Should voters be required to show ID? (1 Viewer)

[Mello]

It's this simple. If you institute an ID law nationally then millions will not vote that are Constitutionally entitled to vote. If you don't, then you have a much smaller amount of fraud occur. I'll take the lesser of the two evils and live with the small amount of fraud. When the amount of fraud can reasonably be shown to be greater than the number of voters the ID law would stop then I will be on the other side of this.

 

[cubd8]

Here's MT's post one more time.

I hope everybody can agree that (1) requiring IDs has the potential to reduce fraud, (2) requiring IDs will almost certainly reduce legitimate voter turnout as well, and (3) to the extent that the first effect is likely and the second effect is bad (both of which are debatable), those effects should be weighed against each other.

I am agreeing that (1) requiring IDs has the potential to reduce fraud.I am agreeing that (2) requiring IDs will almost certainly reduce legitimate voter turnout.

I am agreeing that (3) it is debatable that the second effect is bad.

I contend that (2) is not necessarily bad, depending on the circumstances, and more specifically, why voter turnout is reduced.

For all those saying that requiring ID's would reduce fraud, is fraud a current problem? I agree that this makes fraud harder, but right now, is fraud an issue? What are the numbers on this?

 

[cubd8]

For those offering free ID's, specifically conservatives, how is this not just another handout? How do cash strapped states take on another free program?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

For all those saying that requiring ID's would reduce fraud, is fraud a current problem? I agree that this makes fraud harder, but right now, is fraud an issue? What are the numbers on this?

Voter ID laws make it more difficult to commit a very specific form of fraud -- walking into a polling place and voting under a fake name. That type of fraud seems rare.There are other types of fraud that appear to be more common and are therefore a bigger problem, but Voter ID laws don't prevent them.

 

[cubd8]

I agree, we will never see eye to eye. Apparently you're so far removed from the situations of folks who would be disenfranchised

It doesn't help your case when you refer to ID requirements as "disenfranchisement." Nobody is being disenfranchised. Anybody who is currently eligible to vote will still be eligible to vote, provided that they get an ID. This is a vastly less-encumbersome requirement than the requirement that voters show up at a particular place on a particular day to case their vote in the first place. It's roughly the same amount of work as registering to vote, and nobody considers registration requirements to be disenfranchisement. When you resort to hyperbole, the reader is left to assume that you don't have any valid arguments, which is why you're resorting to table-pounding.

What, in your opinion, are valid arguments against presenting an ID?Republicans, or those who support voter ID's requirements, why is this necessary? Voter Fraud doesn't exist. Is this just a preference of having rules in the voting process?

This has been proven wrong many, many times. You can debate how much there is, and whether ID laws would sufficiently stop it, but it is incorrect to say voter fraud doesn't exist.

OK, educate me on this.What are the most common forms of voter fraud? Do we have any percentages, numbers, etc on voter fraud? Is it increasing/decreasing?

Is the fear of voter fraud the main reason Republicans support this?

 

[cubd8]

For all those saying that requiring ID's would reduce fraud, is fraud a current problem? I agree that this makes fraud harder, but right now, is fraud an issue? What are the numbers on this?

Voter ID laws make it more difficult to commit a very specific form of fraud -- walking into a polling place and voting under a fake name. That type of fraud seems rare.There are other types of fraud that appear to be more common and are therefore a bigger problem, but Voter ID laws don't prevent them.

What are the other types? Are there any solutions to these types?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

For all those saying that requiring ID's would reduce fraud, is fraud a current problem? I agree that this makes fraud harder, but right now, is fraud an issue? What are the numbers on this?

Voter ID laws make it more difficult to commit a very specific form of fraud -- walking into a polling place and voting under a fake name. That type of fraud seems rare.There are other types of fraud that appear to be more common and are therefore a bigger problem, but Voter ID laws don't prevent them.

What are the other types? Are there any solutions to these types?

This seems like a pretty comprehensive view. The Brennan Center calls itself non-partisan but does tend to align itself with Democrats on most issues.

 

[The Commish]

I agree, we will never see eye to eye. Apparently you're so far removed from the situations of folks who would be disenfranchised

It doesn't help your case when you refer to ID requirements as "disenfranchisement." Nobody is being disenfranchised. Anybody who is currently eligible to vote will still be eligible to vote, provided that they get an ID. This is a vastly less-encumbersome requirement than the requirement that voters show up at a particular place on a particular day to case their vote in the first place. It's roughly the same amount of work as registering to vote, and nobody considers registration requirements to be disenfranchisement. When you resort to hyperbole, the reader is left to assume that you don't have any valid arguments, which is why you're resorting to table-pounding.

What, in your opinion, are valid arguments against presenting an ID?Republicans, or those who support voter ID's requirements, why is this necessary? Voter Fraud doesn't exist. Is this just a preference of having rules in the voting process?

A lot of us think it's important to know the person voting is who they say they are. Not sure why that's such an earth shattering concept to others. Seems like common sense. For me, I couldn't care less if voter fraud exists, though I'd challenge the notion that fraud simply doesn't exist. I'd like to know how anyone can say that if it's not monitored. It's like a programmer saying "I'm not logging this potential hack point, but no one's using it, so we're ok".

 

[Rayderr]

I agree, we will never see eye to eye. Apparently you're so far removed from the situations of folks who would be disenfranchised

It doesn't help your case when you refer to ID requirements as "disenfranchisement." Nobody is being disenfranchised. Anybody who is currently eligible to vote will still be eligible to vote, provided that they get an ID. This is a vastly less-encumbersome requirement than the requirement that voters show up at a particular place on a particular day to case their vote in the first place. It's roughly the same amount of work as registering to vote, and nobody considers registration requirements to be disenfranchisement. When you resort to hyperbole, the reader is left to assume that you don't have any valid arguments, which is why you're resorting to table-pounding.

What, in your opinion, are valid arguments against presenting an ID?Republicans, or those who support voter ID's requirements, why is this necessary? Voter Fraud doesn't exist. Is this just a preference of having rules in the voting process?

This has been proven wrong many, many times. You can debate how much there is, and whether ID laws would sufficiently stop it, but it is incorrect to say voter fraud doesn't exist.

OK, educate me on this.What are the most common forms of voter fraud? Do we have any percentages, numbers, etc on voter fraud? Is it increasing/decreasing?

Is the fear of voter fraud the main reason Republicans support this?

Well, we've had people voting for others using absentee voting, dead people somehow voting, people voting multiple times, and even people going to the polls to be told they already voted. With no real safeguards in place, the absentee voting fraud tends to be the one that is caught the most and the others seem to mostly get written off as "clerical errors" as there is no way to really prove if it was in fact voter fraud. The other thread is filled with such news reports.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Well, we've had people voting for others using absentee voting, dead people somehow voting, people voting multiple times, and even people going to the polls to be told they already voted. With no real safeguards in place, the absentee voting fraud tends to be the one that is caught the most and the others seem to mostly get written off as "clerical errors" as there is no way to really prove if it was in fact voter fraud. The other thread is filled with such news reports.

The Brennan Center document I linked a few posts ago debunks most of these stories.

 

[Rayderr]

Well, we've had people voting for others using absentee voting, dead people somehow voting, people voting multiple times, and even people going to the polls to be told they already voted. With no real safeguards in place, the absentee voting fraud tends to be the one that is caught the most and the others seem to mostly get written off as "clerical errors" as there is no way to really prove if it was in fact voter fraud. The other thread is filled with such news reports.

The Brennan Center document I linked a few posts ago debunks most of these stories.

But it doesn't say that it never happens.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Well, we've had people voting for others using absentee voting, dead people somehow voting, people voting multiple times, and even people going to the polls to be told they already voted. With no real safeguards in place, the absentee voting fraud tends to be the one that is caught the most and the others seem to mostly get written off as "clerical errors" as there is no way to really prove if it was in fact voter fraud. The other thread is filled with such news reports.

The Brennan Center document I linked a few posts ago debunks most of these stories.

But it doesn't say that it never happens.

Right, it just says that the stories of it happening have all been proven inaccurate after someone investigates them. And the article documents this in numerous instances -- there's some newspaper headline "5000 dead people voted in this election," and then somebody actually goes and looks into it and it turns out that the original story was based on bad information and none or almost none of it is true.

 

[Rayderr]

Well, we've had people voting for others using absentee voting, dead people somehow voting, people voting multiple times, and even people going to the polls to be told they already voted. With no real safeguards in place, the absentee voting fraud tends to be the one that is caught the most and the others seem to mostly get written off as "clerical errors" as there is no way to really prove if it was in fact voter fraud. The other thread is filled with such news reports.

The Brennan Center document I linked a few posts ago debunks most of these stories.

But it doesn't say that it never happens.

Right, it just says that the stories of it happening have all been proven inaccurate after someone investigates them. And the article documents this in numerous instances -- there's some newspaper headline "5000 dead people voted in this election," and then somebody actually goes and looks into it and it turns out that the original story was based on bad information and none or almost none of it is true.

But then you also have this. Now, you can say that this type of thing wouldn't have been prevented with IDs, but it does prove that voter fraud does happen.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Right, it just says that the stories of it happening have all been proven inaccurate after someone investigates them. And the article documents this in numerous instances -- there's some newspaper headline "5000 dead people voted in this election," and then somebody actually goes and looks into it and it turns out that the original story was based on bad information and none or almost none of it is true.

But then you also have this. Now, you can say that this type of thing wouldn't have been prevented with IDs, but it does prove that voter fraud does happen.

Assuming the people in the article are telling the truth, I would characterize this more as "error" than fraud. And it seems like you're arguing with a strawman. Nobody here has said that all elections are completely free from fraud or mistake.

 

[Rayderr]

But then you also have this. Now, you can say that this type of thing wouldn't have been prevented with IDs, but it does prove that voter fraud does happen.

McLean and his fiancee Leach admit to participating in early voting in the 2008 election. Unsure about the process on Election Day, they said they went to the polls to make sure their vote counted.

"I was confused and did not know," McLean said. "This is my second time voting for a president in my life."

Leach said she even told a poll worker about it.

"We told her we had already early voted, and we just wanted to make sure it counted," Leach said. "She said, 'If you have a ballot, then go ahead and vote.' And that is what we did. We did not think anything of it."

McLean said they were not trying to cheat the system.

So they weren't trying to commit voter fraud, they checked with the person at the polls on what to do, them having IDs wouldn't have done anything about this since they were voting as the person they said they were, so why do you think this means that we have some rampant voter fraud which Voting IDs is going to help?

Yup. Everyone who's ever been charged with committing a crime tells the truth.

 

[The Commish]

Anyone hazard a guess at how much money our governments spend investigating all these claims?

 

[Rayderr]

Right, it just says that the stories of it happening have all been proven inaccurate after someone investigates them. And the article documents this in numerous instances -- there's some newspaper headline "5000 dead people voted in this election," and then somebody actually goes and looks into it and it turns out that the original story was based on bad information and none or almost none of it is true.

But then you also have this. Now, you can say that this type of thing wouldn't have been prevented with IDs, but it does prove that voter fraud does happen.

Assuming the people in the article are telling the truth, I would characterize this more as "error" than fraud. And it seems like you're arguing with a strawman. Nobody here has said that all elections are completely free from fraud or mistake.

Try to keep up. yes, it has been said that elections are free from fraud.

Voter Fraud doesn't exist.

 

[Rayderr]

Right, it just says that the stories of it happening have all been proven inaccurate after someone investigates them. And the article documents this in numerous instances -- there's some newspaper headline "5000 dead people voted in this election," and then somebody actually goes and looks into it and it turns out that the original story was based on bad information and none or almost none of it is true.

But then you also have this. Now, you can say that this type of thing wouldn't have been prevented with IDs, but it does prove that voter fraud does happen.

Assuming the people in the article are telling the truth, I would characterize this more as "error" than fraud. And it seems like you're arguing with a strawman. Nobody here has said that all elections are completely free from fraud or mistake.

Try to keep up. yes, it has been said that elections are free from fraud.

Voter Fraud doesn't exist.

You're becoming very Christo-esque all of a sudden.

While I do prefer women with some meat on them, I have no love for the obese women that Christo loves.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Nobody here has said that all elections are completely free from fraud or mistake.

Try to keep up. yes, it has been said that elections are free from fraud.

Voter Fraud doesn't exist.

OK, I stand corrected. If I can ignore cubd8's "help" on my side, I'll let you ignore jon_mx's "help" on your side.

 

[zed2283]

This never happens, doesn't exist.

 

[Rayderr]

This never happens, doesn't exist.

More appropriate for the Wisconsin recall thread than here.

 

[zed2283]

This never happens, doesn't exist.

This isn't what we're talking about.

What are we talking about? Voter fraud vs. election fraud? Silly to suggest that one happens and the other doesn't.

 

[zed2283]

 

[The Commish]

 

[medium aristotle]

O'Keefe underling gets United States Attorney General, Eric Holders ballot

 

[Joseph]

O'Keefe underling gets United States Attorney General, Eric Holders ballot

I've been on the "pro-ID" side of this issue, but isn't this exactly the issue that the other side has pointed out? Yes, it might be easy to go and get someone else's ballot, but people are unlikely to do it because of the potential penalty involved. I think someone in this thread mentioned they essentially did the same thing as the guy in this video.

 

[pantagrapher]

O'Keefe underling gets United States Attorney General, Eric Holders ballot

Man, casting a vote in Eric Holder's name would have been huge. I wonder why he didn't follow through.

 

[Hunterbeer]

I agree, we will never see eye to eye. Apparently you're so far removed from the situations of folks who would be disenfranchised

It doesn't help your case when you refer to ID requirements as "disenfranchisement." Nobody is being disenfranchised. Anybody who is currently eligible to vote will still be eligible to vote, provided that they get an ID. This is a vastly less-encumbersome requirement than the requirement that voters show up at a particular place on a particular day to case their vote in the first place. It's roughly the same amount of work as registering to vote, and nobody considers registration requirements to be disenfranchisement. When you resort to hyperbole, the reader is left to assume that you don't have any valid arguments, which is why you're resorting to table-pounding.

What, in your opinion, are valid arguments against presenting an ID?Republicans, or those who support voter ID's requirements, why is this necessary? Voter Fraud doesn't exist. Is this just a preference of having rules in the voting process?

WHAT?!?!?! Are you serious? The most egregious example of Voter Fraud, and one that had an enormous influence on this country, came in 1948 in Texas where Lydon Johnson won his Senate race by 87 votes. Of course six days after the election he was trailing until 200 ballots were "discovered" in the South Texas town of Alice where 200 Mexican-American voters, some of whom were deceased and others who were out of the county on election day, reportedly lined up in alphabetical order and using a different colored ink casts their ballots 198-2 in favor of Johnson giving the victory.If Johnson loses, his second loss in a Senate race, he is probably out of politics. He wins and then went on to do some other stuff I've heard.

So Voter Fraud has no consequences? Please.

 

[Hunterbeer]

WHAT?!?!?! Are you serious? The most egregious example of Voter Fraud, and one that had an enormous influence on this country, came in 1948 in Texas where Lydon Johnson won his Senate race by 87 votes. Of course six days after the election he was trailing until 200 ballots were "discovered" in the South Texas town of Alice where 200 Mexican-American voters, some of whom were deceased and others who were out of the county on election day, reportedly lined up in alphabetical order and using a different colored ink casts their ballots 198-2 in favor of Johnson giving the victory.If Johnson loses, his second loss in a Senate race, he is probably out of politics. He wins and then went on to do some other stuff I've heard.So Voter Fraud has no consequences? Please.

So in this case from 64 years ago, what would the requirement of photo IDs have done?

Well, instead of just walking in and giving a name, they would have had to have some proof they were that person. I highly doubt they had the dead guys IDs on them nor the IDs of those out of town. Just claiming to be someone was enough, as it is in many places today. Absurd. (and proof that Voter Fraud DOES exists, despite your earlier claim)

 

[Rayderr]

O'Keefe underling gets United States Attorney General, Eric Holders ballot

I've been on the "pro-ID" side of this issue, but isn't this exactly the issue that the other side has pointed out? Yes, it might be easy to go and get someone else's ballot, but people are unlikely to do it because of the potential penalty involved. I think someone in this thread mentioned they essentially did the same thing as the guy in this video.

It's risk vs. reward. Obviously, voting as a high profile person like Holder has a huge risk, voting as someone that you know has moved out of the state has much, much lower risk. Last year, I started getting tons of calls from VA campaigns even though I had moved to Ohio. Told them I don't like in VA, I live in Ohio now. They asked if I would vote absentee. I told them no, because I didn't live in VA. So there were plenty of campaign workers who knew my name, address, where my voting location was, and that I was 400 miles away and was not going to vote. Given that we've seen some bat#### crazy campaign worker carve the letter "O" in her forehead to influence an election, I don't think it's that unrealistic to think that some overzealous campaign volunteer might collect this information and use it to vote multiple times for their candidate.

 

[pantagrapher]

O'Keefe underling gets United States Attorney General, Eric Holders ballot

I've been on the "pro-ID" side of this issue, but isn't this exactly the issue that the other side has pointed out? Yes, it might be easy to go and get someone else's ballot, but people are unlikely to do it because of the potential penalty involved. I think someone in this thread mentioned they essentially did the same thing as the guy in this video.

It's risk vs. reward. Obviously, voting as a high profile person like Holder has a huge risk, voting as someone that you know has moved out of the state has much, much lower risk. Last year, I started getting tons of calls from VA campaigns even though I had moved to Ohio. Told them I don't like in VA, I live in Ohio now. They asked if I would vote absentee. I told them no, because I didn't live in VA. So there were plenty of campaign workers who knew my name, address, where my voting location was, and that I was 400 miles away and was not going to vote. Given that we've seen some bat#### crazy campaign worker carve the letter "O" in her forehead to influence an election, I don't think it's that unrealistic to think that some overzealous campaign volunteer might collect this information and use it to vote multiple times for their candidate.

At least we're finally acknowledging you'd have to be bat#### crazy to attempt this kind of voter fraud.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Ninth Circuit upholds Arizona's requirement that voters show ID at the polls.

 

[Statorama]

Two people in Wisconsin.

Voter A and Faker A

Faker A walks into a polling place at 8am, says he's Voter A and gets a ballot to vote. By 8:05am he's on his way to the next polling place to say he's Voter B.

Voter A strolls into the polling place at 9am and told 'sorry, we show you as having already voted'

Vote fraud isn't rocket science.

(if Faker A is ever told that he's marked as already having voted, he can say "oh my gosh...I did, and I totally forgot. Total brain fart. Sorry about that" everyone laughs)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

(if Faker A is ever told that he's marked as already having voted, he can say "oh my gosh...I did, and I totally forgot. Total brain fart. Sorry about that" everyone laughs)

This sounds like a great idea for a sitcom!

 

[medium aristotle]

On Wednesday night’s “Special Report” during the weekly online segment, Fox News contributor and Daily Beast columnist Kirsten Powers said her party — the Democratic Party —is “trapped in the past” in their opposition to voter ID laws.

“This is one of those arguments that I feel Democrats are sort of trapped in the past … At one point, I think this was true in extremely rural places or, you know, with people who were, you know, couldn’t read or couldn’t write — you know, in a different time,” she said. “Or when African-Americans were very afraid of the government — things like that.”

Since many state governments have been taken over by the Republican Party after the 2010 elections, throughout the country there has been a push to enact voter identification law. The measures have been opposed by President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice for the most part and have been played up as a potential 2012 election campaign issue.

Powers suggested that the Democratic Party explore ways to make sure everyone had an ID so they could vote, instead of opposing voter ID laws outright.

“Now today I’m just not on board with this,” Powers said. “I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect somebody to get an ID. And if they don’t have the money or the means to do it, the Democrats can start an organization that does that — that helps them go and raises the money to pay for them to get the ID, which is not that much money, and gives them the forms and tells them how to do it.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/18/kirsten-powers-democrats-are-sort-of-trapped-in-the-past-on-voter-id-opposition-video/#ixzz1sSKrAEnf

 

[BigSteelThrill]

On Wednesday night’s “Special Report” during the weekly online segment, Fox News contributor and Daily Beast columnist Kirsten Powers said her party — the Democratic Party —is “trapped in the past” in their opposition to voter ID laws.

“This is one of those arguments that I feel Democrats are sort of trapped in the past … At one point, I think this was true in extremely rural places or, you know, with people who were, you know, couldn’t read or couldn’t write — you know, in a different time,” she said. “Or when African-Americans were very afraid of the government — things like that.”

Since many state governments have been taken over by the Republican Party after the 2010 elections, throughout the country there has been a push to enact voter identification law. The measures have been opposed by President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice for the most part and have been played up as a potential 2012 election campaign issue.

Powers suggested that the Democratic Party explore ways to make sure everyone had an ID so they could vote, instead of opposing voter ID laws outright.

“Now today I’m just not on board with this,” Powers said. “I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect somebody to get an ID. And if they don’t have the money or the means to do it, the Democrats can start an organization that does that — that helps them go and raises the money to pay for them to get the ID, which is not that much money, and gives them the forms and tells them how to do it.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/18/kirsten-powers-democrats-are-sort-of-trapped-in-the-past-on-voter-id-opposition-video/#ixzz1sSKrAEnf

 

[medium aristotle]

On Wednesday night’s “Special Report” during the weekly online segment, Fox News contributor and Daily Beast columnist Kirsten Powers said her party — the Democratic Party —is “trapped in the past” in their opposition to voter ID laws.

“This is one of those arguments that I feel Democrats are sort of trapped in the past … At one point, I think this was true in extremely rural places or, you know, with people who were, you know, couldn’t read or couldn’t write — you know, in a different time,” she said. “Or when African-Americans were very afraid of the government — things like that.”

Since many state governments have been taken over by the Republican Party after the 2010 elections, throughout the country there has been a push to enact voter identification law. The measures have been opposed by President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice for the most part and have been played up as a potential 2012 election campaign issue.

Powers suggested that the Democratic Party explore ways to make sure everyone had an ID so they could vote, instead of opposing voter ID laws outright.

“Now today I’m just not on board with this,” Powers said. “I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect somebody to get an ID. And if they don’t have the money or the means to do it, the Democrats can start an organization that does that — that helps them go and raises the money to pay for them to get the ID, which is not that much money, and gives them the forms and tells them how to do it.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/18/kirsten-powers-democrats-are-sort-of-trapped-in-the-past-on-voter-id-opposition-video/#ixzz1sSKrAEnf

Please highlight the comedy I'm missing

 

[The Commish]

Two people in Wisconsin.Voter A and Faker AFaker A walks into a polling place at 8am, says he's Voter A and gets a ballot to vote. By 8:05am he's on his way to the next polling place to say he's Voter B.Voter A strolls into the polling place at 9am and told 'sorry, we show you as having already voted'Vote fraud isn't rocket science.(if Faker A is ever told that he's marked as already having voted, he can say "oh my gosh...I did, and I totally forgot. Total brain fart. Sorry about that" everyone laughs)

"But it doesn't happen enough so there's no problem"

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Even though I think these voter ID laws are bad policy, I do sort of agree with the FOX commentator that said Democrats should be focused on making the laws as unharmful as possible. It doesn't seem like Democrats will be able to stop these laws from getting passed, so we might as well try to focus our energies elsewhere.

 

[DocHolliday]

The only reason a certain party is against requiring voter ID is so that they can continue with their ongoing voter fraud.

 

[DocHolliday]

The only reason a certain party is against requiring voter ID is so that they can continue with their ongoing voter fraud.

Ignore List updated.

The whole ignore list seems childish to me. It reminds me of the 6 year old that puts his fingers in his ears and says "na, na, na, na, na, na, na....". I do not agree with what you say so I am going to pretend like you are not saying it. Strange adult behavior.

 

[The Commish]

The only reason a certain party is against requiring voter ID is so that they can continue with their ongoing voter fraud.

Ignore List updated.

The whole ignore list seems childish to me. It reminds me of the 6 year old that puts his fingers in his ears and says "na, na, na, na, na, na, na....". I do not agree with what you say so I am going to pretend like you are not saying it. Strange adult behavior.

If it's shtick, fine, but if it's serious I don't see why he'd come to a board where all he sees is a bunch of notes saying the person posting is on his ignore list

 

[DocHolliday]

The only reason a certain party is against requiring voter ID is so that they can continue with their ongoing voter fraud.

Ignore List updated.

The whole ignore list seems childish to me. It reminds me of the 6 year old that puts his fingers in his ears and says "na, na, na, na, na, na, na....". I do not agree with what you say so I am going to pretend like you are not saying it. Strange adult behavior.

If it's shtick, fine, but if it's serious I don't see why he'd come to a board where all he sees is a bunch of notes saying the person posting is on his ignore list

Just an observation.

 

[The Commish]

The only reason a certain party is against requiring voter ID is so that they can continue with their ongoing voter fraud.

Ignore List updated.

The whole ignore list seems childish to me. It reminds me of the 6 year old that puts his fingers in his ears and says "na, na, na, na, na, na, na....". I do not agree with what you say so I am going to pretend like you are not saying it. Strange adult behavior.

If it's shtick, fine, but if it's serious I don't see why he'd come to a board where all he sees is a bunch of notes saying the person posting is on his ignore list

Just an observation.

Agreed. The "ignore list" guys seem to have the same characteristics.

 

[Sarnoff]

I think my problem really is that there's no recourse for a fraudulent election. Whenever you hear of vote 'irregularities', they always let the vote stand anyway. Like, sometimes you hear that more people voted in an election that are registered to vote in a city; and the loser complains about it being an obviously fraudulent election, and the judge throws up his hands and says, "Yeah, but I can't do anything about that" and the results become official. And I understand why the judges have to rule that way, and it sucks but I get it.

So if we're going to live in a system where the result of such fraud is such a large guaranteed reward, then I feel that it's OK to put a little more weight on the other side of the scale and at least make sure we're doing our best to make sure that such fraud happens as rarely as possible... and put reasonable safeguards in place. Asking someone to show ID before voting doesn't strike me as unreasonable.

 

[Jackstraw]

The same people pushing the voter ID laws also fight tooth and nail against college students voting, same day voter registration, voter registration any time you get your license renewed. They have pushed for fewer polling places and shorter hours. They send intimidating mailers to minority neighborhoods. They send literature that give the wrong date for voting.

The clear effort for voter suppression couldn't be more transparent but as usual in this society people insist on some alternate reality rather than accepting whats readily apparent to everybody in the room.

Getting seriously Orwellian.

Conservatives want to suppress the vote and everybody here knows it.

 

[RCon]

The same people pushing the voter ID laws also fight tooth and nail against college students voting, same day voter registration, voter registration any time you get your license renewed. They have pushed for fewer polling places and shorter hours. They send intimidating mailers to minority neighborhoods. They send literature that give the wrong date for voting. The clear effort for voter suppression couldn't be more transparent but as usual in this society people insist on some alternate reality rather than accepting whats readily apparent to everybody in the room. Getting seriously Orwellian.Conservatives want to suppress the vote and everybody here knows it.

I advocate for voter ID laws, and I haven't done any of those other things you mentioned.Although I will say I don't think college students should get to vote in the district in which their college is located. They should vote in their "home" district.

 

[Sarnoff]

I think my problem really is that there's no recourse for a fraudulent election. Whenever you hear of vote 'irregularities', they always let the vote stand anyway. Like, sometimes you hear that more people voted in an election that are registered to vote in a city; and the loser complains about it being an obviously fraudulent election, and the judge throws up his hands and says, "Yeah, but I can't do anything about that" and the results become official. And I understand why the judges have to rule that way, and it sucks but I get it.

So if we're going to live in a system where the result of such fraud is such a large guaranteed reward, then I feel that it's OK to put a little more weight on the other side of the scale and at least make sure we're doing our best to make sure that such fraud happens as rarely as possible... and put reasonable safeguards in place. Asking someone to show ID before voting doesn't strike me as unreasonable.

This word. It means something else.

What I mean is that the reward for committing fraud on election day and getting detected, but not caught, is that the fraudulent votes are allowed to stand.Sometimes even if caught, the known fraudulent votes are allowed to stand. If you can commit the fraud, even if you're found out, if you're not discovered before the ballots enter the box, they still count. So if you really, really want to flip that mayor's race, and have a way of putting an extra 500 votes in the box, it's worth going for because even if you're caught, your guy still wins.

 

[glumpy]

The same people pushing the voter ID laws also fight tooth and nail against college students voting, same day voter registration, voter registration any time you get your license renewed. They have pushed for fewer polling places and shorter hours. They send intimidating mailers to minority neighborhoods. They send literature that give the wrong date for voting.

The clear effort for voter suppression couldn't be more transparent but as usual in this society people insist on some alternate reality rather than accepting whats readily apparent to everybody in the room.

Getting seriously Orwellian.

Conservatives want to suppress the vote and everybody here knows it.

I advocate for voter ID laws, and I haven't done any of those other things you mentioned.Although I will say I don't think college students should get to vote in the district in which their college is located. They should vote in their "home" district.

Ahhhhh...Clever!! They are likely far from their home district and in the middle of classes.

 

[RCon]

The same people pushing the voter ID laws also fight tooth and nail against college students voting, same day voter registration, voter registration any time you get your license renewed. They have pushed for fewer polling places and shorter hours. They send intimidating mailers to minority neighborhoods. They send literature that give the wrong date for voting.

The clear effort for voter suppression couldn't be more transparent but as usual in this society people insist on some alternate reality rather than accepting whats readily apparent to everybody in the room.

Getting seriously Orwellian.

Conservatives want to suppress the vote and everybody here knows it.

I advocate for voter ID laws, and I haven't done any of those other things you mentioned.Although I will say I don't think college students should get to vote in the district in which their college is located. They should vote in their "home" district.

Ahhhhh...Clever!! They are likely far from their home district and in the middle of classes.

Absentee ballot down?And, it's nothing clever about it. As I understand it, their "home" district is where they pay taxes, so that's where their vote should count.