Poll: Voter ID? (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

It amazes me that my civil-libertarian friends on this board are seriously arguing that "let's just take their picture when they show up to vote" and "let's just fingerprint them when they show up to vote" are somehow better than simply flashing the ID that all of us are walking around with. You guys need to seriously rethink this -- showing your ID is way less intrusive or intimidating than the the alternatives that you're proposing.

I don't know how on earth "take their picture when they show up to vote" could possibly be considered more intrusive than "make them find some documents, come to a government office, fill out some paperwork, and then take their picture before they can vote".

People generally don't like being surveilled, and it seems to me that the "taking everyone's picture" thing is pretty close to that, whereas showing your ID is a standard part of life. Maybe that's just me. The suggestion to fingerprint people is absurd by anybody's standard.

I honestly don't understand why. Especially given the advances in facial recognition software. They are both measures in biometrics, what's the significant difference between facial recognition and a fingerprint to elicit such a comment?

 

[The Commish]

Wouldn't it make sense for community organizers to be involved with this...I know many of these organizations do a lot to get un-enrolled voters registered or set-up with public programs...while doing stuff like that they could piggyback those efforts with getting those people picture IDs...I would also see this as a plus for organizations trying to help those less fortunate...

Yup....adding the taking of a picture onto filling out the form doesn't seem like a big deal if the person doesn't have an ID. It's an extra question on the form

 

[TobiasFunke]

Ten pages of people proposing various ways to throw government money at a total non-problem. Bunch of rabid leftists around here.

 

[timschochet]

OK, let me bottom line this for you: in 2012, 65% of Blacks in this country voted, and 54% of Latinos in this country voted.

If voter ID laws bring those percentages down, then they are not acceptable. I tried to suggest some compromises that would allow for those percentages to stay in place, but still eventually get the voter ID laws you guys want, for whatever reason. If those compromises are not acceptable to you, come up with an alternative. But if there is no way to do this without bringing those numbers down, then we should NEVER do it.

 

[The Commish]

Ten pages of people proposing various ways to throw government money at a total non-problem. Bunch of rabid leftists around here.

Both parties throw away money daily on "non-problems"....I don't see the issue here

 

[jon_mx]

OK, let me bottom line this for you: in 2012, 65% of Blacks in this country voted, and 54% of Latinos in this country voted.

If voter ID laws bring those percentages down, then they are not acceptable. I tried to suggest some compromises that would allow for those percentages to stay in place, but still eventually get the voter ID laws you guys want, for whatever reason. If those compromises are not acceptable to you, come up with an alternative. But if there is no way to do this without bringing those numbers down, then we should NEVER do it.

And 64% of whites voted. Your analysis is always so one-sided and ignores pertinent facts. 30 states have some kind of voter ID requirement. If it was suppressing the African-American voters, why are they voting at a higher rate than whites?

Maybe the real issue that is non-existence is this idea that the minority vote is suppressed.

 

[The Commish]

OK, let me bottom line this for you: in 2012, 65% of Blacks in this country voted, and 54% of Latinos in this country voted.

If voter ID laws bring those percentages down, then they are not acceptable. I tried to suggest some compromises that would allow for those percentages to stay in place, but still eventually get the voter ID laws you guys want, for whatever reason. If those compromises are not acceptable to you, come up with an alternative. But if there is no way to do this without bringing those numbers down, then we should NEVER do it.

Something tells me that this next presidential election, the percentages won't be this high for both these demographics or caucasians. Regardless, it seems bizarre to set "success/failure" criteria off a single election cycle percentages. Wouldn't it be better to use the average over the last X elections?

 

[timschochet]

OK, let me bottom line this for you: in 2012, 65% of Blacks in this country voted, and 54% of Latinos in this country voted.

If voter ID laws bring those percentages down, then they are not acceptable. I tried to suggest some compromises that would allow for those percentages to stay in place, but still eventually get the voter ID laws you guys want, for whatever reason. If those compromises are not acceptable to you, come up with an alternative. But if there is no way to do this without bringing those numbers down, then we should NEVER do it.

And 64% of whites voted. Your analysis is always so one-sided and ignores pertinent facts. 30 states have some kind of voter ID requirement. If it was suppressing the African-American voters, why are they voting at a higher rate than whites?

Maybe the real issue that is non-existence is this idea that the minority vote is suppressed.

I don't know why the 64% of whites who voted is a "pertinent fact". And you know very well the reason why blacks still managed to vote at that 65% rate: because of Obama's presence on the ballot. Also there is evidence that they were pissed off by the attempted voter restrictions which were so blatant at the time.

But the point is, we need to focus on what's going to happen NOW. If voting requirements will serve to bring these percentages down, then they shouldn't be enacted.

 

[timschochet]

OK, let me bottom line this for you: in 2012, 65% of Blacks in this country voted, and 54% of Latinos in this country voted.

If voter ID laws bring those percentages down, then they are not acceptable. I tried to suggest some compromises that would allow for those percentages to stay in place, but still eventually get the voter ID laws you guys want, for whatever reason. If those compromises are not acceptable to you, come up with an alternative. But if there is no way to do this without bringing those numbers down, then we should NEVER do it.

Something tells me that this next presidential election, the percentages won't be this high for both these demographics or caucasians. Regardless, it seems bizarre to set "success/failure" criteria off a single election cycle percentages. Wouldn't it be better to use the average over the last X elections?

Sure. I only brought up the last election because the stats were available. But you're right, we can take long term averages if you want. Whatever the percentages are, if voting ID laws bring them down, then we shouldn't have voter ID laws.

 

[jon_mx]

OK, let me bottom line this for you: in 2012, 65% of Blacks in this country voted, and 54% of Latinos in this country voted.

If voter ID laws bring those percentages down, then they are not acceptable. I tried to suggest some compromises that would allow for those percentages to stay in place, but still eventually get the voter ID laws you guys want, for whatever reason. If those compromises are not acceptable to you, come up with an alternative. But if there is no way to do this without bringing those numbers down, then we should NEVER do it.

And 64% of whites voted. Your analysis is always so one-sided and ignores pertinent facts. 30 states have some kind of voter ID requirement. If it was suppressing the African-American voters, why are they voting at a higher rate than whites?

Maybe the real issue that is non-existence is this idea that the minority vote is suppressed.

I don't know why the 64% of whites who voted is a "pertinent fact". And you know very well the reason why blacks still managed to vote at that 65% rate: because of Obama's presence on the ballot. Also there is evidence that they were pissed off by the attempted voter restrictions which were so blatant at the time.

But the point is, we need to focus on what's going to happen NOW. If voting requirements will serve to bring these percentages down, then they shouldn't be enacted.

 

[The Commish]

OK, let me bottom line this for you: in 2012, 65% of Blacks in this country voted, and 54% of Latinos in this country voted.

If voter ID laws bring those percentages down, then they are not acceptable. I tried to suggest some compromises that would allow for those percentages to stay in place, but still eventually get the voter ID laws you guys want, for whatever reason. If those compromises are not acceptable to you, come up with an alternative. But if there is no way to do this without bringing those numbers down, then we should NEVER do it.

Something tells me that this next presidential election, the percentages won't be this high for both these demographics or caucasians. Regardless, it seems bizarre to set "success/failure" criteria off a single election cycle percentages. Wouldn't it be better to use the average over the last X elections?

Sure. I only brought up the last election because the stats were available. But you're right, we can take long term averages if you want. Whatever the percentages are, if voting ID laws bring them down, then we shouldn't have voter ID laws.

and how do you go about determining whether or not it was the voter ID laws that "bring them down"?

ETA: This is one of a few questions on this topic I have...just letting you know.

 

[Boston]

If someone can't find a way to get to a place to get his/her ID how do they get to a polling place?

 

[Jim11]

Wouldn't be a good thing for everyone to have identification? Whether it is involves around giving/obtaining health care, driving, opening banking accounts, or whatever....there are legit reasons why it is a good that everyone has some kind of legal identification. Having ID to vote not only puts in a check for ensuring voters only vote once and are who they say they are, but it is an opportunity to get more people to have proper identification.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it'd be good to deprive more people from getting IDs. If everyone who wanted to get an ID could easily get one, that'd be great. No argument there. But that means only that we should make it easier for people to get IDs -- not that we should make life harder for them if they don't.

One of the problems with not having a picture ID is that it's more difficult to open a bank account or to buy beer. The solution isn't to also make it harder to vote. That's like relieving a toothache by also inducing a headache. Life is hard enough already without such relief.

How hard is it to get a photo ID? Here's the process in Mississippi:

HOW CAN I GET A MISSISSIPPI VOTER ID CARD?
It is EASY and FREE! Beginning in January 2014, all Mississippi Circuit Clerks will be authorized to issue Mississippi Voter Identification cards to all Mississippi registered voters who do not have any of the other acceptable forms of photo ID. See the list of clerk's offices.

1. You must first be a registered voter in Mississippi. Download a voter registration form.
2. Go to any Circuit Clerk's office during regular business hours. (Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) If you need a ride, call 1-855-868-3745.
3. Present ONE form of acceptable identification. Check the list of acceptable documents.
4. If you do not have any of the identification documents listed, the clerk may verify birth information free of charge if you provide your date of birth, the state where you were born, and your mother's maiden name.
5. Complete and sign a Voter ID Application. Assistance will be provided, if requested.View a sample application form.
   
6. Have your picture taken at the Circuit Clerk's office.
7. Your Voter ID card will be mailed to you.
8. If the next election is within 45 days, you will receive a receipt for your Mississippi Voter Identification Card from the Circuit Clerk. The receipt may be used as your photo ID when voting at the polls.

What if they don't have a ride to the clerks office or a phone to call? Oh, the burdens are so high.

Actually they have that covered as well - If you need a ride, call 1-855-868-3745.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

People generally don't like being surveilled, and it seems to me that the "taking everyone's picture" thing is pretty close to that, whereas showing your ID is a standard part of life. Maybe that's just me. The suggestion to fingerprint people is absurd by anybody's standard.

Your ID doesn't have your picture on it?

Of course it does. See the bolded part.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Who cares what somebody else's intent is?

I actually agree with you that the intent of most of lawmakers pushing this are doing so as a political move. Here is the thing though, I believe all of the people fighting it are doing so as a political move. They don't really care about the people that they are professing to be fighting for their rights. This is where Ivan's argument really makes a ton of sense. If people like BFS and Tgunnz really cared so much about these people without IDs, they would realize that getting more and more people to a place in their life where an ID is commonplace is far more important than keeping their lives status quo, except status quo keeps them voting with their political party.

This should boil down to a simple question. Does it make sense to have people identify themselves in order to vote?

I kind of wish they would poll a bunch of random 8 year olds and ask them their thoughts on the matter. This just seems to me like it should be a "no-brainer". I find it hard to believe that if no data was known about which way people voted and how this would affect elections, that any sane person when asked "Does it make sense to have people show ID to vote" would ever argue no. That just seems like a crazy position to me.

It makes no sense to disenfranchising a measurable segment of voters to fix a problem which cannot be quantified and exist mostly as a hypothetical.

I have no issue with policy proposals that would pave the way for people to have the benefits that come with an ID, but voter id requirements are not such a proposal.

And I'd aspire to be better informed than an eight year old, but to each their own.

Ivan and Rich and others have "faith" based on their own experiences that there can be essentially no cost to anyone to get an ID so hypothetical benefits win a cost - benefit analysis. Especially when they weigh that getting people that are not as engaged in mainstream life not voting as a benefit. Unfortunately the cost facts are different and the "benefit" is distasteful at best.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It amazes me that my civil-libertarian friends on this board are seriously arguing that "let's just take their picture when they show up to vote" and "let's just fingerprint them when they show up to vote" are somehow better than simply flashing the ID that all of us are walking around with. You guys need to seriously rethink this -- showing your ID is way less intrusive or intimidating than the the alternatives that you're proposing.

I don't know how on earth "take their picture when they show up to vote" could possibly be considered more intrusive than "make them find some documents, come to a government office, fill out some paperwork, and then take their picture before they can vote".

People generally don't like being surveilled, and it seems to me that the "taking everyone's picture" thing is pretty close to that, whereas showing your ID is a standard part of life. Maybe that's just me. The suggestion to fingerprint people is absurd by anybody's standard.

I honestly don't understand why. Especially given the advances in facial recognition software. They are both measures in biometrics, what's the significant difference between facial recognition and a fingerprint to elicit such a comment?

Why not collect a DNA sample while we're at it.

Again, it's very possible that that this is just me, but flashing an ID is pretty much never a big deal, Getting printed, having my face checked against some kind of database, or being photographed at the polling place all seem much more Big Brother-ish. I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way, and I'm pretty confident that all of those things would suppress many more votes than an ID requirement ever would. Which is fine with me, but it's odd to see those proposals coming from people who want to encourage voting, not discourage it.

 

[tommyGunZ]

It amazes me that my civil-libertarian friends on this board are seriously arguing that "let's just take their picture when they show up to vote" and "let's just fingerprint them when they show up to vote" are somehow better than simply flashing the ID that all of us are walking around with. You guys need to seriously rethink this -- showing your ID is way less intrusive or intimidating than the the alternatives that you're proposing.

I don't know how on earth "take their picture when they show up to vote" could possibly be considered more intrusive than "make them find some documents, come to a government office, fill out some paperwork, and then take their picture before they can vote".

People generally don't like being surveilled, and it seems to me that the "taking everyone's picture" thing is pretty close to that, whereas showing your ID is a standard part of life. Maybe that's just me. The suggestion to fingerprint people is absurd by anybody's standard.

I honestly don't understand why. Especially given the advances in facial recognition software. They are both measures in biometrics, what's the significant difference between facial recognition and a fingerprint to elicit such a comment?

Why not collect a DNA sample while we're at it.

Again, it's very possible that that this is just me, but flashing an ID is pretty much never a big deal, Getting printed, having my face checked against some kind of database, or being photographed at the polling place all seem much more Big Brother-ish. I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way, and I'm pretty confident that all of those things would suppress many more votes than an ID requirement ever would. Which is fine with me, but it's odd to see those proposals coming from people who want to encourage voting, not discourage it.

It's not just you IK. Lots of folks are unable to understand any perspective other than their own, even when it's been explained over and over and over again why obtaining an ID is burdensome to the poor and immobile.

 

[jon_mx]

It amazes me that my civil-libertarian friends on this board are seriously arguing that "let's just take their picture when they show up to vote" and "let's just fingerprint them when they show up to vote" are somehow better than simply flashing the ID that all of us are walking around with. You guys need to seriously rethink this -- showing your ID is way less intrusive or intimidating than the the alternatives that you're proposing.

I don't know how on earth "take their picture when they show up to vote" could possibly be considered more intrusive than "make them find some documents, come to a government office, fill out some paperwork, and then take their picture before they can vote".

People generally don't like being surveilled, and it seems to me that the "taking everyone's picture" thing is pretty close to that, whereas showing your ID is a standard part of life. Maybe that's just me. The suggestion to fingerprint people is absurd by anybody's standard.

I honestly don't understand why. Especially given the advances in facial recognition software. They are both measures in biometrics, what's the significant difference between facial recognition and a fingerprint to elicit such a comment?

Why not collect a DNA sample while we're at it.

Again, it's very possible that that this is just me, but flashing an ID is pretty much never a big deal, Getting printed, having my face checked against some kind of database, or being photographed at the polling place all seem much more Big Brother-ish. I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way, and I'm pretty confident that all of those things would suppress many more votes than an ID requirement ever would. Which is fine with me, but it's odd to see those proposals coming from people who want to encourage voting, not discourage it.

It's not just you IK. Lots of folks are unable to understand any perspective other than their own, even when it's been explained over and over and over again why obtaining an ID is burdensome to the poor and immobile.

Most people don't believe this. If a person can register to vote and vote, why can't they get a friggin ID. It is a total BS argument. States have made it insanely easy to get an ID.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Why not collect a DNA sample while we're at it.

Again, it's very possible that that this is just me, but flashing an ID is pretty much never a big deal, Getting printed, having my face checked against some kind of database, or being photographed at the polling place all seem much more Big Brother-ish. I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way, and I'm pretty confident that all of those things would suppress many more votes than an ID requirement ever would. Which is fine with me, but it's odd to see those proposals coming from people who want to encourage voting, not discourage it.

I don't know how we can prove it, but I'm very doubtful about the bolded claim. You think an appreciable number of people would not vote due to a photograph being taken?

 

[tommyGunZ]

It amazes me that my civil-libertarian friends on this board are seriously arguing that "let's just take their picture when they show up to vote" and "let's just fingerprint them when they show up to vote" are somehow better than simply flashing the ID that all of us are walking around with. You guys need to seriously rethink this -- showing your ID is way less intrusive or intimidating than the the alternatives that you're proposing.

I don't know how on earth "take their picture when they show up to vote" could possibly be considered more intrusive than "make them find some documents, come to a government office, fill out some paperwork, and then take their picture before they can vote".

People generally don't like being surveilled, and it seems to me that the "taking everyone's picture" thing is pretty close to that, whereas showing your ID is a standard part of life. Maybe that's just me. The suggestion to fingerprint people is absurd by anybody's standard.

I honestly don't understand why. Especially given the advances in facial recognition software. They are both measures in biometrics, what's the significant difference between facial recognition and a fingerprint to elicit such a comment?

Why not collect a DNA sample while we're at it.

Again, it's very possible that that this is just me, but flashing an ID is pretty much never a big deal, Getting printed, having my face checked against some kind of database, or being photographed at the polling place all seem much more Big Brother-ish. I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way, and I'm pretty confident that all of those things would suppress many more votes than an ID requirement ever would. Which is fine with me, but it's odd to see those proposals coming from people who want to encourage voting, not discourage it.

It's not just you IK. Lots of folks are unable to understand any perspective other than their own, even when it's been explained over and over and over again why obtaining an ID is burdensome to the poor and immobile.

Most people don't believe this. If a person can register to vote and vote, why can't they get a friggin ID. It is a total BS argument. States have made it insanely easy to get an ID.

Lots of reasons. Posner laid out many in his recent dissent. Just because something is easy for you doesn't mean it is just as easy for folks in an entirely different situation.

Virtually every analysis on the cost/benefits of voter-ID yields the same results; hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of folks likely to not be able to vote, in order to "solve" a problem that statistically doesn't exist.

This is exactly the kind of wasteful nonsense that gov't should avoid, which is why it's so telling when self-identified "fiscal conservatives" advocate voter-ID.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Why not collect a DNA sample while we're at it.

Again, it's very possible that that this is just me, but flashing an ID is pretty much never a big deal, Getting printed, having my face checked against some kind of database, or being photographed at the polling place all seem much more Big Brother-ish. I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way, and I'm pretty confident that all of those things would suppress many more votes than an ID requirement ever would. Which is fine with me, but it's odd to see those proposals coming from people who want to encourage voting, not discourage it.

I don't know how we can prove it, but I'm very doubtful about the bolded claim. You think an appreciable number of people would not vote due to a photograph being taken?

I don't follow these sorts of complaints very closely, but I've always been led to believe that having "poll watchers" or especially police officers in or near a polling place is considered voter suppression by advocates for minority groups. (I could be wrong about that, but I could swear I've heard people make these sorts of charges before). Given that minority groups consider police surveillance to be voter intimidation, and again my premise may be wrong, it seems like having somebody take your picture is similar.

I wouldn't personally be bothered and I'm probably not the best at putting myself in the shoes of an urban black or latino voter.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It amazes me that my civil-libertarian friends on this board are seriously arguing that "let's just take their picture when they show up to vote" and "let's just fingerprint them when they show up to vote" are somehow better than simply flashing the ID that all of us are walking around with. You guys need to seriously rethink this -- showing your ID is way less intrusive or intimidating than the the alternatives that you're proposing.

I don't know how on earth "take their picture when they show up to vote" could possibly be considered more intrusive than "make them find some documents, come to a government office, fill out some paperwork, and then take their picture before they can vote".

People generally don't like being surveilled, and it seems to me that the "taking everyone's picture" thing is pretty close to that, whereas showing your ID is a standard part of life. Maybe that's just me. The suggestion to fingerprint people is absurd by anybody's standard.

I honestly don't understand why. Especially given the advances in facial recognition software. They are both measures in biometrics, what's the significant difference between facial recognition and a fingerprint to elicit such a comment?

Why not collect a DNA sample while we're at it.

Again, it's very possible that that this is just me, but flashing an ID is pretty much never a big deal, Getting printed, having my face checked against some kind of database, or being photographed at the polling place all seem much more Big Brother-ish. I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way, and I'm pretty confident that all of those things would suppress many more votes than an ID requirement ever would. Which is fine with me, but it's odd to see those proposals coming from people who want to encourage voting, not discourage it.

It's not just you IK. Lots of folks are unable to understand any perspective other than their own, even when it's been explained over and over and over again why obtaining an ID is burdensome to the poor and immobile.

Showing up on election day to vote is burdensome, but they manage that. I think you're selling these folks a little short by assuming that they won't be able to get an ID when they have a good reason to do so. Clearly they're not incapacitated.

 

[Jim11]

It amazes me that my civil-libertarian friends on this board are seriously arguing that "let's just take their picture when they show up to vote" and "let's just fingerprint them when they show up to vote" are somehow better than simply flashing the ID that all of us are walking around with. You guys need to seriously rethink this -- showing your ID is way less intrusive or intimidating than the the alternatives that you're proposing.

I don't know how on earth "take their picture when they show up to vote" could possibly be considered more intrusive than "make them find some documents, come to a government office, fill out some paperwork, and then take their picture before they can vote".

People generally don't like being surveilled, and it seems to me that the "taking everyone's picture" thing is pretty close to that, whereas showing your ID is a standard part of life. Maybe that's just me. The suggestion to fingerprint people is absurd by anybody's standard.

I honestly don't understand why. Especially given the advances in facial recognition software. They are both measures in biometrics, what's the significant difference between facial recognition and a fingerprint to elicit such a comment?

Why not collect a DNA sample while we're at it.

Again, it's very possible that that this is just me, but flashing an ID is pretty much never a big deal, Getting printed, having my face checked against some kind of database, or being photographed at the polling place all seem much more Big Brother-ish. I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way, and I'm pretty confident that all of those things would suppress many more votes than an ID requirement ever would. Which is fine with me, but it's odd to see those proposals coming from people who want to encourage voting, not discourage it.

It's not just you IK. Lots of folks are unable to understand any perspective other than their own, even when it's been explained over and over and over again why obtaining an ID is burdensome to the poor and immobile.

Most people don't believe this. If a person can register to vote and vote, why can't they get a friggin ID. It is a total BS argument. States have made it insanely easy to get an ID.

Lots of reasons. Posner laid out many in his recent dissent. Just because something is easy for you doesn't mean it is just as easy for folks in an entirely different situation.

Virtually every analysis on the cost/benefits of voter-ID yields the same results; hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of folks likely to not be able to vote, in order to "solve" a problem that statistically doesn't exist.

This is exactly the kind of wasteful nonsense that gov't should avoid, which is why it's so telling when self-identified "fiscal conservatives" advocate voter-ID.

Total BS. Millions wouldn't be able to vote...pure poppycock. The ONLY reason to be against showing an ID to vote is that it will suppress ILLEGAL votes, which could cause the Democrats some elections.

 

[Parrothead]

Honest question- how many US citizens do not have an ID?

 

[Courtjester]

Tens of thousands of votes were cast illegally in the last election--some people voted many times.

 

[timschochet]

Tens of thousands of votes were cast illegally in the last election--some people voted many times.

I have no idea where you got this info, but assuming it's true, did it change the election results?

 

[Courtjester]

Tens of thousands of votes were cast illegally in the last election--some people voted many times.

I have no idea where you got this info, but assuming it's true, did it change the election results?

I have no way to prove it happened, but the left has no way to prove voter fraud isn't happening. See how that works?

But there is one sure way to solve this issue.

Hint: it involves showing up with a valid id so it ensures there is one person--one vote.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Tens of thousands of votes were cast illegally in the last election--some people voted many times.

Link?

 

[Courtjester]

Tens of thousands of votes were cast illegally in the last election--some people voted many times.

Link?

How about I provide my link when you provide your link that it isn't happening

Psst: neither exist. The left has a study MSNBC quotes as gospel, but when the right brings up examples that counter it, the left counters that and the right counters it again.

Again there is a solution that doesn't involve hiding our heads in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist.

 

[fatness]

Tens of thousands of votes were cast illegally in the last election--some people voted many times.

I have no idea where you got this info, but assuming it's true, did it change the election results?

I have no way to prove it happened, but the left has no way to prove voter fraud isn't happening. See how that works?

But there is one sure way to solve this issue.

You haven't shown it's an issue. Meanwhile there's plenty of evidence that it's not.

Evidence in a two-week trial in September showed that Texas, the second-most-populous U.S. state, uncovered only two instances of in-person voter fraud among more than 62 million votes cast in all Texas elections during the preceding 14 years. The state’s photo-ID rules don’t address mail-in ballot fraud, which all parties agreed is a bigger problem.

Ramos ruled that voters lacking the required identity documents and the means to get them were disproportionately poor or minorities, and that the cost of acquiring these documents amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax.

Trial evidence showed that more than 600,000 registered Texas voters lost the right to vote at the polls since the law took effect.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-10/texas-voter-id-law-overturned-by-u-s-judge-as-unconstitutional.html

The "voter fraud" issue is like the Obama birth certificate issue. Buncha people caterwauling about an imaginary problem, for political advantage. Many of the same people, come to think of it.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Tens of thousands of votes were cast illegally in the last election--some people voted many times.

I have no idea where you got this info, but assuming it's true, did it change the election results?

I have no way to prove it happened, but the left has no way to prove voter fraud isn't happening. See how that works?

But there is one sure way to solve this issue.

You haven't shown it's an issue. Meanwhile there's plenty of evidence that it's not.

Evidence in a two-week trial in September showed that Texas, the second-most-populous U.S. state, uncovered only two instances of in-person voter fraud among more than 62 million votes cast in all Texas elections during the preceding 14 years. The state’s photo-ID rules don’t address mail-in ballot fraud, which all parties agreed is a bigger problem.

Ramos ruled that voters lacking the required identity documents and the means to get them were disproportionately poor or minorities, and that the cost of acquiring these documents amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax.

Trial evidence showed that more than 600,000 registered Texas voters lost the right to vote at the polls since the law took effect.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-10/texas-voter-id-law-overturned-by-u-s-judge-as-unconstitutional.html

The "voter fraud" issue is like the Obama birth certificate issue. Buncha people caterwauling about an imaginary problem, for political advantage. Many of the same people, come to think of it.

What evidence? You keep citing this but there is no evidence other than testimony from the anti-voter id crowd.

 

[MaxThreshold]

It amazes me that my civil-libertarian friends on this board are seriously arguing that "let's just take their picture when they show up to vote" and "let's just fingerprint them when they show up to vote" are somehow better than simply flashing the ID that all of us are walking around with. You guys need to seriously rethink this -- showing your ID is way less intrusive or intimidating than the the alternatives that you're proposing.

I don't know how on earth "take their picture when they show up to vote" could possibly be considered more intrusive than "make them find some documents, come to a government office, fill out some paperwork, and then take their picture before they can vote".

People generally don't like being surveilled, and it seems to me that the "taking everyone's picture" thing is pretty close to that, whereas showing your ID is a standard part of life. Maybe that's just me. The suggestion to fingerprint people is absurd by anybody's standard.

I honestly don't understand why. Especially given the advances in facial recognition software. They are both measures in biometrics, what's the significant difference between facial recognition and a fingerprint to elicit such a comment?

Why not collect a DNA sample while we're at it.

Again, it's very possible that that this is just me, but flashing an ID is pretty much never a big deal, Getting printed, having my face checked against some kind of database, or being photographed at the polling place all seem much more Big Brother-ish. I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way, and I'm pretty confident that all of those things would suppress many more votes than an ID requirement ever would. Which is fine with me, but it's odd to see those proposals coming from people who want to encourage voting, not discourage it.

It's not just you IK. Lots of folks are unable to understand any perspective other than their own, even when it's been explained over and over and over again why obtaining an ID is burdensome to the poor and immobile.

Most people don't believe this. If a person can register to vote and vote, why can't they get a friggin ID. It is a total BS argument. States have made it insanely easy to get an ID.

Lots of reasons. Posner laid out many in his recent dissent. Just because something is easy for you doesn't mean it is just as easy for folks in an entirely different situation.

Virtually every analysis on the cost/benefits of voter-ID yields the same results; hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of folks likely to not be able to vote, in order to "solve" a problem that statistically doesn't exist.

This is exactly the kind of wasteful nonsense that gov't should avoid, which is why it's so telling when self-identified "fiscal conservatives" advocate voter-ID.

Every "analysis" done by the left concludes voters will be not be able to vote. Most of that analysis is making numbers up out of thin air. Surprise.

 

[Courtjester]

Tens of thousands of votes were cast illegally in the last election--some people voted many times.

I have no idea where you got this info, but assuming it's true, did it change the election results?

I have no way to prove it happened, but the left has no way to prove voter fraud isn't happening. See how that works?

But there is one sure way to solve this issue.

You haven't shown it's an issue. Meanwhile there's plenty of evidence that it's not.

Evidence in a two-week trial in September showed that Texas, the second-most-populous U.S. state, uncovered only two instances of in-person voter fraud among more than 62 million votes cast in all Texas elections during the preceding 14 years. The state’s photo-ID rules don’t address mail-in ballot fraud, which all parties agreed is a bigger problem.

Ramos ruled that voters lacking the required identity documents and the means to get them were disproportionately poor or minorities, and that the cost of acquiring these documents amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax.

Trial evidence showed that more than 600,000 registered Texas voters lost the right to vote at the polls since the law took effect.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-10/texas-voter-id-law-overturned-by-u-s-judge-as-unconstitutional.html

The "voter fraud" issue is like the Obama birth certificate issue. Buncha people caterwauling about an imaginary problem, for political advantage. Many of the same people, come to think of it.

You post is tantamount to saying last year only 5% of the population cheated on their taxes only because 5% were caught.

Again, you can't prove something is not happening because only "x" were caught no more than I can prove it is happening because who knows how many weren't caught.

The left has no problems doing voter drives in large metro areas--why can't they do large id drives? I also find it almost comical how many of the same people that argue US citizens inability to get id's are in the same crowd that so vociferously defends the undocumented's right to obtain drivers licenses.

 

[jon_mx]

Tens of thousands of votes were cast illegally in the last election--some people voted many times.

I have no idea where you got this info, but assuming it's true, did it change the election results?

I have no way to prove it happened, but the left has no way to prove voter fraud isn't happening. See how that works?

But there is one sure way to solve this issue.

You haven't shown it's an issue. Meanwhile there's plenty of evidence that it's not.

Evidence in a two-week trial in September showed that Texas, the second-most-populous U.S. state, uncovered only two instances of in-person voter fraud among more than 62 million votes cast in all Texas elections during the preceding 14 years. The state’s photo-ID rules don’t address mail-in ballot fraud, which all parties agreed is a bigger problem.

Ramos ruled that voters lacking the required identity documents and the means to get them were disproportionately poor or minorities, and that the cost of acquiring these documents amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax.

Trial evidence showed that more than 600,000 registered Texas voters lost the right to vote at the polls since the law took effect.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-10/texas-voter-id-law-overturned-by-u-s-judge-as-unconstitutional.html

The "voter fraud" issue is like the Obama birth certificate issue. Buncha people caterwauling about an imaginary problem, for political advantage. Many of the same people, come to think of it.

You post is tantamount to saying last year only 5% of the population cheated on their taxes only because 5% were caught.

Again, you can't prove something is not happening because only "x" were caught no more than I can prove it is happening because who knows how many weren't caught.

The left has no problems doing voter drives in large metro areas--why can't they do large id drives? I also find it almost comical how many of the same people that argue US citizens inability to get id's are in the same crowd that so vociferously defends the undocumented's right to obtain drivers licenses.

Of course it is such a huge barrier, Obamacare requires it. Their position is insane.

 

[timschochet]

Tens of thousands of votes were cast illegally in the last election--some people voted many times.

I have no idea where you got this info, but assuming it's true, did it change the election results?

I have no way to prove it happened, but the left has no way to prove voter fraud isn't happening. See how that works?

But there is one sure way to solve this issue.

You haven't shown it's an issue. Meanwhile there's plenty of evidence that it's not.

Evidence in a two-week trial in September showed that Texas, the second-most-populous U.S. state, uncovered only two instances of in-person voter fraud among more than 62 million votes cast in all Texas elections during the preceding 14 years. The state’s photo-ID rules don’t address mail-in ballot fraud, which all parties agreed is a bigger problem.

Ramos ruled that voters lacking the required identity documents and the means to get them were disproportionately poor or minorities, and that the cost of acquiring these documents amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax.

Trial evidence showed that more than 600,000 registered Texas voters lost the right to vote at the polls since the law took effect.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-10/texas-voter-id-law-overturned-by-u-s-judge-as-unconstitutional.html

The "voter fraud" issue is like the Obama birth certificate issue. Buncha people caterwauling about an imaginary problem, for political advantage. Many of the same people, come to think of it.

You post is tantamount to saying last year only 5% of the population cheated on their taxes only because 5% were caught.

Again, you can't prove something is not happening because only "x" were caught no more than I can prove it is happening because who knows how many weren't caught.

The left has no problems doing voter drives in large metro areas--why can't they do large id drives? I also find it almost comical how many of the same people that argue US citizens inability to get id's are in the same crowd that so vociferously defends the undocumented's right to obtain drivers licenses.

I wish that were the case. It'd be nice if more people saw reason on the illegal immigrant issue. But sadly they don't.

To correct one thing: the undocumented do not have a RIGHT to obtain a drivers license. But it would be very smart policy for us to give the ability to obtain them.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Tens of thousands of votes were cast illegally in the last election--some people voted many times.

I have no idea where you got this info, but assuming it's true, did it change the election results?

I have no way to prove it happened, but the left has no way to prove voter fraud isn't happening. See how that works?But there is one sure way to solve this issue.

You haven't shown it's an issue. Meanwhile there's plenty of evidence that it's not.

Evidence in a two-week trial in September showed that Texas, the second-most-populous U.S. state, uncovered only two instances of in-person voter fraud among more than 62 million votes cast in all Texas elections during the preceding 14 years. The state’s photo-ID rules don’t address mail-in ballot fraud, which all parties agreed is a bigger problem.

Ramos ruled that voters lacking the required identity documents and the means to get them were disproportionately poor or minorities, and that the cost of acquiring these documents amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax.Trial evidence showed that more than 600,000 registered Texas voters lost the right to vote at the polls since the law took effect.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-10/texas-voter-id-law-overturned-by-u-s-judge-as-unconstitutional.html

The "voter fraud" issue is like the Obama birth certificate issue. Buncha people caterwauling about an imaginary problem, for political advantage. Many of the same people, come to think of it.

You post is tantamount to saying last year only 5% of the population cheated on their taxes only because 5% were caught.Again, you can't prove something is not happening because only "x" were caught no more than I can prove it is happening because who knows how many weren't caught.

The left has no problems doing voter drives in large metro areas--why can't they do large id drives? I also find it almost comical how many of the same people that argue US citizens inability to get id's are in the same crowd that so vociferously defends the undocumented's right to obtain drivers licenses.

Probably one of the silliest posts I've read on this forum in the 12-13 years I've been here.

If in person voter fraud was widespread, there would be numerous accounts of people showing up at the polls to find out that they had already voted. Of course that isn't the case.

 

[Courtjester]

Tens of thousands of votes were cast illegally in the last election--some people voted many times.

I have no idea where you got this info, but assuming it's true, did it change the election results?

I have no way to prove it happened, but the left has no way to prove voter fraud isn't happening. See how that works?But there is one sure way to solve this issue.

You haven't shown it's an issue. Meanwhile there's plenty of evidence that it's not.

Evidence in a two-week trial in September showed that Texas, the second-most-populous U.S. state, uncovered only two instances of in-person voter fraud among more than 62 million votes cast in all Texas elections during the preceding 14 years. The state’s photo-ID rules don’t address mail-in ballot fraud, which all parties agreed is a bigger problem.

Ramos ruled that voters lacking the required identity documents and the means to get them were disproportionately poor or minorities, and that the cost of acquiring these documents amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax.Trial evidence showed that more than 600,000 registered Texas voters lost the right to vote at the polls since the law took effect.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-10/texas-voter-id-law-overturned-by-u-s-judge-as-unconstitutional.html

The "voter fraud" issue is like the Obama birth certificate issue. Buncha people caterwauling about an imaginary problem, for political advantage. Many of the same people, come to think of it.

You post is tantamount to saying last year only 5% of the population cheated on their taxes only because 5% were caught.Again, you can't prove something is not happening because only "x" were caught no more than I can prove it is happening because who knows how many weren't caught.

The left has no problems doing voter drives in large metro areas--why can't they do large id drives? I also find it almost comical how many of the same people that argue US citizens inability to get id's are in the same crowd that so vociferously defends the undocumented's right to obtain drivers licenses.

Probably one of the silliest posts I've read on this forum in the 12-13 years I've been here.

If in person voter fraud was widespread, there would be numerous accounts of people showing up at the polls to find out that they had already voted. Of course that isn't the case.

Being that comes from you--easily one of the most partisan, ridiculous posters on this site--HANDS DOWN. I take that as a compliment.

I mean you literally make Jim look like a moderate.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Tens of thousands of votes were cast illegally in the last election--some people voted many times.

I have no idea where you got this info, but assuming it's true, did it change the election results?

I have no way to prove it happened, but the left has no way to prove voter fraud isn't happening. See how that works?But there is one sure way to solve this issue.

You haven't shown it's an issue. Meanwhile there's plenty of evidence that it's not.

Evidence in a two-week trial in September showed that Texas, the second-most-populous U.S. state, uncovered only two instances of in-person voter fraud among more than 62 million votes cast in all Texas elections during the preceding 14 years. The state’s photo-ID rules don’t address mail-in ballot fraud, which all parties agreed is a bigger problem.

Ramos ruled that voters lacking the required identity documents and the means to get them were disproportionately poor or minorities, and that the cost of acquiring these documents amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax.Trial evidence showed that more than 600,000 registered Texas voters lost the right to vote at the polls since the law took effect.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-10/texas-voter-id-law-overturned-by-u-s-judge-as-unconstitutional.html

The "voter fraud" issue is like the Obama birth certificate issue. Buncha people caterwauling about an imaginary problem, for political advantage. Many of the same people, come to think of it.

You post is tantamount to saying last year only 5% of the population cheated on their taxes only because 5% were caught.Again, you can't prove something is not happening because only "x" were caught no more than I can prove it is happening because who knows how many weren't caught.

The left has no problems doing voter drives in large metro areas--why can't they do large id drives? I also find it almost comical how many of the same people that argue US citizens inability to get id's are in the same crowd that so vociferously defends the undocumented's right to obtain drivers licenses.

Probably one of the silliest posts I've read on this forum in the 12-13 years I've been here.

If in person voter fraud was widespread, there would be numerous accounts of people showing up at the polls to find out that they had already voted. Of course that isn't the case.

Being that comes from you--easily one of the most partisan, ridiculous posters on this site--HANDS DOWN. I take that as a compliment.

I mean you literally make Jim look like a moderate.

TGunz is extreme, to say the least.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Serious question... since its been demonstrated that very little voter fraud has actually happened and almost none proven to have occurred, what is your true, base rationale to deprive folks who have literally voted for generations, from exercising that right?

Serious question....... It's election day. Ol' Koya cheerfully goes to vote...... Gets to the table, "Hi my name is Koya"....... Old lady checks her list, checks it again.... flips the pages over and over (haha, I digress)....... "Oh my, Mr Koya, you've already voted! You can't vote again! Shame on you"

Do you just shrug and walk away muttering to yourself, "Oh well, there's very little voter fraud and my vote really doesn't mean that much anyway, I'll try again next year"?

I'm guessing it'll piss you off and you'll go to the authorities.

It definitely happens, but what if it happened to you?

OK, instead of Koya, since he refuses to answer, insert your own name.

Mr. Pantagrapher, or Mr. TommyGunZ

I can see where that would be frustrating. How often does that happen? Twice a year, in the entire United States?

Conversely, with the solutions you support and your politicians are putting in place, hundreds of thousands of folks otherwise eligible to vote will not be able to vote simply b/c they do not have a photo-ID.

"Hi Grandma Pack. Saw you at the Bridge club on Saturday. How are you?"

"Great. Just here to vote."

"Can I see your ID?"

"Oh heavens, I haven't had a photo ID for decades. I don't drive, I'm retired, and frankly, haven't been asked for an ID for any purpose since 1970."

"Sorry, you can't vote".

I would have made sure Grandma had an ID.

 

[Mr.Pack]

If Grandma Pack is trying to vote hundreds of thousands of times, we should probably lock her up and throw away the key.

But only if she's voting the wrong way

 

[timschochet]

To repeat my objection: it will depress minority voting. Therefore, it's not worth doing.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Tens of thousands of votes were cast illegally in the last election--some people voted many times.

I have no idea where you got this info, but assuming it's true, did it change the election results?

I have no way to prove it happened, but the left has no way to prove voter fraud isn't happening. See how that works?But there is one sure way to solve this issue.

You haven't shown it's an issue. Meanwhile there's plenty of evidence that it's not.

Evidence in a two-week trial in September showed that Texas, the second-most-populous U.S. state, uncovered only two instances of in-person voter fraud among more than 62 million votes cast in all Texas elections during the preceding 14 years. The state’s photo-ID rules don’t address mail-in ballot fraud, which all parties agreed is a bigger problem.

Ramos ruled that voters lacking the required identity documents and the means to get them were disproportionately poor or minorities, and that the cost of acquiring these documents amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax.Trial evidence showed that more than 600,000 registered Texas voters lost the right to vote at the polls since the law took effect.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-10/texas-voter-id-law-overturned-by-u-s-judge-as-unconstitutional.html

The "voter fraud" issue is like the Obama birth certificate issue. Buncha people caterwauling about an imaginary problem, for political advantage. Many of the same people, come to think of it.

You post is tantamount to saying last year only 5% of the population cheated on their taxes only because 5% were caught.Again, you can't prove something is not happening because only "x" were caught no more than I can prove it is happening because who knows how many weren't caught.

The left has no problems doing voter drives in large metro areas--why can't they do large id drives? I also find it almost comical how many of the same people that argue US citizens inability to get id's are in the same crowd that so vociferously defends the undocumented's right to obtain drivers licenses.

Probably one of the silliest posts I've read on this forum in the 12-13 years I've been here.

If in person voter fraud was widespread, there would be numerous accounts of people showing up at the polls to find out that they had already voted. Of course that isn't the case.

Being that comes from you--easily one of the most partisan, ridiculous posters on this site--HANDS DOWN. I take that as a compliment.I mean you literally make Jim look like a moderate.

So no response as to why there aren't tens of thousands of people being told they have already voted every time we have an election due to all this widespread in person voter fraud you claim is occurring?

 

[jon_mx]

Tens of thousands of votes were cast illegally in the last election--some people voted many times.

I have no idea where you got this info, but assuming it's true, did it change the election results?

I have no way to prove it happened, but the left has no way to prove voter fraud isn't happening. See how that works?But there is one sure way to solve this issue.

You haven't shown it's an issue. Meanwhile there's plenty of evidence that it's not.

Evidence in a two-week trial in September showed that Texas, the second-most-populous U.S. state, uncovered only two instances of in-person voter fraud among more than 62 million votes cast in all Texas elections during the preceding 14 years. The states photo-ID rules dont address mail-in ballot fraud, which all parties agreed is a bigger problem.

Ramos ruled that voters lacking the required identity documents and the means to get them were disproportionately poor or minorities, and that the cost of acquiring these documents amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax.Trial evidence showed that more than 600,000 registered Texas voters lost the right to vote at the polls since the law took effect.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-10/texas-voter-id-law-overturned-by-u-s-judge-as-unconstitutional.html

The "voter fraud" issue is like the Obama birth certificate issue. Buncha people caterwauling about an imaginary problem, for political advantage. Many of the same people, come to think of it.

You post is tantamount to saying last year only 5% of the population cheated on their taxes only because 5% were caught.Again, you can't prove something is not happening because only "x" were caught no more than I can prove it is happening because who knows how many weren't caught.

The left has no problems doing voter drives in large metro areas--why can't they do large id drives? I also find it almost comical how many of the same people that argue US citizens inability to get id's are in the same crowd that so vociferously defends the undocumented's right to obtain drivers licenses.

Probably one of the silliest posts I've read on this forum in the 12-13 years I've been here.If in person voter fraud was widespread, there would be numerous accounts of people showing up at the polls to find out that they had already voted. Of course that isn't the case.

Being that comes from you--easily one of the most partisan, ridiculous posters on this site--HANDS DOWN. I take that as a compliment.I mean you literally make Jim look like a moderate.

So no response as to why there aren't tens of thousands of people being told they have already voted every time we have an election due to all this widespread in person voter fraud you claim is occurring?

Because people are not dumb enough to vote for people who might vote. Pick one of the 2 million dead people on the voter roles or from the even more people who have moved out of the community.

 

[jon_mx]

It is amazing states can't find voter fraud, but a news organization can investigate and in a short period find records of dead people voting just looking into one location.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Tens of thousands of votes were cast illegally in the last election--some people voted many times.

Link?

How about I provide my link when you provide your link that it isn't happening

Psst: neither exist. The left has a study MSNBC quotes as gospel, but when the right brings up examples that counter it, the left counters that and the right counters it again.

Again there is a solution that doesn't involve hiding our heads in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist.

Because the burden is on you as the one who want to infringe on the existing right of those without IDs to justify that infringement. You need to jump through hoops, not those opposed.

 

[tommyGunZ]

It is amazing states can't find voter fraud, but a news organization can investigate and in a short period find records of dead people voting just looking into one location.

Correct. And every time a thorough analysis of those news organization claims is done, we find that there really wasn't any voter fraud, only clerical errors. Every single time.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Tens of thousands of votes were cast illegally in the last election--some people voted many times.

Link?

How about I provide my link when you provide your link that it isn't happening

Psst: neither exist. The left has a study MSNBC quotes as gospel, but when the right brings up examples that counter it, the left counters that and the right counters it again.

Again there is a solution that doesn't involve hiding our heads in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist.

Because the burden is on you as the one who want to infringe on the existing right of those without IDs to justify that infringement. You need to jump through hoops, not those opposed.

You know the thread has run its course when people start trotting out "burden of proof" arguments.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Tens of thousands of votes were cast illegally in the last election--some people voted many times.

Link?

How about I provide my link when you provide your link that it isn't happening

Psst: neither exist. The left has a study MSNBC quotes as gospel, but when the right brings up examples that counter it, the left counters that and the right counters it again.

Again there is a solution that doesn't involve hiding our heads in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist.

Because the burden is on you as the one who want to infringe on the existing right of those without IDs to justify that infringement. You need to jump through hoops, not those opposed.

You know the thread has run its course when people start trotting out "burden of proof" arguments.

But it was clearly still going strong when TGunz was asked to "prove a negative"!

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Tens of thousands of votes were cast illegally in the last election--some people voted many times.

Link?

How about I provide my link when you provide your link that it isn't happening

Psst: neither exist. The left has a study MSNBC quotes as gospel, but when the right brings up examples that counter it, the left counters that and the right counters it again.

Again there is a solution that doesn't involve hiding our heads in the sand and pretending it doesn't exist.

Because the burden is on you as the one who want to infringe on the existing right of those without IDs to justify that infringement. You need to jump through hoops, not those opposed.

You know the thread has run its course when people start trotting out "burden of proof" arguments.

But it was clearly still going strong when TGunz was asked to "prove a negative"!

No it wasn't. I happen to agree with him that in-person voter fraud probably isn't a major issue. But the cost of imposing an ID requirement is so incredibly low that it's still worth doing.

 

[Todd Andrews]

KooKs sure do hate it when brown people can vote.