How much Voter Fraud is Happening (2 Viewers)

[Stinger Ray]

I think we're done here. No one seems to really believe that voter fraud is a real current problem. Some people favor a system that makes it hard for certain voters to vote, and some favor ensuring everyone has a right to vote. But this "apathetic" crap has to go. Just because you are poor, or were born into a very poor family, does not mean you are apathetic. It means you face a bigger hardship in attaining an ID. Whether people want to believe this or not does not change the reality of the situation.

Tim if you would like to try and explain how some people have an interest in who wins elections and others don't, give it a try.

How do the poor people you speak of get a drivers license?

 

[Clifford]

Read the studies. Ignore them if you want. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the world disappear.

 

[timschochet]

I think we're done here. No one seems to really believe that voter fraud is a real current problem. Some people favor a system that makes it hard for certain voters to vote, and some favor ensuring everyone has a right to vote. But this "apathetic" crap has to go. Just because you are poor, or were born into a very poor family, does not mean you are apathetic. It means you face a bigger hardship in attaining an ID. Whether people want to believe this or not does not change the reality of the situation.

Tim if you would like to try and explain how some people have an interest in who wins elections and others don't, give it a try.

I suggest you google Robert Dahl and his theories about pluralism in our society. He wrote hundreds of pages on this subject, and it would be difficult for me to encapsulate it in a few lines. But I'll try:

True democracy in which everyone has a vote all of the time doesn't work. Our form of democracy works because most people are disinterested in outcomes which don't affect them- this allows those who ARE interested in a specific outcome to get what they want. The most interested have the most power. Here's a contemporary example you won't like- most people who are in favor of gun control aren't especially interested in the issue (not enough to vote on it.) However, people who are opposed to gun control are very interested in the issue and will vote on it as a priority. That's why, even though those opposed to gun control tend to be in the minority, they still win most of the time. Now I know you're thinking, well that sucks, but it doesn't. It actually comes in very handy and saves our society from reacting emotionally to issues that we really should think deeply about.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I simply cannot believe a person cannot get off their ### and get an ID.

The goalposts have officially moved.

 

[Clifford]

This is so effing stupid

To Tim, if you have an ID you are a more informed voter that is more likely to make a rational decision.

If you don't, you are more easily influenced by politicians with charisma. My god the sheer stupidity of that argument is like a ton of bricks to the dome.

 

[timschochet]

Tim you have officially burned through all your capital for getting johnjohn banned. At least with me.

Glad that your political views don't affect your opinions of people.

 

[Clifford]

I think we're done here. No one seems to really believe that voter fraud is a real current problem. Some people favor a system that makes it hard for certain voters to vote, and some favor ensuring everyone has a right to vote. But this "apathetic" crap has to go. Just because you are poor, or were born into a very poor family, does not mean you are apathetic. It means you face a bigger hardship in attaining an ID. Whether people want to believe this or not does not change the reality of the situation.

Tim if you would like to try and explain how some people have an interest in who wins elections and others don't, give it a try.

I suggest you google Robert Dahl and his theories about pluralism in our society. He wrote hundreds of pages on this subject, and it would be difficult for me to encapsulate it in a few lines. But I'll try:True democracy in which everyone has a vote all of the time doesn't work. Our form of democracy works because most people are disinterested in outcomes which don't affect them- this allows those who ARE interested in a specific outcome to get what they want. The most interested have the most power. Here's a contemporary example you won't like- most people who are in favor of gun control aren't especially interested in the issue (not enough to vote on it.) However, people who are opposed to gun control are very interested in the issue and will vote on it as a priority. That's why, even though those opposed to gun control tend to be in the minority, they still win most of the time. Now I know you're thinking, well that sucks, but it doesn't. It actually comes in very handy and saves our society from reacting emotionally to issues that we really should think deeply about.

OMFG just read what you wrote. Read it. Good ####### Lord.

 

[Stinger Ray]

This is so effing stupid

To Tim, if you have an ID you are a more informed voter that is more likely to make a rational decision.

If you don't, you are more easily influenced by politicians with charisma. My god the sheer stupidity of that argument is like a ton of bricks to the dome.

Each time I see you rant in this forum I'm convinced your avatar is really you.

 

[timschochet]

Let me ask you a hypothetical question, Clifford: suppose there were two national elections in American history. In the first one, only 51% of the voting public bothered to vote. In the second one, well over 75% of the voting public bothered to vote.

If I asked you to guess the economic and/or social conditions that existed at the time of each election, which conditions would you guess would be worse? Would things be worse for most people when 51% voted, or would they be worse for most people when 75% chose to vote?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Tim if you would like to try and explain how some people have an interest in who wins elections and others don't, give it a try.

I suggest you google Robert Dahl and his theories about pluralism in our society. He wrote hundreds of pages on this subject, and it would be difficult for me to encapsulate it in a few lines.

You're evidently reading a lot more into the story of the Oompa-Loompas than I got out of it.

 

[timschochet]

Tim if you would like to try and explain how some people have an interest in who wins elections and others don't, give it a try.

I suggest you google Robert Dahl and his theories about pluralism in our society. He wrote hundreds of pages on this subject, and it would be difficult for me to encapsulate it in a few lines.

You're evidently reading a lot more into the story of the Oompa-Loompas than I got out of it.

Wrong story. This was the one about the giant peach.

 

[pantagrapher]

How do all these people without ID cash their checks?

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.

Also, many of the people effected might have IDs, just not current ones. Not everyone runs out and gets a new license every time they move. And as Texas voters found out recently, many people's voter registration name does not exactly match the name on their ID.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I think we're done here. No one seems to really believe that voter fraud is a real current problem. Some people favor a system that makes it hard for certain voters to vote, and some favor ensuring everyone has a right to vote. But this "apathetic" crap has to go. Just because you are poor, or were born into a very poor family, does not mean you are apathetic. It means you face a bigger hardship in attaining an ID. Whether people want to believe this or not does not change the reality of the situation.

Tim if you would like to try and explain how some people have an interest in who wins elections and others don't, give it a try.

I suggest you google Robert Dahl and his theories about pluralism in our society. He wrote hundreds of pages on this subject, and it would be difficult for me to encapsulate it in a few lines. But I'll try:

True democracy in which everyone has a vote all of the time doesn't work. Our form of democracy works because most people are disinterested in outcomes which don't affect them- this allows those who ARE interested in a specific outcome to get what they want. The most interested have the most power. Here's a contemporary example you won't like- most people who are in favor of gun control aren't especially interested in the issue (not enough to vote on it.) However, people who are opposed to gun control are very interested in the issue and will vote on it as a priority. That's why, even though those opposed to gun control tend to be in the minority, they still win most of the time. Now I know you're thinking, well that sucks, but it doesn't. It actually comes in very handy and saves our society from reacting emotionally to issues that we really should think deeply about.

So how does more people voting mean that suddenly we would have gun control? Those that favor it but prioritize other things higher are suddenly becoming single issue anti gun control voters?

And what saves our nation from reacting emotionally is the greater diversity of competing ideas that comes from more being involved, even in the most minimalistic (is that a word?) manner that voting offers. Voting is certainly on the low end of the spectrum of exerting power on government anyway.

 

[Rich Conway]

How do all these people without ID cash their checks?

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.

Also, many of the people effected might have IDs, just not current ones. Not everyone runs out and gets a new license every time they move. And as Texas voters found out recently, many people's voter registration name does not exactly match the name on their ID.

And whose fault is that?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

How do all these people without ID cash their checks?

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.

Also, many of the people effected might have IDs, just not current ones. Not everyone runs out and gets a new license every time they move. And as Texas voters found out recently, many people's voter registration name does not exactly match the name on their ID.

And whose fault is that?

I don't understand why you care about fault so much. Losing your right to vote is not an appropriate punishment for this situation.

For what it's worth, I'd guess the fault is sometimes with some bureaucrat, or the person didn't update something when she changed her name due to marriage or divorce.

 

[pantagrapher]

How do all these people without ID cash their checks?

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.

Also, many of the people effected might have IDs, just not current ones. Not everyone runs out and gets a new license every time they move. And as Texas voters found out recently, many people's voter registration name does not exactly match the name on their ID.

And whose fault is that?

Hard to say. Could be the person entering their name into the system. Could be they got married and didn't update their ID. Could be they have a middle initial on the ID but not on their registration. Plenty of things can go wrong during data entry that happens on such a massive scale over a brief period of time.

Or wait, did you want me to say it's always the voter's fault? Because lazy.

 

[Rich Conway]

How do all these people without ID cash their checks?

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.

Also, many of the people effected might have IDs, just not current ones. Not everyone runs out and gets a new license every time they move. And as Texas voters found out recently, many people's voter registration name does not exactly match the name on their ID.

And whose fault is that?

I don't understand why you care about fault so much. Losing your right to vote is not an appropriate punishment for this situation.

For what it's worth, I'd guess the fault is sometimes with some bureaucrat, or the person didn't update something when she changed her name due to marriage or divorce.

No one is "losing the right to vote". This is something that can be resolved with a minimal amount of effort.

 

[Rich Conway]

As Ivan has pointed out, this pretty much comes down to whether one believes that the process of obtaining an ID is trivial or burdensome. If you believe it's trivial, then the cost/benefit ratio pretty clearly favors voter ID. If you believe it's burdensome, then the cost/benefit ratio might favor the honor system. I'm strongly in the camp that says we can make the process of obtaining an ID trivial.

 

[pantagrapher]

As Ivan has pointed out, this pretty much comes down to whether one believes that the process of obtaining an ID is trivial or burdensome. If you believe it's trivial, then the cost/benefit ratio pretty clearly favors voter ID. If you believe it's burdensome, then the cost/benefit ratio might favor the honor system. I'm strongly in the camp that says we can make the process of obtaining an ID trivial.

If we had a national ID like some other countries, I'd be more likely to drop my objection to voter ID laws.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

As Ivan has pointed out, this pretty much comes down to whether one believes that the process of obtaining an ID is trivial or burdensome. If you believe it's trivial, then the cost/benefit ratio pretty clearly favors voter ID.

No, I don't agree. The cost/benefit ratio favors no ID requirement, even if the burdens associated with obtaining the ID are small. Because there is no benefit from such a requirement.

 

[Josie Maran]

As Ivan has pointed out, this pretty much comes down to whether one believes that the process of obtaining an ID is trivial or burdensome. If you believe it's trivial, then the cost/benefit ratio pretty clearly favors voter ID. If you believe it's burdensome, then the cost/benefit ratio might favor the honor system. I'm strongly in the camp that says we can make the process of obtaining an ID trivial.

This would make sense if in-person voter fraud were an actual problem that needs to be addressed.

 

[Josie Maran]

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?

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.

I would not be able to get my birth certificate if I needed it. And if I were born in Wisconsin.

 

[Sarnoff]

As Ivan has pointed out, this pretty much comes down to whether one believes that the process of obtaining an ID is trivial or burdensome. If you believe it's trivial, then the cost/benefit ratio pretty clearly favors voter ID. If you believe it's burdensome, then the cost/benefit ratio might favor the honor system. I'm strongly in the camp that says we can make the process of obtaining an ID trivial.

This would make sense if in-person voter fraud were an actual problem that needs to be addressed.

I'd rather close the loophole before it's exploited.

 

[Josie Maran]

As Ivan has pointed out, this pretty much comes down to whether one believes that the process of obtaining an ID is trivial or burdensome. If you believe it's trivial, then the cost/benefit ratio pretty clearly favors voter ID. If you believe it's burdensome, then the cost/benefit ratio might favor the honor system. I'm strongly in the camp that says we can make the process of obtaining an ID trivial.

This would make sense if in-person voter fraud were an actual problem that needs to be addressed.

I'd rather close the loophole before it's exploited.

Of course you would.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

As Ivan has pointed out, this pretty much comes down to whether one believes that the process of obtaining an ID is trivial or burdensome. If you believe it's trivial, then the cost/benefit ratio pretty clearly favors voter ID. If you believe it's burdensome, then the cost/benefit ratio might favor the honor system. I'm strongly in the camp that says we can make the process of obtaining an ID trivial.

This would make sense if in-person voter fraud were an actual problem that needs to be addressed.

Exactly. The benefits/cost ratio will remain close to ZERO because no matter how small you make the denominator gets the numerator is tiny.

And making the denominator small is fantasy in any event -- the intent is to make it large.

 

[Rich Conway]

As Ivan has pointed out, this pretty much comes down to whether one believes that the process of obtaining an ID is trivial or burdensome. If you believe it's trivial, then the cost/benefit ratio pretty clearly favors voter ID.

No, I don't agree. The cost/benefit ratio favors no ID requirement, even if the burdens associated with obtaining the ID are small. Because there is no benefit from such a requirement.

For this to be true, you would have to believe that in person voter fraud has never happened, not once. We know for a fact that this isn't the case. You would also have to believe that voter confidence in the process isn't important.

 

[Sarnoff]

How about if no one has to show ID? Instead, when someone shows up claiming to be someone, the pollworkers just access the DMV database and check their photo and see if it's them.

If the person's not in the system, as a first-time voter who has no way of getting ID, they take his picture there with an iPad and file it in the system. Then the next time they can check if it's the same person or not.

Would make the possibility of double-voting much harder and not "disenfranchise" anyone, right?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

How about if no one has to show ID? Instead, when someone shows up claiming to be someone, the pollworkers just access the DMV database and check their photo and see if it's them.

If the person's not in the system, as a first-time voter who has no way of getting ID, they take his picture there with an iPad and file it in the system. Then the next time they can check if it's the same person or not.

Would make the possibility of double-voting much harder and not "disenfranchise" anyone, right?

Yes, I've been promoting the digital photo concept for years now. Seems pretty easy to implement.

 

[tommyGunZ]

How about if no one has to show ID? Instead, when someone shows up claiming to be someone, the pollworkers just access the DMV database and check their photo and see if it's them.

If the person's not in the system, as a first-time voter who has no way of getting ID, they take his picture there with an iPad and file it in the system. Then the next time they can check if it's the same person or not.

Would make the possibility of double-voting much harder and not "disenfranchise" anyone, right?

Yes, I've been promoting the digital photo concept for years now. Seems pretty easy to implement.

Sounds expensive and extremely time consuming. Getting all those old folks who work the polls up to speed on this kind of tech would be a nightmare.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

How about if no one has to show ID? Instead, when someone shows up claiming to be someone, the pollworkers just access the DMV database and check their photo and see if it's them.

If the person's not in the system, as a first-time voter who has no way of getting ID, they take his picture there with an iPad and file it in the system. Then the next time they can check if it's the same person or not.

Would make the possibility of double-voting much harder and not "disenfranchise" anyone, right?

Yes, I've been promoting the digital photo concept for years now. Seems pretty easy to implement.

Sounds expensive and extremely time consuming. Getting all those old folks who work the polls up to speed on this kind of tech would be a nightmare.

I think the tech consists of positioning a person in a particular spot and then pressing a button.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Something like would be great -- and has the benefit of being a one-time thing unless you change voting districts.

But, again, that's fantasy. That would actually be addressing the potential issue of vote fraud. Which is not even marginally what these laws are actually about.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Something like would be great -- and has the benefit of being a one-time thing unless you change voting districts.

But, again, that's fantasy. That would actually be addressing the potential issue of vote fraud. Which is not even marginally what these laws are actually about.

Right, but it takes away the cover for people pushing more pernicious laws under the guise of election integrity.

 

[FlapJacks]

As Ivan has pointed out, this pretty much comes down to whether one believes that the process of obtaining an ID is trivial or burdensome. If you believe it's trivial, then the cost/benefit ratio pretty clearly favors voter ID. If you believe it's burdensome, then the cost/benefit ratio might favor the honor system. I'm strongly in the camp that says we can make the process of obtaining an ID trivial.

If we had a national ID like some other countries, I'd be more likely to drop my objection to voter ID laws.

The time has come for National ID....SSN already serves as our assigned number....It would make it easier to track those who might try to vote in different states...

 

[tommyGunZ]

How about if no one has to show ID? Instead, when someone shows up claiming to be someone, the pollworkers just access the DMV database and check their photo and see if it's them. If the person's not in the system, as a first-time voter who has no way of getting ID, they take his picture there with an iPad and file it in the system. Then the next time they can check if it's the same person or not. Would make the possibility of double-voting much harder and not "disenfranchise" anyone, right?

Yes, I've been promoting the digital photo concept for years now. Seems pretty easy to implement.

Sounds expensive and extremely time consuming. Getting all those old folks who work the polls up to speed on this kind of tech would be a nightmare.

I think the tech consists of positioning a person in a particular spot and then pressing a button.

Apparently you haven't seen my Dad trying to answer his cell phone.

 

[CBusAlex]

Yep. Like I said a bunch of pages ago, I think most people would instantly and silently switch sides on this issue if the impact of ID requirements ran the other way.

Would you?

 

[CBusAlex]

Yep. Like I said a bunch of pages ago, I think most people would instantly and silently switch sides on this issue if the impact of ID requirements ran the other way.

Actually, this seems like a testable hypothesis. If it were true, one would expect Republicans to favor voter fraud laws that make it difficult for Democrats to vote (like voter ID) and Democrats to favor voter fraud laws that make it difficult for Republicans to vote. Restricting access to absentee ballots for overseas military would be one such potential law; I'm sure there are others.

So, is there any comparable movement on the Democrats' side?

 

[Sarnoff]

As Ivan has pointed out, this pretty much comes down to whether one believes that the process of obtaining an ID is trivial or burdensome. If you believe it's trivial, then the cost/benefit ratio pretty clearly favors voter ID. If you believe it's burdensome, then the cost/benefit ratio might favor the honor system. I'm strongly in the camp that says we can make the process of obtaining an ID trivial.

If we had a national ID like some other countries, I'd be more likely to drop my objection to voter ID laws.

The time has come for National ID....SSN already serves as our assigned number....It would make it easier to track those who might try to vote in different states...

Yeah, we tried that, and found like 35,000 double-voters out of one state alone.

 

[Josie Maran]

As Ivan has pointed out, this pretty much comes down to whether one believes that the process of obtaining an ID is trivial or burdensome. If you believe it's trivial, then the cost/benefit ratio pretty clearly favors voter ID. If you believe it's burdensome, then the cost/benefit ratio might favor the honor system. I'm strongly in the camp that says we can make the process of obtaining an ID trivial.

If we had a national ID like some other countries, I'd be more likely to drop my objection to voter ID laws.

The time has come for National ID....SSN already serves as our assigned number....It would make it easier to track those who might try to vote in different states...

Yeah, we tried that, and found like 35,000 double-voters out of one state alone.

 

[FlapJacks]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/03/hundreds-cases-potential-voter-fraud-uncovered-in-north-carolina/

State elections officials in North Carolina are investigating hundreds of cases of potential voter fraud after identifying thousands of registered voters with personal information matching those of voters who voted in other states in 2012.

Elections Director Kim Strach told state lawmakers at an oversight hearing Wednesday that her staff has identified 765 registered North Carolina voters who appear to have cast ballots in two states during the 2012 presidential election.

 

[FlapJacks]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mummified-detroit-woman-voted-two-years-after-dying-records-show/

Mummified Detroit woman may have voted two years after dying, records show

 

[Josie Maran]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/03/hundreds-cases-potential-voter-fraud-uncovered-in-north-carolina/

State elections officials in North Carolina are investigating hundreds of cases of potential voter fraud after identifying thousands of registered voters with personal information matching those of voters who voted in other states in 2012.

Elections Director Kim Strach told state lawmakers at an oversight hearing Wednesday that her staff has identified 765 registered North Carolina voters who appear to have cast ballots in two states during the 2012 presidential election.

I wonder if they had IDs.

 

[Sarnoff]

As Ivan has pointed out, this pretty much comes down to whether one believes that the process of obtaining an ID is trivial or burdensome. If you believe it's trivial, then the cost/benefit ratio pretty clearly favors voter ID. If you believe it's burdensome, then the cost/benefit ratio might favor the honor system. I'm strongly in the camp that says we can make the process of obtaining an ID trivial.

If we had a national ID like some other countries, I'd be more likely to drop my objection to voter ID laws.

The time has come for National ID....SSN already serves as our assigned number....It would make it easier to track those who might try to vote in different states...

Yeah, we tried that, and found like 35,000 double-voters out of one state alone.

The cross-check found listings for 35,570 North Carolina voters whose first names, last names and dates of birth match those of voters who voted in other states.

 

[Lutherman2112]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mummified-detroit-woman-voted-two-years-after-dying-records-show/

Mummified Detroit woman may have voted two years after dying, records show

• [SIZE=1em]Farrenkopf voted in the November 2010 gubernatorial election, but police and election officials say they believe Farrenkopf did not actually go to the polls, that it was a clerical error.[/SIZE]

 

[Josie Maran]

As Ivan has pointed out, this pretty much comes down to whether one believes that the process of obtaining an ID is trivial or burdensome. If you believe it's trivial, then the cost/benefit ratio pretty clearly favors voter ID. If you believe it's burdensome, then the cost/benefit ratio might favor the honor system. I'm strongly in the camp that says we can make the process of obtaining an ID trivial.

If we had a national ID like some other countries, I'd be more likely to drop my objection to voter ID laws.

The time has come for National ID....SSN already serves as our assigned number....It would make it easier to track those who might try to vote in different states...

Yeah, we tried that, and found like 35,000 double-voters out of one state alone.

The cross-check found listings for 35,570 North Carolina voters whose first names, last names and dates of birth match those of voters who voted in other states.

Oh, I'm aware of the report. What's funny is you citing it as an argument in your favor.

 

[Clifford]

As Ivan has pointed out, this pretty much comes down to whether one believes that the process of obtaining an ID is trivial or burdensome. If you believe it's trivial, then the cost/benefit ratio pretty clearly favors voter ID.

No, I don't agree. The cost/benefit ratio favors no ID requirement, even if the burdens associated with obtaining the ID are small. Because there is no benefit from such a requirement.

For this to be true, you would have to believe that in person voter fraud has never happened, not once. We know for a fact that this isn't the case. You would also have to believe that voter confidence in the process isn't important.

Wrong on both counts. One case of in-person voter fraud per 10,000,000 votes cast is meaningless, therefore correcting it has zero benefit. On the second statement, it simply isn't the case that this boogeyman causes any measurable impact on voter confidence in the process. A lot of people use that excuse, but correcting it wouldn't remove concerns about the security of electronic voting, which has a far greater potential impact on elections.

 

[Clifford]

Yep. Like I said a bunch of pages ago, I think most people would instantly and silently switch sides on this issue if the impact of ID requirements ran the other way.

Would you?

I for one would not, at all. I hate both parties, and I think the idea of taking the vote away from anyone in a representative democracy is crap. But I only see one party trying to do that.

 

[Sarnoff]

As Ivan has pointed out, this pretty much comes down to whether one believes that the process of obtaining an ID is trivial or burdensome. If you believe it's trivial, then the cost/benefit ratio pretty clearly favors voter ID. If you believe it's burdensome, then the cost/benefit ratio might favor the honor system. I'm strongly in the camp that says we can make the process of obtaining an ID trivial.

If we had a national ID like some other countries, I'd be more likely to drop my objection to voter ID laws.

The time has come for National ID....SSN already serves as our assigned number....It would make it easier to track those who might try to vote in different states...

Yeah, we tried that, and found like 35,000 double-voters out of one state alone.

The cross-check found listings for 35,570 North Carolina voters whose first names, last names and dates of birth match those of voters who voted in other states.

Oh, I'm aware of the report. What's funny is you citing it as an argument in your favor.

it's certainly an argument against "it never happens". 35,000 is a significant number of voters in a single state.

 

[Josie Maran]

As Ivan has pointed out, this pretty much comes down to whether one believes that the process of obtaining an ID is trivial or burdensome. If you believe it's trivial, then the cost/benefit ratio pretty clearly favors voter ID. If you believe it's burdensome, then the cost/benefit ratio might favor the honor system. I'm strongly in the camp that says we can make the process of obtaining an ID trivial.

If we had a national ID like some other countries, I'd be more likely to drop my objection to voter ID laws.

The time has come for National ID....SSN already serves as our assigned number....It would make it easier to track those who might try to vote in different states...

Yeah, we tried that, and found like 35,000 double-voters out of one state alone.

The cross-check found listings for 35,570 North Carolina voters whose first names, last names and dates of birth match those of voters who voted in other states.

Oh, I'm aware of the report. What's funny is you citing it as an argument in your favor.

it's certainly an argument against "it never happens". 35,000 is a significant number of voters in a single state.

This was discussed earlier in the thread. That number is totally meaningless.

Someone above posted 700 something. That seems to be the # of people that voted in NC + 1. Not exactly swinging any elections with those numbers.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

As Ivan has pointed out, this pretty much comes down to whether one believes that the process of obtaining an ID is trivial or burdensome. If you believe it's trivial, then the cost/benefit ratio pretty clearly favors voter ID. If you believe it's burdensome, then the cost/benefit ratio might favor the honor system. I'm strongly in the camp that says we can make the process of obtaining an ID trivial.

If we had a national ID like some other countries, I'd be more likely to drop my objection to voter ID laws.

The time has come for National ID....SSN already serves as our assigned number....It would make it easier to track those who might try to vote in different states...

Yeah, we tried that, and found like 35,000 double-voters out of one state alone.

The cross-check found listings for 35,570 North Carolina voters whose first names, last names and dates of birth match those of voters who voted in other states.

These guys seem to vote relentlessly-

1. John Smith

2. Joe Smith

3. Bob Smith

4. Mike Smith

5. Juan Carlos

6. Jane Smith

7. Mike Jones

8. David Smith

9. Sarah Smith

10. James Smith .

 

[parasaurolophus]

As far as just depositing into your checking account, how did they get a checking account?

With the ID they used to have, but don't have anymore because it expired.

As far as using a money mart place how do they do it there without an ID and how can they afford that expense?

A driver's license isn't required, and the fee is taken out of the cash payment.

I dont think public assistance is usually available in just cash form and very rarely would a legal place of employment ever pay in cash, let alone on a regular basis.

There are employers that do illegal stuff.

If I have a license that is expired it is very easy to go get a new one.

Even if the money is taken out of the cash payment it is still an expense. If they cant afford 8 dollars for a birth certificate, how can they afford to pay the fee every single time. Get an ID, get a bank account, save money. This kind of goes to Ivan's earlier point.

I never realized a place like money mart doesnt require an ID. I am pretty shocked by this actually. They must charge a huge fee then since that brings a large element of fraud into play.

Wouldnt employees be breaking the law as well if they worked for cash? Is it really important that they be able to vote?