less significant.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

History will not look kindly upon those who went through such efforts to purposely leave out those who would not vote for them. It's one of the more sad episodes in our recent history, imo, and those who support it will be looked upon in that vein.

Perhaps, although its neither a recent phenomena nor one limited to one party or one nation. More or less since the first political election in world history, candidates and their reps have been engaging in different forms of the same thing. In Wisconsin for example, although the Voter ID law was struck down yesterday and most likely won't be in effect for the November elections, the party in power has successfully taken several other steps to limit voting access of opposition supporters, the same as the other side would do if it had power.

I'm not aware of Democrats attempting to limit voting. Do you have examples of this?

Anytime the Dems had held the power to redraw district maps, they have done so with the intent on bettering their political power base (same with Reps).

But that's gerrymandering. It's not limiting voting. Very different.

Gerrymandering is very similar imo - manipulating the voter pool to marginalize some votes while increasing the value of others. In addition to voter id, the parties also fight over things like early voting, same-day registration and similar issues.

 

[CBusAlex]

And as a side benefit, they act as a screening device by discouraging the shiftless, lazy, and disengaged from polluting the electorate.

It only discourages the lazy and disengaged people that don't already have IDs. Lazy people that drive cars are no more qualified than lazy people that don't.

True. I hope and pray that we can find ways to screen those other folks out too. But at least it's a start.

We could make voting require a special kind of ID that can only be obtained at the welfare office. Since over 80% of Americans drive cars, but only like 5% are on welfare that would be a much better way to screen out unqualified voters, don't you think?

 

[timschochet]

Rayderr, I'm not interested in anecdotal evidence. Do you have any statistical evidence that voter fraud is a significant issue? (meaning that it may have changed the outcome of an election)?

 

[Rayderr]

Rayderr, I'm not interested in anecdotal evidence. Do you have any statistical evidence that voter fraud is a significant issue? (meaning that it may have changed the outcome of an election)?

Here's a case where it did affect the outcome of an election.

 

[timschochet]

Rayderr, I'm not interested in anecdotal evidence. Do you have any statistical evidence that voter fraud is a significant issue? (meaning that it may have changed the outcome of an election)?

Here's a case where it did affect the outcome of an election.

OK you found an example. Obviously a one vote result, while possible, is pretty rare. And the story doesn't indicate that the fraud was committed because no voter ID was asked for. So I still don't see that stories like this one make the need for voter ID any more necessary.

 

[Josie Maran]

I'm voter frauding right now.

 

[Rayderr]

Rayderr, I'm not interested in anecdotal evidence. Do you have any statistical evidence that voter fraud is a significant issue? (meaning that it may have changed the outcome of an election)?

Here's a case where it did affect the outcome of an election.

OK you found an example. Obviously a one vote result, while possible, is pretty rare. And the story doesn't indicate that the fraud was committed because no voter ID was asked for. So I still don't see that stories like this one make the need for voter ID any more necessary.

Good lord man...

I used to agree with you. But I've since changed my mind. If no voter fraud is happening, what's the point of this requirement?

Voter fraud is happening. Maybe not the kind that would be solved by a photo ID, but it is happening.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

History will not look kindly upon those who went through such efforts to purposely leave out those who would not vote for them. It's one of the more sad episodes in our recent history, imo, and those who support it will be looked upon in that vein.

Perhaps, although its neither a recent phenomena nor one limited to one party or one nation. More or less since the first political election in world history, candidates and their reps have been engaging in different forms of the same thing. In Wisconsin for example, although the Voter ID law was struck down yesterday and most likely won't be in effect for the November elections, the party in power has successfully taken several other steps to limit voting access of opposition supporters, the same as the other side would do if it had power.

I'm not aware of Democrats attempting to limit voting. Do you have examples of this?

I honestly think most Democrats would instantly switch sides on this issue if it was shown that ID laws somehow gave them an electoral advantage. It has so much common-sense appeal that it would be really hard to resist.

Edit: And of course, Republicans would switch sides too in that case.

I used to agree with you. But I've since changed my mind. If no voter fraud is happening, what's the point of this requirement?

NO WAY!!!!!!

 

[timschochet]

Rayderr, I'm not interested in anecdotal evidence. Do you have any statistical evidence that voter fraud is a significant issue? (meaning that it may have changed the outcome of an election)?

Here's a case where it did affect the outcome of an election.

OK you found an example. Obviously a one vote result, while possible, is pretty rare. And the story doesn't indicate that the fraud was committed because no voter ID was asked for. So I still don't see that stories like this one make the need for voter ID any more necessary.

Good lord man...

I used to agree with you. But I've since changed my mind. If no voter fraud is happening, what's the point of this requirement?

Voter fraud is happening. Maybe not the kind that would be solved by a photo ID, but it is happening.

So what's your point then? Are you in favor of voter ID? If so why?

 

[Rayderr]

Rayderr, I'm not interested in anecdotal evidence. Do you have any statistical evidence that voter fraud is a significant issue? (meaning that it may have changed the outcome of an election)?

Here's a case where it did affect the outcome of an election.

OK you found an example. Obviously a one vote result, while possible, is pretty rare. And the story doesn't indicate that the fraud was committed because no voter ID was asked for. So I still don't see that stories like this one make the need for voter ID any more necessary.

Good lord man...

I used to agree with you. But I've since changed my mind. If no voter fraud is happening, what's the point of this requirement?

Voter fraud is happening. Maybe not the kind that would be solved by a photo ID, but it is happening.

So what's your point then? Are you in favor of voter ID? If so why?

My point is that it's wrong to say over and over and over again that there is no voter fraud happening.

Personally, I support using fingerprints. That way it can be used to help validate mail ballots too.

And there is actually one way that a State issued ID card can stop voter fraud. It can be used to stop convicts from voting (which there are plenty of cases each election.) Get convicted, a little mark goes in the computer system to indicate that you can't vote. Come election day, they go to the polls, hand the poll worker the ID, they type in your ID number *ding* Sorry, you can't vote because you're a convict.

 

[timschochet]

So you support IDs in order to prevent felons from voting, but you object to background checks that might help to prevent felons from buying guns.

No offense, but your priorities seem a little odd to me.

 

[Sarnoff]

Rayderr, I'm not interested in anecdotal evidence. Do you have any statistical evidence that voter fraud is a significant issue? (meaning that it may have changed the outcome of an election)?

IOU one hate for this post.

 

[Josie Maran]

Tim, we've actually been over this already. Go back and read the thread from the beginning.

 

[Rayderr]

So you support IDs in order to prevent felons from voting, but you object to background checks that might help to prevent felons from buying guns.

No offense, but your priorities seem a little odd to me.

You need a better notebook. I'm all for background checks (hell, in one of the 83 gun threads, I said private gun sales should occur at a police station where an officer can run a quick background check and process the paperwork.) But I don't think that's going to make a dent in the problem.

 

[timschochet]

So you support IDs in order to prevent felons from voting, but you object to background checks that might help to prevent felons from buying guns.

No offense, but your priorities seem a little odd to me.

You need a better notebook. I'm all for background checks (hell, in one of the 83 gun threads, I said private gun sales should occur at a police station where an officer can run a quick background check and process the paperwork.) But I don't think that's going to make a dent in the problem.

I apologize. I lose track on that issue. But doesn't it seem ironic that so many of the same people pushing for voter id laws are opposed to background checks?

 

[Rayderr]

So you support IDs in order to prevent felons from voting, but you object to background checks that might help to prevent felons from buying guns.

No offense, but your priorities seem a little odd to me.

You need a better notebook. I'm all for background checks (hell, in one of the 83 gun threads, I said private gun sales should occur at a police station where an officer can run a quick background check and process the paperwork.) But I don't think that's going to make a dent in the problem.

I apologize. I lose track on that issue. But doesn't it seem ironic that so many of the same people pushing for voter id laws are opposed to background checks?

And ironic that some are pushing for background checks and are opposed to voter ID laws.

 

[timschochet]

So you support IDs in order to prevent felons from voting, but you object to background checks that might help to prevent felons from buying guns.

No offense, but your priorities seem a little odd to me.

You need a better notebook. I'm all for background checks (hell, in one of the 83 gun threads, I said private gun sales should occur at a police station where an officer can run a quick background check and process the paperwork.) But I don't think that's going to make a dent in the problem.

I apologize. I lose track on that issue. But doesn't it seem ironic that so many of the same people pushing for voter id laws are opposed to background checks?

And ironic that some are pushing for background checks and are opposed to voter ID laws.

No it doesn't work the other way. Voter fraud is not a significant problem in this country, therefore I don't see the need to inconvenience people. Gun crime is a significant problem, therefore the inconvenience is worth it.

 

[Rayderr]

So you support IDs in order to prevent felons from voting, but you object to background checks that might help to prevent felons from buying guns.

No offense, but your priorities seem a little odd to me.

You need a better notebook. I'm all for background checks (hell, in one of the 83 gun threads, I said private gun sales should occur at a police station where an officer can run a quick background check and process the paperwork.) But I don't think that's going to make a dent in the problem.

I apologize. I lose track on that issue. But doesn't it seem ironic that so many of the same people pushing for voter id laws are opposed to background checks?

And ironic that some are pushing for background checks and are opposed to voter ID laws.

No it doesn't work the other way. Voter fraud is not a significant problem in this country, therefore I don't see the need to inconvenience people. Gun crime is a significant problem, therefore the inconvenience is worth it.

Just out of curiosity, what is an acceptable amount of voter fraud for you?

And just for clarity, you're against voter ID because it might be an inconvenience?

 

[Clifford]

Still slim to none?

 

[Sarnoff]

So you support IDs in order to prevent felons from voting, but you object to background checks that might help to prevent felons from buying guns.

No offense, but your priorities seem a little odd to me.

You need a better notebook. I'm all for background checks (hell, in one of the 83 gun threads, I said private gun sales should occur at a police station where an officer can run a quick background check and process the paperwork.) But I don't think that's going to make a dent in the problem.

I apologize. I lose track on that issue. But doesn't it seem ironic that so many of the same people pushing for voter id laws are opposed to background checks?

And ironic that some are pushing for background checks and are opposed to voter ID laws.

No it doesn't work the other way. Voter fraud is not a significant problem in this country, therefore I don't see the need to inconvenience people. Gun crime is a significant problem, therefore the inconvenience is worth it.

IOU one hate for this post.

 

[timschochet]

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.

 

[Rich Conway]

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.

Isn't this exactly analogous to Voter ID?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

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.

Isn't this exactly analogous to Voter ID?

All except for the part where checking visitors for weapons prevents millions of law-abiding people from visiting Disney.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Rich and IvanK, where do you think Voter Fraud should fall on a list of both state and federal priorities to be dealt with in the near term? Not one party's priorities or the other, your opinion.

Not a major priority. I support voter ID requirements because they're cheap and easy (cost is proportional to the issue being addressed). And as a side benefit, they act as a screening device by discouraging the shiftless, lazy, and disengaged from polluting the electorate. In other words, I'd support them even if voter fraud didn't exist at all.

On the other hand, people who oppose ID requirements virtually always argue that they do so because voter fraud doesn't exist, at least to any meaningful degree. So now that we have evidence that voter fraud really does happen, I would expect those people to change their position accordingly.

This is pretty close to my position.

I think preventing one fraudulent vote is more important than worrying about 10,000 lazy people that can't get an ID. It is pretty unfathomable to me that people don't have one to begin with. How do they cash their paychecks? How do they fill out an I-9? How do they do any number of other things?

Basically you are telling me it will make it a tiny bit harder for jobless people that don't have bank accounts, own property, cars, or even spouses to go and vote? Oh no, the horror.