Should voters be required to show ID?

[moleculo]

The election isn't for another 7-8 months or so. If you can't take the time between now and then to get proper identification, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

To me, this isn't about rights - everyone has the right to vote, everyone has the right to get ID. Not getting an ID is a terrible reason to not vote - it implies that you are lazy and/or incompetant. 7-8 months notice.

This is about duties and responsibilities of a participating member of society. IMO, if you want to exercise your right to cast a vote, you have a responsibility to prove you are eligible to do so. It's that simple.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

The election isn't for another 7-8 months or so. If you can't take the time between now and then to get proper identification, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.To me, this isn't about rights - everyone has the right to vote, everyone has the right to get ID. Not getting an ID is a terrible reason to not vote - it implies that you are lazy and/or incompetant. 7-8 months notice.This is about duties and responsibilities of a participating member of society. IMO, if you want to exercise your right to cast a vote, you have a responsibility to prove you are eligible to do so. It's that simple.

Make sure to pick up your stuffed unicorn too.

 

[moleculo]

I think in some form yes but here in Wisconsin student and job photo ID's weren't allowed(some are now with adjustments).It isn't just govt ID's you need but DMV ID's, the place just about everyone hates. In some counties that means driving to another county for people without cars.

if it means driving to another county, then you are probably registered in the wrong place to start with, no? And so what if everyone hates the DMV. Who ever said citizenship was all rainbows and unicorns?

I'd say yes eventually but don't spring this on people this quickly.

it's March. The general election is in November. is that springing quickly?

Alabama has 3 cases of voter "fraud" in 3 years but 75,000 may not be able to vote. Here it will cost the state $6 million and not stop the few voter problems we have(voting at the wrong place, green card people not being able to vote). Most are just honest mistakes.

3 reported cases of "fraud". I wonder how much fraud has gone undetected?

 

[moleculo]

I brought this up in the other thread, but what about doing fingerprinting instead? You go to vote, you put your finger on a scanner, if you are who you say you are, the fingerprint matches, and you can vote. Otherwise if the fingerprint doesn't match, you don't vote. Plus, if someone is registered in more than one district, a quick cross reference can determine if the fingerprint checked in twice. And this can be used to solve the absentee ballot issues. You place your fingerprint on the absentee ballot, that way, we're sure it's the person and not the spouse of a deceased person voting. And, who knows, maybe when people go to register their fingerprints, we'll get lucky and find out that their fingerprints match from a crime scene.

At first blush, I like this better than the photo ID. But it sounds just as expensive, if not more (I only know this from watching cops shows, but doesn't each individual fingerprint need to have distinguishing features and swirls marked before going into a database for analysis? That doesn't seem workable when you're talking about millions of ballots). And it's still basically a solution looking for a problem.

it's not that hard. The fingerprint scanning data looks at the print, identifies locations of markers (swirls, bifercations, etc), and instantly records all of that. It breaks down the graphical information into discrete metadata pretty instantly and can be done for millions without too much effort. Building that initial database is a big effort though and will cost a lot of money. India is doing it right now with fingerprints and iris scans.

 

[moleculo]

Alabama has 3 cases of voter "fraud" in 3 years but 75,000 may not be able to vote. Here it will cost the state $6 million and not stop the few voter problems we have(voting at the wrong place, green card people not being able to vote). Most are just honest mistakes.

3 reported cases of "fraud". I wonder how much fraud has gone undetected?

More or less than 75,000, you think?

I wonder how many of 75,000 folks would jump through the hoops to get an ID in order to vote? Out of those that do not, I wonder how many actually care enough to vote in the first place?

 

[humpback]

And I'm fine with figuring out a way to make it easier for those people in your last sentence. I'm still not sure I agree with you that there is a rather large segment of our population in that situation. I see people all the time in my line of work that you could stick in that kind of scenario that have something. I have no problem with giving those people truly free ID's to help them vote. It seems that both are arguing stuff, though, that the other simply can't believe. People on your side think it is some form of attack on people that have no ID as a means to stop them from voting (for the truly sinister version of your side) and people on my side are labeled the way you have. We are both chasing boogymen, but regardless there is a "real" problem. Every citizen that has the right to vote should be allowed to vote and we should make the process as easy as possible to allow them to. We should also be mindful that any fraud of any kind in the voting process is not something to ignore or go unchallanged and we should fix it if we can, whether it's one case or a million.The ID argument is such an easy one to me. The worse fraud issues are intimidation at polling places from both sides and the other shenanigans that go on that have nothing to do with ID's.

People may think that the costs outweigh the benefits, but it's ridiculous to say "there is no problem". You may not consider it a problem, but many people do.

 

[The Z Machine]

The problem is that any real constraints requiring government issued ID for voting is effectively (right now) a poll tax.

 

[moleculo]

out of curiousity - are picture ID's required to receive other benefits - i.e. food stamps, medicare/medicaid, social security, etc.?

If not, wouldn't that be the logical next step? I think we can all agree that these systems are rife with abuse.

 

[The Z Machine]

out of curiousity - are picture ID's required to receive other benefits - i.e. food stamps, medicare/medicaid, social security, etc.?If not, wouldn't that be the logical next step? I think we can all agree that these systems are rife with abuse.

Actually, I don't think they are "rife" with abuse.

 

[moleculo]

out of curiousity - are picture ID's required to receive other benefits - i.e. food stamps, medicare/medicaid, social security, etc.?If not, wouldn't that be the logical next step? I think we can all agree that these systems are rife with abuse.

Actually, I don't think they are "rife" with abuse.

My wife has some cousins that abuse the heck out of the system, and they are all dumb as a turnip. If they can figure it out, I'm sure millions of others can.

 

[pantagrapher]

out of curiousity - are picture ID's required to receive other benefits - i.e. food stamps, medicare/medicaid, social security, etc.?If not, wouldn't that be the logical next step? I think we can all agree that these systems are rife with abuse.

Actually, I don't think they are "rife" with abuse.

My wife has some cousins that abuse the heck out of the system, and they are all dumb as a turnip. If they can figure it out, I'm sure millions of others can.

Turnips are probably the world's smartest vegetable.

 

[The Z Machine]

out of curiousity - are picture ID's required to receive other benefits - i.e. food stamps, medicare/medicaid, social security, etc.?If not, wouldn't that be the logical next step? I think we can all agree that these systems are rife with abuse.

Actually, I don't think they are "rife" with abuse.

My wife has some cousins that abuse the heck out of the system, and they are all dumb as a turnip. If they can figure it out, I'm sure millions of others can.

The abuses (in $ terms) in those programs pale in comparison to the abuses in government contracting (especially for DoD type work). I think rooting out that stuff is more important than figuring out which people that get a pittance from the gov't actually deserve it.

 

[jon_mx]

Probably the reason we don't see much fraud is because there is no id requirement. I have seen numerous time people brag about being able to vote multiple times and such.

 

[pantagrapher]

Probably the reason we don't see much fraud is because there is no id requirement. I have seen numerous time people brag about being able to vote multiple times and such.

This is about the level of evidence we've come to expect from the pro-ID crowd.

 

[NattyDread]

Among the findings from the judge who just last week issued a injunction against Wisconsin's new voter id law:

1. Wisconsin Act 23 imposes a substantial burden upon constitutionally qualified voters.

"The plantiffs have submitted affidavits of 40 individuals each of whom describes the process of attempting to obtain the identification document. Nineteen people obtained a voter ID card only after paying between $14 and $39.50 to obtain a certified birth certificate from Wisconsin or elsewhere. This is a real cost that is imposed upon constitutionally eligible voters...A poll tax of $1.50 upon otherwise eligible voters was deemed an unconstitutional impairment..." (Supreme Court case Harper v. Virginia Board State of Elections). "The forty uncontested affidavits offer a picture of carousel visits to government offices, delay, dysfunctional computer systems, misinformation, and significant investment of time to avoid being turned away at the ballot box. This is burdensome, all the more for the elderly and the disabled."

2.There is no evidence of voter fraud that would have been prevented by Act 23

"The record is uncontested that recent investigations of vote irregularities, both in the City of Milwaukee and by the Attorney General have produced extremely little evidence of fraud and that which has been uncovered, improper use of absentee ballots and unqualified voters, would not have been prevented by the photo identification requirements of Act 23. Photo identification does not offer assurance that the person standing at the poll is not actually another person. It does not assure that the person is qualified to vote. It does not preclude the person having also voted by absentee."

3. Constitutionally Qualified Wisconsin Voters who do not Possess a Drivers License are Disproportionately Elderly, Indigent, or Members of a Racial Minority.

"The touchstone of the voter identification system is the drivers license. Statewide, 80% of men and 81% of women possess a valid Wisconsin drivers license. For minority members, the picture is substantially different, however. In Wisconsin, 45% of African-American males and 51% of females possess a license. As to Hispanics, 54% of males and 41% of females have a Wisconsin license. 23% of residents age 65 and older do not possess a drivers license."

So there you have it in a nutshell: the ID requirements present a substantial burden which falls disproportionately on minorities, elderly, and the disabled who are constitutionally eligible to vote. But even worse, it can't even be said that the policy will reduce fraud (of which there's scant proof to begin with). There's been a lot said in this thread in support of ID requirements based on posters opinions and anecdotes of how difficult it's been for them to obtain ID. But those who have studied the issue (e.g., Brennan) and presented evidence have come to a different conclusion. As for me, I'd prefer far ranging public policy to be evidence-based rather than opinion-based.

 

[17seconds]

I'm thinking the govt giving out free ID cards would be the idea everybody hates. The left would say it doesn't reach enough lazy idiots, and the right would reject it as new federal spending - probably call it voter welfare.

 

[moleculo]

out of curiousity - are picture ID's required to receive other benefits - i.e. food stamps, medicare/medicaid, social security, etc.?If not, wouldn't that be the logical next step? I think we can all agree that these systems are rife with abuse.

Actually, I don't think they are "rife" with abuse.

My wife has some cousins that abuse the heck out of the system, and they are all dumb as a turnip. If they can figure it out, I'm sure millions of others can.

The abuses (in $ terms) in those programs pale in comparison to the abuses in government contracting (especially for DoD type work). I think rooting out that stuff is more important than figuring out which people that get a pittance from the gov't actually deserve it.

great! let's go after that too.

 

[moleculo]

Among the findings from the judge who just last week issued a injunction against Wisconsin's new voter id law:

1. Wisconsin Act 23 imposes a substantial burden upon constitutionally qualified voters.

"The plantiffs have submitted affidavits of 40 individuals each of whom describes the process of attempting to obtain the identification document. Nineteen people obtained a voter ID card only after paying between $14 and $39.50 to obtain a certified birth certificate from Wisconsin or elsewhere. This is a real cost that is imposed upon constitutionally eligible voters...A poll tax of $1.50 upon otherwise eligible voters was deemed an unconstitutional impairment..." (Supreme Court case Harper v. Virginia Board State of Elections). "The forty uncontested affidavits offer a picture of carousel visits to government offices, delay, dysfunctional computer systems, misinformation, and significant investment of time to avoid being turned away at the ballot box. This is burdensome, all the more for the elderly and the disabled."

2.There is no evidence of voter fraud that would have been prevented by Act 23

"The record is uncontested that recent investigations of vote irregularities, both in the City of Milwaukee and by the Attorney General have produced extremely little evidence of fraud and that which has been uncovered, improper use of absentee ballots and unqualified voters, would not have been prevented by the photo identification requirements of Act 23. Photo identification does not offer assurance that the person standing at the poll is not actually another person. It does not assure that the person is qualified to vote. It does not preclude the person having also voted by absentee."

3. Constitutionally Qualified Wisconsin Voters who do not Possess a Drivers License are Disproportionately Elderly, Indigent, or Members of a Racial Minority.

"The touchstone of the voter identification system is the drivers license. Statewide, 80% of men and 81% of women possess a valid Wisconsin drivers license. For minority members, the picture is substantially different, however. In Wisconsin, 45% of African-American males and 51% of females possess a license. As to Hispanics, 54% of males and 41% of females have a Wisconsin license. 23% of residents age 65 and older do not possess a drivers license."

So there you have it in a nutshell: the ID requirements present a substantial burden which falls disproportionately on minorities, elderly, and the disabled who are constitutionally eligible to vote. But even worse, it can't even be said that the policy will reduce fraud (of which there's scant proof to begin with). There's been a lot said in this thread in support of ID requirements based on posters opinions and anecdotes of how difficult it's been for them to obtain ID. But those who have studied the issue (e.g., Brennan) and presented evidence have come to a different conclusion. As for me, I'd prefer far ranging public policy to be evidence-based rather than opinion-based.

sounds to me like the root cause is the cumbersome bureaucracy which makes getting the ID burdensome and expensive. How about someone figure out how to fix that?

 

[NattyDread]

Among the findings from the judge who just last week issued a injunction against Wisconsin's new voter id law:

1. Wisconsin Act 23 imposes a substantial burden upon constitutionally qualified voters.

"The plantiffs have submitted affidavits of 40 individuals each of whom describes the process of attempting to obtain the identification document. Nineteen people obtained a voter ID card only after paying between $14 and $39.50 to obtain a certified birth certificate from Wisconsin or elsewhere. This is a real cost that is imposed upon constitutionally eligible voters...A poll tax of $1.50 upon otherwise eligible voters was deemed an unconstitutional impairment..." (Supreme Court case Harper v. Virginia Board State of Elections). "The forty uncontested affidavits offer a picture of carousel visits to government offices, delay, dysfunctional computer systems, misinformation, and significant investment of time to avoid being turned away at the ballot box. This is burdensome, all the more for the elderly and the disabled."

2.There is no evidence of voter fraud that would have been prevented by Act 23

"The record is uncontested that recent investigations of vote irregularities, both in the City of Milwaukee and by the Attorney General have produced extremely little evidence of fraud and that which has been uncovered, improper use of absentee ballots and unqualified voters, would not have been prevented by the photo identification requirements of Act 23. Photo identification does not offer assurance that the person standing at the poll is not actually another person. It does not assure that the person is qualified to vote. It does not preclude the person having also voted by absentee."

3. Constitutionally Qualified Wisconsin Voters who do not Possess a Drivers License are Disproportionately Elderly, Indigent, or Members of a Racial Minority.

"The touchstone of the voter identification system is the drivers license. Statewide, 80% of men and 81% of women possess a valid Wisconsin drivers license. For minority members, the picture is substantially different, however. In Wisconsin, 45% of African-American males and 51% of females possess a license. As to Hispanics, 54% of males and 41% of females have a Wisconsin license. 23% of residents age 65 and older do not possess a drivers license."

So there you have it in a nutshell: the ID requirements present a substantial burden which falls disproportionately on minorities, elderly, and the disabled who are constitutionally eligible to vote. But even worse, it can't even be said that the policy will reduce fraud (of which there's scant proof to begin with). There's been a lot said in this thread in support of ID requirements based on posters opinions and anecdotes of how difficult it's been for them to obtain ID. But those who have studied the issue (e.g., Brennan) and presented evidence have come to a different conclusion. As for me, I'd prefer far ranging public policy to be evidence-based rather than opinion-based.

sounds to me like the root cause is the cumbersome bureaucracy which makes getting the ID burdensome and expensive. How about someone figure out how to fix that?

Fixing that system would be great, but it certainly has not been a focus in many of the new voter ID laws. If serious measures and funding to reduce burdens in obtaining ID and voting itself don't go hand in hand with the ID requirements, the end result (whether intentional or not) is voter suppression.

 

[The Z Machine]

Among the findings from the judge who just last week issued a injunction against Wisconsin's new voter id law:

1. Wisconsin Act 23 imposes a substantial burden upon constitutionally qualified voters.

"The plantiffs have submitted affidavits of 40 individuals each of whom describes the process of attempting to obtain the identification document. Nineteen people obtained a voter ID card only after paying between $14 and $39.50 to obtain a certified birth certificate from Wisconsin or elsewhere. This is a real cost that is imposed upon constitutionally eligible voters...A poll tax of $1.50 upon otherwise eligible voters was deemed an unconstitutional impairment..." (Supreme Court case Harper v. Virginia Board State of Elections). "The forty uncontested affidavits offer a picture of carousel visits to government offices, delay, dysfunctional computer systems, misinformation, and significant investment of time to avoid being turned away at the ballot box. This is burdensome, all the more for the elderly and the disabled."

2.There is no evidence of voter fraud that would have been prevented by Act 23

"The record is uncontested that recent investigations of vote irregularities, both in the City of Milwaukee and by the Attorney General have produced extremely little evidence of fraud and that which has been uncovered, improper use of absentee ballots and unqualified voters, would not have been prevented by the photo identification requirements of Act 23. Photo identification does not offer assurance that the person standing at the poll is not actually another person. It does not assure that the person is qualified to vote. It does not preclude the person having also voted by absentee."

3. Constitutionally Qualified Wisconsin Voters who do not Possess a Drivers License are Disproportionately Elderly, Indigent, or Members of a Racial Minority.

"The touchstone of the voter identification system is the drivers license. Statewide, 80% of men and 81% of women possess a valid Wisconsin drivers license. For minority members, the picture is substantially different, however. In Wisconsin, 45% of African-American males and 51% of females possess a license. As to Hispanics, 54% of males and 41% of females have a Wisconsin license. 23% of residents age 65 and older do not possess a drivers license."

So there you have it in a nutshell: the ID requirements present a substantial burden which falls disproportionately on minorities, elderly, and the disabled who are constitutionally eligible to vote. But even worse, it can't even be said that the policy will reduce fraud (of which there's scant proof to begin with). There's been a lot said in this thread in support of ID requirements based on posters opinions and anecdotes of how difficult it's been for them to obtain ID. But those who have studied the issue (e.g., Brennan) and presented evidence have come to a different conclusion. As for me, I'd prefer far ranging public policy to be evidence-based rather than opinion-based.

sounds to me like the root cause is the cumbersome bureaucracy which makes getting the ID burdensome and expensive. How about someone figure out how to fix that?

Fixing that system would be great, but it certainly has not been a focus in many of the new voter ID laws. If serious measures and funding to reduce burdens in obtaining ID and voting itself don't go hand in hand with the ID requirements, the end result (whether intentional or not) is voter suppression.

Exactly. As I said before, the requirements effectively become a poll tax.

 

[The Commish]

Still no info around why it's too hard, unattainable etc eh? Also, no numbers yet to back TG's "10s of millions of dollars" either? Color me shocked.

 

[pantagrapher]

Among the findings from the judge who just last week issued a injunction against Wisconsin's new voter id law:

1. Wisconsin Act 23 imposes a substantial burden upon constitutionally qualified voters.

"The plantiffs have submitted affidavits of 40 individuals each of whom describes the process of attempting to obtain the identification document. Nineteen people obtained a voter ID card only after paying between $14 and $39.50 to obtain a certified birth certificate from Wisconsin or elsewhere. This is a real cost that is imposed upon constitutionally eligible voters...A poll tax of $1.50 upon otherwise eligible voters was deemed an unconstitutional impairment..." (Supreme Court case Harper v. Virginia Board State of Elections). "The forty uncontested affidavits offer a picture of carousel visits to government offices, delay, dysfunctional computer systems, misinformation, and significant investment of time to avoid being turned away at the ballot box. This is burdensome, all the more for the elderly and the disabled."

2.There is no evidence of voter fraud that would have been prevented by Act 23

"The record is uncontested that recent investigations of vote irregularities, both in the City of Milwaukee and by the Attorney General have produced extremely little evidence of fraud and that which has been uncovered, improper use of absentee ballots and unqualified voters, would not have been prevented by the photo identification requirements of Act 23. Photo identification does not offer assurance that the person standing at the poll is not actually another person. It does not assure that the person is qualified to vote. It does not preclude the person having also voted by absentee."

3. Constitutionally Qualified Wisconsin Voters who do not Possess a Drivers License are Disproportionately Elderly, Indigent, or Members of a Racial Minority.

"The touchstone of the voter identification system is the drivers license. Statewide, 80% of men and 81% of women possess a valid Wisconsin drivers license. For minority members, the picture is substantially different, however. In Wisconsin, 45% of African-American males and 51% of females possess a license. As to Hispanics, 54% of males and 41% of females have a Wisconsin license. 23% of residents age 65 and older do not possess a drivers license."

So there you have it in a nutshell: the ID requirements present a substantial burden which falls disproportionately on minorities, elderly, and the disabled who are constitutionally eligible to vote. But even worse, it can't even be said that the policy will reduce fraud (of which there's scant proof to begin with). There's been a lot said in this thread in support of ID requirements based on posters opinions and anecdotes of how difficult it's been for them to obtain ID. But those who have studied the issue (e.g., Brennan) and presented evidence have come to a different conclusion. As for me, I'd prefer far ranging public policy to be evidence-based rather than opinion-based.

sounds to me like the root cause is the cumbersome bureaucracy which makes getting the ID burdensome and expensive. How about someone figure out how to fix that?

HELLO, EXACTLY!

 

[The Commish]

Still no info around why it's too hard, unattainable etc eh? Also, no numbers yet to back TG's "10s of millions of dollars" either? Color me shocked.

Skipping/ignoring/not understanding that the answers to the questions you're asking have already been provided is bad shtick and makes for pointless conversation.

Then quit doing it

 

[The Commish]

Among the findings from the judge who just last week issued a injunction against Wisconsin's new voter id law:

1. Wisconsin Act 23 imposes a substantial burden upon constitutionally qualified voters.

"The plantiffs have submitted affidavits of 40 individuals each of whom describes the process of attempting to obtain the identification document. Nineteen people obtained a voter ID card only after paying between $14 and $39.50 to obtain a certified birth certificate from Wisconsin or elsewhere. This is a real cost that is imposed upon constitutionally eligible voters...A poll tax of $1.50 upon otherwise eligible voters was deemed an unconstitutional impairment..." (Supreme Court case Harper v. Virginia Board State of Elections). "The forty uncontested affidavits offer a picture of carousel visits to government offices, delay, dysfunctional computer systems, misinformation, and significant investment of time to avoid being turned away at the ballot box. This is burdensome, all the more for the elderly and the disabled."

2.There is no evidence of voter fraud that would have been prevented by Act 23

"The record is uncontested that recent investigations of vote irregularities, both in the City of Milwaukee and by the Attorney General have produced extremely little evidence of fraud and that which has been uncovered, improper use of absentee ballots and unqualified voters, would not have been prevented by the photo identification requirements of Act 23. Photo identification does not offer assurance that the person standing at the poll is not actually another person. It does not assure that the person is qualified to vote. It does not preclude the person having also voted by absentee."

3. Constitutionally Qualified Wisconsin Voters who do not Possess a Drivers License are Disproportionately Elderly, Indigent, or Members of a Racial Minority.

"The touchstone of the voter identification system is the drivers license. Statewide, 80% of men and 81% of women possess a valid Wisconsin drivers license. For minority members, the picture is substantially different, however. In Wisconsin, 45% of African-American males and 51% of females possess a license. As to Hispanics, 54% of males and 41% of females have a Wisconsin license. 23% of residents age 65 and older do not possess a drivers license."

So there you have it in a nutshell: the ID requirements present a substantial burden which falls disproportionately on minorities, elderly, and the disabled who are constitutionally eligible to vote. But even worse, it can't even be said that the policy will reduce fraud (of which there's scant proof to begin with). There's been a lot said in this thread in support of ID requirements based on posters opinions and anecdotes of how difficult it's been for them to obtain ID. But those who have studied the issue (e.g., Brennan) and presented evidence have come to a different conclusion. As for me, I'd prefer far ranging public policy to be evidence-based rather than opinion-based.

sounds to me like the root cause is the cumbersome bureaucracy which makes getting the ID burdensome and expensive. How about someone figure out how to fix that?

HELLO, EXACTLY!

So eliminate it and put the $50 web cam with a printer at the locations, have the person bring their paperwork there and "register" on site...problem solved Don't forget the filing cabinet for those places that are supposedly not connected to anything anywhere so you can enter the data later when you get back to civilization.

 

[The Commish]

Still no info around why it's too hard, unattainable etc eh? Also, no numbers yet to back TG's "10s of millions of dollars" either? Color me shocked.

Skipping/ignoring/not understanding that the answers to the questions you're asking have already been provided is bad shtick and makes for pointless conversation.

Then quit doing it

Ignore Button activated

Good...first step to getting yourself out of the whole is to stop digging! Glad you understand that

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Until working as a election official (clerk, judge and supervisor over the course of several elections), I never realized just how much potential there is for fraud. Whether that potential is acted upon is open for debate, but the potential is definitely there. All you really need is a name and an adress - and hope that that person hasn't already voted at the precinct. Maybe things are better controlled in larger urban areas, but here in Omaha you just walk in, tell them a name - they look it up in a book to see if that name is registered to vote. If so, and there are no comments in the registry indicating need for further verification, they get a ballot. Heck even if they give a name not in the registry they are instructed to call the election headquarters to verify they are registered to vote and at which polling place - and then are often instructed to fill out a provisional ballot to make sure if they are eligible their vote will count.

 

[The Commish]

Until working as a election official (clerk, judge and supervisor over the course of several elections), I never realized just how much potential their is for fraud. Whether that potential is acted upon is open for debate, but the potential is definitely there. All you really need is a name and an adress - and hope that that person hasn't already voted at the precinct. Maybe things are better controlled in larger urban areas, but here in Omaha you just walk in, tell them a name - they look it up in a book to see if that name is registered to vote. If so, and there are no comments in the registry indicating need for further verification, they get a ballot. Heck even if they give a name not in the registry they are instructed to call the election headquarters to verify they are registere dot vote and at which polling place - and then are often instructed to fill out a provisional ballot to make sure if they are eligible their vote will count.

The best argument we've had against this reality is "we don't really know if fraud is happening, so there's nothing to fix"....simply shortsided IMO. How about we be proactive for once and fix the potential problem before it actually happens...a novel thought, I know.

 

[pantagrapher]

Until working as a election official (clerk, judge and supervisor over the course of several elections), I never realized just how much potential their is for fraud. Whether that potential is acted upon is open for debate, but the potential is definitely there. All you really need is a name and an adress - and hope that that person hasn't already voted at the precinct. Maybe things are better controlled in larger urban areas, but here in Omaha you just walk in, tell them a name - they look it up in a book to see if that name is registered to vote. If so, and there are no comments in the registry indicating need for further verification, they get a ballot. Heck even if they give a name not in the registry they are instructed to call the election headquarters to verify they are registere dot vote and at which polling place - and then are often instructed to fill out a provisional ballot to make sure if they are eligible their vote will count.

So later, when that voter actually comes into vote, what happens? Do they cast a provisional ballot? I assume we no longer count the fraudulent vote and then investigate the matter, it being a felony and all.As for the person casting the fraudulent vote, what are they getting out of it? One vote at the risk of being caught committing a felony?

 

[RCon]

Until working as a election official (clerk, judge and supervisor over the course of several elections), I never realized just how much potential there is for fraud. Whether that potential is acted upon is open for debate, but the potential is definitely there. All you really need is a name and an adress - and hope that that person hasn't already voted at the precinct. Maybe things are better controlled in larger urban areas, but here in Omaha you just walk in, tell them a name - they look it up in a book to see if that name is registered to vote. If so, and there are no comments in the registry indicating need for further verification, they get a ballot. Heck even if they give a name not in the registry they are instructed to call the election headquarters to verify they are registered to vote and at which polling place - and then are often instructed to fill out a provisional ballot to make sure if they are eligible their vote will count.

I've voted in Manhattan, and if anything, it's less controlled. At least in a less urban setting, there's some hope that the poll workers will recognize a decent percentage of the voters.

 

[pantagrapher]

Until working as a election official (clerk, judge and supervisor over the course of several elections), I never realized just how much potential their is for fraud. Whether that potential is acted upon is open for debate, but the potential is definitely there. All you really need is a name and an adress - and hope that that person hasn't already voted at the precinct. Maybe things are better controlled in larger urban areas, but here in Omaha you just walk in, tell them a name - they look it up in a book to see if that name is registered to vote. If so, and there are no comments in the registry indicating need for further verification, they get a ballot. Heck even if they give a name not in the registry they are instructed to call the election headquarters to verify they are registere dot vote and at which polling place - and then are often instructed to fill out a provisional ballot to make sure if they are eligible their vote will count.

The best argument we've had against this reality is "we don't really know if fraud is happening, so there's nothing to fix"....simply shortsided IMO. How about we be proactive for once and fix the potential problem before it actually happens...a novel thought, I know.

We aren't contending that "we don't really know"; We contend that we do know: it rarely happens.

 

[Rayderr]

Until working as a election official (clerk, judge and supervisor over the course of several elections), I never realized just how much potential their is for fraud. Whether that potential is acted upon is open for debate, but the potential is definitely there. All you really need is a name and an adress - and hope that that person hasn't already voted at the precinct. Maybe things are better controlled in larger urban areas, but here in Omaha you just walk in, tell them a name - they look it up in a book to see if that name is registered to vote. If so, and there are no comments in the registry indicating need for further verification, they get a ballot. Heck even if they give a name not in the registry they are instructed to call the election headquarters to verify they are registere dot vote and at which polling place - and then are often instructed to fill out a provisional ballot to make sure if they are eligible their vote will count.

The best argument we've had against this reality is "we don't really know if fraud is happening, so there's nothing to fix"....simply shortsided IMO. How about we be proactive for once and fix the potential problem before it actually happens...a novel thought, I know.

We aren't contending that "we don't really know"; We contend that we do know: it rarely happens.

Actually, if there are no measures in place to ensure that the person voting is who they say they are, then there is no more proof that it happens a lot than it happens rarely.

 

[The Commish]

Until working as a election official (clerk, judge and supervisor over the course of several elections), I never realized just how much potential their is for fraud. Whether that potential is acted upon is open for debate, but the potential is definitely there. All you really need is a name and an adress - and hope that that person hasn't already voted at the precinct. Maybe things are better controlled in larger urban areas, but here in Omaha you just walk in, tell them a name - they look it up in a book to see if that name is registered to vote. If so, and there are no comments in the registry indicating need for further verification, they get a ballot. Heck even if they give a name not in the registry they are instructed to call the election headquarters to verify they are registere dot vote and at which polling place - and then are often instructed to fill out a provisional ballot to make sure if they are eligible their vote will count.

The best argument we've had against this reality is "we don't really know if fraud is happening, so there's nothing to fix"....simply shortsided IMO. How about we be proactive for once and fix the potential problem before it actually happens...a novel thought, I know.

We aren't contending that "we don't really know"; We contend that we do know: it rarely happens.

You are generally level headed, so let me ask you the questions Matthias refused to answer. Let's say it really is rare. What does frequency matter in this case? TG was talking about the "cost" of closing the loophole. How much does it cost us yearly to "research" the alleged activities? If we know it's a potential problem, why not fix it before it becomes a real problem?I tried to explain this earlier, but this isn't about politics to me. It's about seeing a problem or potential problem and fixing it. I don't see the harm in fixing it.ETA: One more question....if it's not monitored, how do we "know" it doesn't happen? That's something else that's gone unanswered.

 

[pantagrapher]

Until working as a election official (clerk, judge and supervisor over the course of several elections), I never realized just how much potential their is for fraud. Whether that potential is acted upon is open for debate, but the potential is definitely there. All you really need is a name and an adress - and hope that that person hasn't already voted at the precinct. Maybe things are better controlled in larger urban areas, but here in Omaha you just walk in, tell them a name - they look it up in a book to see if that name is registered to vote. If so, and there are no comments in the registry indicating need for further verification, they get a ballot. Heck even if they give a name not in the registry they are instructed to call the election headquarters to verify they are registere dot vote and at which polling place - and then are often instructed to fill out a provisional ballot to make sure if they are eligible their vote will count.

The best argument we've had against this reality is "we don't really know if fraud is happening, so there's nothing to fix"....simply shortsided IMO. How about we be proactive for once and fix the potential problem before it actually happens...a novel thought, I know.

We aren't contending that "we don't really know"; We contend that we do know: it rarely happens.

Actually, if there are no measures in place to ensure that the person voting is who they say they are, then there is no more proof that it happens a lot than it happens rarely.

Thanks, I just wanted to get that straight. People opposed to voter-ID laws point to the lack of actual fraud; people pushing ID laws are the ones saying "we don't really know."

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Until working as a election official (clerk, judge and supervisor over the course of several elections), I never realized just how much potential their is for fraud. Whether that potential is acted upon is open for debate, but the potential is definitely there. All you really need is a name and an adress - and hope that that person hasn't already voted at the precinct. Maybe things are better controlled in larger urban areas, but here in Omaha you just walk in, tell them a name - they look it up in a book to see if that name is registered to vote. If so, and there are no comments in the registry indicating need for further verification, they get a ballot. Heck even if they give a name not in the registry they are instructed to call the election headquarters to verify they are registere dot vote and at which polling place - and then are often instructed to fill out a provisional ballot to make sure if they are eligible their vote will count.

So later, when that voter actually comes into vote, what happens? Do they cast a provisional ballot? I assume we no longer count the fraudulent vote and then investigate the matter, it being a felony and all.As for the person casting the fraudulent vote, what are they getting out of it? One vote at the risk of being caught committing a felony?

I haven't run into that situation - but if that were to happen - as an election judge I would have them fill out a provisional ballot and I would immediately contact the election HQ. They would then send out a team to pick up the already cast ballots and try to flag it I am sure. So there are safeguards in place. That is why I think overall our election system works...but it is human nature to think everywhere else doesn't do a great job at fraud prevention. It is human nature to need a boogeyman.

 

[Rayderr]

Until working as a election official (clerk, judge and supervisor over the course of several elections), I never realized just how much potential their is for fraud. Whether that potential is acted upon is open for debate, but the potential is definitely there. All you really need is a name and an adress - and hope that that person hasn't already voted at the precinct. Maybe things are better controlled in larger urban areas, but here in Omaha you just walk in, tell them a name - they look it up in a book to see if that name is registered to vote. If so, and there are no comments in the registry indicating need for further verification, they get a ballot. Heck even if they give a name not in the registry they are instructed to call the election headquarters to verify they are registere dot vote and at which polling place - and then are often instructed to fill out a provisional ballot to make sure if they are eligible their vote will count.

The best argument we've had against this reality is "we don't really know if fraud is happening, so there's nothing to fix"....simply shortsided IMO. How about we be proactive for once and fix the potential problem before it actually happens...a novel thought, I know.

We aren't contending that "we don't really know"; We contend that we do know: it rarely happens.

Actually, if there are no measures in place to ensure that the person voting is who they say they are, then there is no more proof that it happens a lot than it happens rarely.

Thanks, I just wanted to get that straight. People opposed to voter-ID laws point to the lack of actual fraud; people pushing ID laws are the ones saying "we don't really know."

We know there's been some. It's just impossible to know how much. And given that there have been elections decided by as little as 1 vote, I'd say 1 fraudulent vote is too much.

 

[The Commish]

 

[Rayderr]

We know there's been some. It's just impossible to know how much. And given that there have been elections decided by as little as 1 vote, I'd say 1 fraudulent vote is too much.

Right. But you don't give a #### about 3 million legitimate, eligible voters who don't vote because of these measures.That's what's so ####ed about your whole argument.

I do. I believe IDs should be free and that there should be ample time (year) between they announce the ID law and when it takes effect. I personally doubt that 3mil number tho. in the 2008 primaries in Ohio, roughly 3.4 million people voted (3,411,306). Last november, in an election largely about issue 2 (union collective bargaining) when voter ID was in place, roughly 3.5mil people voted (3,497,408). We'll have to wait until this November to see if it has any effect on the general election.

 

[Rayderr]

FWIW, a zero-mistake system of anything of human creation is simply impossible.

Then you have no issue with Bush winning in 2000, right? After all, all those people, all those ballots, all that counting, people are bound to make mistakes.

 

[Rayderr]

I do. I believe IDs should be free and that there should be ample time (year) between they announce the ID law and when it takes effect. I personally doubt that 3mil number tho. in the 2008 primaries in Ohio, roughly 3.4 million people voted (3,411,306). Last november, in an election largely about issue 2 (union collective bargaining) when voter ID was in place, roughly 3.5mil people voted (3,497,408). We'll have to wait until this November to see if it has any effect on the general election.

So do you support my idea of issuing Voter IDs that are only good for that year and requiring people to appear in-person to get them re-issued each election cycle?It can only reduce fraud.

I've already stated that fingerprinting is truly the way to go. I fail to see why getting a new ID each year is any better than every few years (when ID's typically expire.)

 

[Rayderr]

FWIW, a zero-mistake system of anything of human creation is simply impossible.

Then you have no issue with Bush winning in 2000, right? After all, all those people, all those ballots, all that counting, people are bound to make mistakes.

That election proves my point, not yours. It shows how much error and ambiguity is inherent in the system that trying to say that we will accept zero mistakes in this one particular part of it serves no greater purpose.

But aren't you all up in arms about how we need a gazillion paper trails to ensure that a true absolute count is reached of the votes? Seems kinda hypocritical to only want to ensure a proper count when it benefits your side but against it when it doesn't.

 

[Rayderr]

I've already stated that fingerprinting is truly the way to go. I fail to see why getting a new ID each year is any better than every few years (when ID's typically expire.)

People can die. They can change their looks. And really, if someone isn't willing to go down to the DMV to get their voting card, then who cares if they lose their right to vote, anyhow.

Then you should love my idea of fingerprints. That way, the only time a person needs to update is when they lose a finger.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Keep up the good fight Matthias.

 

[pantagrapher]

Keep up the good fight Matthias.

The Justice Department and the courts seem to be on our side.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Keep up the good fight Matthias.

The Justice Department and the courts seem to be on our side.

Well, other than the Supreme Court. But those guys aren't very important.

 

[Sarnoff]

Until working as a election official (clerk, judge and supervisor over the course of several elections), I never realized just how much potential their is for fraud. Whether that potential is acted upon is open for debate, but the potential is definitely there. All you really need is a name and an adress - and hope that that person hasn't already voted at the precinct. Maybe things are better controlled in larger urban areas, but here in Omaha you just walk in, tell them a name - they look it up in a book to see if that name is registered to vote. If so, and there are no comments in the registry indicating need for further verification, they get a ballot. Heck even if they give a name not in the registry they are instructed to call the election headquarters to verify they are registere dot vote and at which polling place - and then are often instructed to fill out a provisional ballot to make sure if they are eligible their vote will count.

The best argument we've had against this reality is "we don't really know if fraud is happening, so there's nothing to fix"....simply shortsided IMO. How about we be proactive for once and fix the potential problem before it actually happens...a novel thought, I know.

We aren't contending that "we don't really know"; We contend that we do know: it rarely happens.

You are generally level headed, so let me ask you the questions Matthias refused to answer. Let's say it really is rare. What does frequency matter in this case? TG was talking about the "cost" of closing the loophole. How much does it cost us yearly to "research" the alleged activities? If we know it's a potential problem, why not fix it before it becomes a real problem?I tried to explain this earlier, but this isn't about politics to me. It's about seeing a problem or potential problem and fixing it. I don't see the harm in fixing it.ETA: One more question....if it's not monitored, how do we "know" it doesn't happen? That's something else that's gone unanswered.

I'd like to know why, if there really is lots of "potential" for fraud, we should wait until someone screws up an election (for which there may not be suitable recourse) to fix the problem? Let's close the barn doors before the horse escapes.

 

[The Commish]

Until working as a election official (clerk, judge and supervisor over the course of several elections), I never realized just how much potential their is for fraud. Whether that potential is acted upon is open for debate, but the potential is definitely there. All you really need is a name and an adress - and hope that that person hasn't already voted at the precinct. Maybe things are better controlled in larger urban areas, but here in Omaha you just walk in, tell them a name - they look it up in a book to see if that name is registered to vote. If so, and there are no comments in the registry indicating need for further verification, they get a ballot. Heck even if they give a name not in the registry they are instructed to call the election headquarters to verify they are registere dot vote and at which polling place - and then are often instructed to fill out a provisional ballot to make sure if they are eligible their vote will count.

The best argument we've had against this reality is "we don't really know if fraud is happening, so there's nothing to fix"....simply shortsided IMO. How about we be proactive for once and fix the potential problem before it actually happens...a novel thought, I know.

We aren't contending that "we don't really know"; We contend that we do know: it rarely happens.

You are generally level headed, so let me ask you the questions Matthias refused to answer. Let's say it really is rare. What does frequency matter in this case? TG was talking about the "cost" of closing the loophole. How much does it cost us yearly to "research" the alleged activities? If we know it's a potential problem, why not fix it before it becomes a real problem?I tried to explain this earlier, but this isn't about politics to me. It's about seeing a problem or potential problem and fixing it. I don't see the harm in fixing it.ETA: One more question....if it's not monitored, how do we "know" it doesn't happen? That's something else that's gone unanswered.

I'd like to know why, if there really is lots of "potential" for fraud, we should wait until someone screws up an election (for which there may not be suitable recourse) to fix the problem? Let's close the barn doors before the horse escapes.

Best I can get out of here is "it costs too much" and "people will be disenfranchised" No one's really offered anything to support those claims. I also hear that making them do something more than what they do today is on level with taking away their right to vote as well. You'll have to get them to explain it. Maybe you'll have more luck than I did.

 

[The Commish]

Good Luck Sarnoff....this is the best you'll get A bunch of "analogies" that compare apples to oranges.

 

[pantagrapher]

Until working as a election official (clerk, judge and supervisor over the course of several elections), I never realized just how much potential their is for fraud. Whether that potential is acted upon is open for debate, but the potential is definitely there. All you really need is a name and an adress - and hope that that person hasn't already voted at the precinct. Maybe things are better controlled in larger urban areas, but here in Omaha you just walk in, tell them a name - they look it up in a book to see if that name is registered to vote. If so, and there are no comments in the registry indicating need for further verification, they get a ballot. Heck even if they give a name not in the registry they are instructed to call the election headquarters to verify they are registere dot vote and at which polling place - and then are often instructed to fill out a provisional ballot to make sure if they are eligible their vote will count.

The best argument we've had against this reality is "we don't really know if fraud is happening, so there's nothing to fix"....simply shortsided IMO. How about we be proactive for once and fix the potential problem before it actually happens...a novel thought, I know.

We aren't contending that "we don't really know"; We contend that we do know: it rarely happens.

You are generally level headed, so let me ask you the questions Matthias refused to answer. Let's say it really is rare. What does frequency matter in this case? TG was talking about the "cost" of closing the loophole. How much does it cost us yearly to "research" the alleged activities? If we know it's a potential problem, why not fix it before it becomes a real problem?I tried to explain this earlier, but this isn't about politics to me. It's about seeing a problem or potential problem and fixing it. I don't see the harm in fixing it.ETA: One more question....if it's not monitored, how do we "know" it doesn't happen? That's something else that's gone unanswered.

I'd like to know why, if there really is lots of "potential" for fraud, we should wait until someone screws up an election (for which there may not be suitable recourse) to fix the problem? Let's close the barn doors before the horse escapes.

Exactly how would this work? I have yet to hear someone clearly explain what an election-swinging vote-fraud conspiracy would look like.

 

[The Commish]

Until working as a election official (clerk, judge and supervisor over the course of several elections), I never realized just how much potential their is for fraud. Whether that potential is acted upon is open for debate, but the potential is definitely there. All you really need is a name and an adress - and hope that that person hasn't already voted at the precinct. Maybe things are better controlled in larger urban areas, but here in Omaha you just walk in, tell them a name - they look it up in a book to see if that name is registered to vote. If so, and there are no comments in the registry indicating need for further verification, they get a ballot. Heck even if they give a name not in the registry they are instructed to call the election headquarters to verify they are registere dot vote and at which polling place - and then are often instructed to fill out a provisional ballot to make sure if they are eligible their vote will count.

The best argument we've had against this reality is "we don't really know if fraud is happening, so there's nothing to fix"....simply shortsided IMO. How about we be proactive for once and fix the potential problem before it actually happens...a novel thought, I know.

We aren't contending that "we don't really know"; We contend that we do know: it rarely happens.

You are generally level headed, so let me ask you the questions Matthias refused to answer. Let's say it really is rare. What does frequency matter in this case? TG was talking about the "cost" of closing the loophole. How much does it cost us yearly to "research" the alleged activities? If we know it's a potential problem, why not fix it before it becomes a real problem?I tried to explain this earlier, but this isn't about politics to me. It's about seeing a problem or potential problem and fixing it. I don't see the harm in fixing it.ETA: One more question....if it's not monitored, how do we "know" it doesn't happen? That's something else that's gone unanswered.

I'd like to know why, if there really is lots of "potential" for fraud, we should wait until someone screws up an election (for which there may not be suitable recourse) to fix the problem? Let's close the barn doors before the horse escapes.

Exactly how would this work? I have yet to hear someone clearly explain what an election-swinging vote-fraud conspiracy would look like.

Who knows? I don't think anyone here is basing their position on the actual conspiracy and HOW it would happen. At least for me, I see how one COULD happen and a way to prevent it. I see no reason not to be proactive and prevent it from being a way that voter fraud could occur. If folks could get passed the national elections, it's pretty easy to see how voter fraud could occur.

 

[pantagrapher]

Until working as a election official (clerk, judge and supervisor over the course of several elections), I never realized just how much potential their is for fraud. Whether that potential is acted upon is open for debate, but the potential is definitely there. All you really need is a name and an adress - and hope that that person hasn't already voted at the precinct. Maybe things are better controlled in larger urban areas, but here in Omaha you just walk in, tell them a name - they look it up in a book to see if that name is registered to vote. If so, and there are no comments in the registry indicating need for further verification, they get a ballot. Heck even if they give a name not in the registry they are instructed to call the election headquarters to verify they are registere dot vote and at which polling place - and then are often instructed to fill out a provisional ballot to make sure if they are eligible their vote will count.

The best argument we've had against this reality is "we don't really know if fraud is happening, so there's nothing to fix"....simply shortsided IMO. How about we be proactive for once and fix the potential problem before it actually happens...a novel thought, I know.

We aren't contending that "we don't really know"; We contend that we do know: it rarely happens.

You are generally level headed, so let me ask you the questions Matthias refused to answer. Let's say it really is rare. What does frequency matter in this case? TG was talking about the "cost" of closing the loophole. How much does it cost us yearly to "research" the alleged activities? If we know it's a potential problem, why not fix it before it becomes a real problem?I tried to explain this earlier, but this isn't about politics to me. It's about seeing a problem or potential problem and fixing it. I don't see the harm in fixing it.ETA: One more question....if it's not monitored, how do we "know" it doesn't happen? That's something else that's gone unanswered.

I'd like to know why, if there really is lots of "potential" for fraud, we should wait until someone screws up an election (for which there may not be suitable recourse) to fix the problem? Let's close the barn doors before the horse escapes.

Exactly how would this work? I have yet to hear someone clearly explain what an election-swinging vote-fraud conspiracy would look like.

Who knows? I don't think anyone here is basing their position on the actual conspiracy and HOW it would happen. At least for me, I see how one COULD happen and a way to prevent it. I see no reason not to be proactive and prevent it from being a way that voter fraud could occur. If folks could get passed the national elections, it's pretty easy to see how voter fraud could occur.

OK, so now we're basing election laws on the monkeys-could-fly-out-of-my-butt standard. Nobody knows how it could happen, but by golly it could.