Should voters be required to show ID? (2 Viewers)

[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.

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.

jeeez yeah--never needed one and didn't consider it. Then again--how would that jive with requiring voter id's?

 

[Rayderr]

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.

For Voter ID lawsCollege students voting: No problem with them voting in the district, but do think that if they do that, they should be required to list themselves as a resident for tax purposes (tax withheld from jobs, registering of vehicles, etc.)Same day voter registration: could go either way on that. Registering when getting a license: All for it. That's how I registered here in Ohio.Fewer places & shorter hours: See no reason to do either of those things. I'd say polls should be open at least 12 hours. Sending intimidating mail to minorities: Never done that.Give wrong date for voting: Never done that either.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The subject of requiring government IDs to vote brings up the idea of national ID cards, which brings up Estonia.

Estonia is kind of awesome.

 

[StrikeS2k]

The subject of requiring government IDs to vote brings up the idea of national ID cards, which brings up Estonia.

Estonia is kind of awesome.

That's a great article. I'd love it if we could do similar things here but I don't trust our current government and I have concerns about how well that would work in a country of 300 million versus 1 million. But still, great concept.

 

[Statorama]

Virginia investigating rampant voter fraud

My favorite line

A total of 194 cases statewide where police determined a violation likely occurred have been closed because the commonwealth's attorneys in those localities declined to prosecute those individuals, police said.

 

[Mello]

Virginia investigating rampant voter fraud

My favorite line

A total of 194 cases statewide where police determined a violation likely occurred have been closed because the commonwealth's attorneys in those localities declined to prosecute those individuals, police said.

Oh no, 194 cases (and yes, they should have been prosecuted). That's certainly worth implementing laws that will cause many thousands (and probably more) people to not vote.

 

[RCon]

It's amazing that some people can't distinguish between absence of proof and proof of absence.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

It's amazing that some people can't distinguish between absence of proof and proof of absence.

Which people?

 

[Jackstraw]

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

Makes sense. Conservatives have got that covered. Again I'm going to say that conservatives are actively engaged in suppressing the vote and everybody here knows it.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/u-s-judge-hears-registration-groups-case-against-2210864.html

The law, passed by the GOP-controlled legislature and signed by Gov. Rick Scott, shrinks from 10 days to 48 hours the time that such organizations have to file completed voter registration applications with the state. It also establishes a schedule of fines for violations - as high as $1,000.

In addition, it requires that each organization sign an affidavit acknowledging the rules and penalties but also that each volunteer sign such an affidavit, acknowledging possible personal liability.

Republican legislators say the law will reduce voter fraud.

"This is frankly not a serious law," Lee Rowland, an attorney representing the organizations, told U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle.

Rowland called the law "a cumulative and unworkable mess" foisted upon the Florida Division of Elections.

Hinkle listened to the groups' presentation, inserting an occasional question. But the judge was more aggressive with lawyers for the state, making them address a list of hypothetical situations in which citizens volunteering for voter registration groups could end up violating the law, even though they have no criminal intent.

He also repeatedly pushed the lawyers to identify the state's interest in tightening the rules.

Representing the state, Blaine Winship of the Florida Attorney General's Office argued that the law ensures that groups entrusted with important documents take care of them.

"The purpose of this is to make sure that people actually get registered," Winship said.

"I really don't need the state to help me" with that, Hinkle responded.

Hinkle focused in part on a provision requiring any voter registration forms returned by mail to either arrive within the 48-hour window or be clearly postmarked within that time. Hinkle noted that the mail sometimes takes more than two days to arrive and that postmarks are often unclear.

"How would any prudent organization ever mail in a form that it collected at a voter registration drive under this statute?" he asked.

In their complaint, the organizations, which say they have never been charged with voter fraud, claim they have been forced to severely curtail - or, in the case of the League of Women Voters, stop - registration of voters in Florida. The time frames in the law may not always be met, the organizations contend, and they and their volunteers could not afford to pay the penalties.

 

[RCon]

It's amazing that some people can't distinguish between absence of proof and proof of absence.

I have more evidence of the Tooth Fairy than I do of Vote Imposters. At a certain point when you're making public policy you have to buckle in and look at real data. When you're 0-for-everything it's time to stop waving the "prove the negative" flag.

At some point when you can't come up with a valid reason why a prospective voter wouldn't/couldn't obtain an ID, it's time to stop waving the "it's too hard" flag.

 

[RCon]

It's amazing that some people can't distinguish between absence of proof and proof of absence.

Which people?

[ ] People demanding proof of extreme difficulty and hardship in obtaining photo ID[X] People demanding proof of people impersonating other voters at the pollsI filled it out how Rich would probably want it.

The difference being that I can easily come up with a conceivable situation in which the impersonation could occur.

 

[pantagrapher]

It's amazing that some people can't distinguish between absence of proof and proof of absence.

Which people?

[ ] People demanding proof of extreme difficulty and hardship in obtaining photo ID[X] People demanding proof of people impersonating other voters at the pollsI filled it out how Rich would probably want it.

The difference being that I can easily come up with a conceivable situation in which the impersonation could occur.

That's interesting, because every example I've seen in this thread so far has been ridiculous.

 

[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

Please highlight the comedy I'm missing

Makes sense. Conservatives have got that covered. Again I'm going to say that conservatives are actively engaged in suppressing the vote and everybody here knows it.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/u-s-judge-hears-registration-groups-case-against-2210864.html

The law, passed by the GOP-controlled legislature and signed by Gov. Rick Scott, shrinks from 10 days to 48 hours the time that such organizations have to file completed voter registration applications with the state. It also establishes a schedule of fines for violations - as high as $1,000.

In addition, it requires that each organization sign an affidavit acknowledging the rules and penalties but also that each volunteer sign such an affidavit, acknowledging possible personal liability.

Republican legislators say the law will reduce voter fraud.

"This is frankly not a serious law," Lee Rowland, an attorney representing the organizations, told U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle.

Rowland called the law "a cumulative and unworkable mess" foisted upon the Florida Division of Elections.

Hinkle listened to the groups' presentation, inserting an occasional question. But the judge was more aggressive with lawyers for the state, making them address a list of hypothetical situations in which citizens volunteering for voter registration groups could end up violating the law, even though they have no criminal intent.

He also repeatedly pushed the lawyers to identify the state's interest in tightening the rules.

Representing the state, Blaine Winship of the Florida Attorney General's Office argued that the law ensures that groups entrusted with important documents take care of them.

"The purpose of this is to make sure that people actually get registered," Winship said.

"I really don't need the state to help me" with that, Hinkle responded.

Hinkle focused in part on a provision requiring any voter registration forms returned by mail to either arrive within the 48-hour window or be clearly postmarked within that time. Hinkle noted that the mail sometimes takes more than two days to arrive and that postmarks are often unclear.

"How would any prudent organization ever mail in a form that it collected at a voter registration drive under this statute?" he asked.

In their complaint, the organizations, which say they have never been charged with voter fraud, claim they have been forced to severely curtail - or, in the case of the League of Women Voters, stop - registration of voters in Florida. The time frames in the law may not always be met, the organizations contend, and they and their volunteers could not afford to pay the penalties.

It's undeniable.

 

[RCon]

It's amazing that some people can't distinguish between absence of proof and proof of absence.

I have more evidence of the Tooth Fairy than I do of Vote Imposters. At a certain point when you're making public policy you have to buckle in and look at real data. When you're 0-for-everything it's time to stop waving the "prove the negative" flag.

At some point when you can't come up with a valid reason why a prospective voter wouldn't/couldn't obtain an ID, it's time to stop waving the "it's too hard" flag.

That hasn't been the case for quite some time.Where you been?

Really? I've asked that question a dozen times and have yet to hear a satisfactory answer. And, to be clear, I'm not referring to some of the flawed voter ID laws that have been proposed, or even passed, in certain locations. I'm referring to a hypothetical voter ID law in which the ID would be provided free of charge when needed, free of hassle, etc.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

At some point when you can't come up with a valid reason why a prospective voter wouldn't/couldn't obtain an ID, it's time to stop waving the "it's too hard" flag.

That hasn't been the case for quite some time.Where you been?

Really? I've asked that question a dozen times and have yet to hear a satisfactory answer. And, to be clear, I'm not referring to some of the flawed voter ID laws that have been proposed, or even passed, in certain locations. I'm referring to a hypothetical voter ID law in which the ID would be provided free of charge when needed, free of hassle, etc.

I'm not surprised you haven't heard an answer to your liking when you get to make up imaginary perfect laws and you get to decide what reasons are "valid." Whenever anyone suggests a reason, your answer is always either "that's not a valid reason" or "my made-up law wouldn't prevent that guy from getting an ID."

 

[RCon]

At some point when you can't come up with a valid reason why a prospective voter wouldn't/couldn't obtain an ID, it's time to stop waving the "it's too hard" flag.

That hasn't been the case for quite some time.Where you been?

Really? I've asked that question a dozen times and have yet to hear a satisfactory answer. And, to be clear, I'm not referring to some of the flawed voter ID laws that have been proposed, or even passed, in certain locations. I'm referring to a hypothetical voter ID law in which the ID would be provided free of charge when needed, free of hassle, etc.

I'm not surprised you haven't heard an answer to your liking when you get to make up imaginary perfect laws and you get to decide what reasons are "valid." Whenever anyone suggests a reason, your answer is always either "that's not a valid reason" or "my made-up law wouldn't prevent that guy from getting an ID."

Actually, I haven't had to resort to either of those yet, as no one has yet offered any reason at all.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I'm not surprised you haven't heard an answer to your liking when you get to make up imaginary perfect laws and you get to decide what reasons are "valid." Whenever anyone suggests a reason, your answer is always either "that's not a valid reason" or "my made-up law wouldn't prevent that guy from getting an ID."

Actually, I haven't had to resort to either of those yet, as no one has yet offered any reason at all.

Matthias just posted links to stuff from the Wisconsin lawsuit.

 

[RCon]

I'm not surprised you haven't heard an answer to your liking when you get to make up imaginary perfect laws and you get to decide what reasons are "valid." Whenever anyone suggests a reason, your answer is always either "that's not a valid reason" or "my made-up law wouldn't prevent that guy from getting an ID."

Actually, I haven't had to resort to either of those yet, as no one has yet offered any reason at all.

Matthias just posted links to stuff from the Wisconsin lawsuit.

Free IDs. Problem solved.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I'm not surprised you haven't heard an answer to your liking when you get to make up imaginary perfect laws and you get to decide what reasons are "valid." Whenever anyone suggests a reason, your answer is always either "that's not a valid reason" or "my made-up law wouldn't prevent that guy from getting an ID."

Actually, I haven't had to resort to either of those yet, as no one has yet offered any reason at all.

Matthias just posted links to stuff from the Wisconsin lawsuit.

Free IDs. Problem solved.

I'm pretty sure the Wisconsin IDs are free.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm not surprised you haven't heard an answer to your liking when you get to make up imaginary perfect laws and you get to decide what reasons are "valid." Whenever anyone suggests a reason, your answer is always either "that's not a valid reason" or "my made-up law wouldn't prevent that guy from getting an ID."

Actually, I haven't had to resort to either of those yet, as no one has yet offered any reason at all.

Matthias just posted links to stuff from the Wisconsin lawsuit.

Free IDs. Problem solved.

I'm pretty sure the Wisconsin IDs are free.

Even if they weren't free, suggesting that they should be free would count as "my made-up law wouldn't prevent that guy from getting an ID."

 

[RCon]

I'm not surprised you haven't heard an answer to your liking when you get to make up imaginary perfect laws and you get to decide what reasons are "valid." Whenever anyone suggests a reason, your answer is always either "that's not a valid reason" or "my made-up law wouldn't prevent that guy from getting an ID."

Actually, I haven't had to resort to either of those yet, as no one has yet offered any reason at all.

Matthias just posted links to stuff from the Wisconsin lawsuit.

Free IDs. Problem solved.

“Eligible voters who were struggling with getting the photo ID because of the cost and the time involved, or finding out that, for instance, their birth certificate had the wrong name and now they had to go through a major and costly bureaucratic process to try to get that straightened out, when before, they were voting for years,” Neumann-Ortiz says.

FWIW, Wisconsin's law allows you to get the photo ID for free. It's clearing up all the other stuff that can also take time and money.

Great, let's identify where those problems are and fix them.

 

[RCon]

I'm not surprised you haven't heard an answer to your liking when you get to make up imaginary perfect laws and you get to decide what reasons are "valid." Whenever anyone suggests a reason, your answer is always either "that's not a valid reason" or "my made-up law wouldn't prevent that guy from getting an ID."

Actually, I haven't had to resort to either of those yet, as no one has yet offered any reason at all.

Matthias just posted links to stuff from the Wisconsin lawsuit.

Free IDs. Problem solved.

I'm pretty sure the Wisconsin IDs are free.

Even if they weren't free, suggesting that they should be free would count as "my made-up law wouldn't prevent that guy from getting an ID."

I'm OK with that. There are lots of stupid laws out there that can and should be improved.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm not surprised you haven't heard an answer to your liking when you get to make up imaginary perfect laws and you get to decide what reasons are "valid." Whenever anyone suggests a reason, your answer is always either "that's not a valid reason" or "my made-up law wouldn't prevent that guy from getting an ID."

Actually, I haven't had to resort to either of those yet, as no one has yet offered any reason at all.

Matthias just posted links to stuff from the Wisconsin lawsuit.

Free IDs. Problem solved.

I'm pretty sure the Wisconsin IDs are free.

Even if they weren't free, suggesting that they should be free would count as "my made-up law wouldn't prevent that guy from getting an ID."

I'm OK with that. There are lots of stupid laws out there that can and should be improved.

I'm okay with it, too. I was just bringing it up because you said you hadn't used it yet since nobody had offered any reason at all.

 

[RCon]

Even if they weren't free, suggesting that they should be free would count as "my made-up law wouldn't prevent that guy from getting an ID."

I'm OK with that. There are lots of stupid laws out there that can and should be improved.

I'm okay with it, too. I was just bringing it up because you said you hadn't used it yet since nobody had offered any reason at all.

We're kind of mixing and matching posts here, though. My original statement was "Really? I've asked that question a dozen times and have yet to hear a satisfactory answer. And, to be clear, I'm not referring to some of the flawed voter ID laws that have been proposed, or even passed, in certain locations. I'm referring to a hypothetical voter ID law in which the ID would be provided free of charge when needed, free of hassle, etc."Moving on, though, here's my suggestion for the liberals in this particular argument. The likelihood is that "your side" is losing this debate, and voter ID laws are going to happen sooner or later. Wouldn't it make more sense to help create a voter ID law that will be as convenient as possible?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Moving on, though, here's my suggestion for the liberals in this particular argument. The likelihood is that "your side" is losing this debate, and voter ID laws are going to happen sooner or later. Wouldn't it make more sense to help create a voter ID law that will be as convenient as possible?

No, I'm trying to figure out a law that would make it really inconvenient for conservatives to get IDs. Like maybe the only place you can get them is at an organic farmer's market or something.

 

[dparker713]

It's amazing that some people can't distinguish between absence of proof and proof of absence.

Which people?

[ ] People demanding proof of extreme difficulty and hardship in obtaining photo ID[X] People demanding proof of people impersonating other voters at the polls

I filled it out how Rich would probably want it.

Come on, even you can't believe that.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Moving on, though, here's my suggestion for the liberals in this particular argument. The likelihood is that "your side" is losing this debate, and voter ID laws are going to happen sooner or later. Wouldn't it make more sense to help create a voter ID law that will be as convenient as possible?

No, I'm trying to figure out a law that would make it really inconvenient for conservatives to get IDs. Like maybe the only place you can get them is at an organic farmer's market or something.

 

[CBusAlex]

And, to be clear, I'm not referring to some of the flawed voter ID laws that have been proposed, or even passed, in certain locations. I'm referring to a hypothetical voter ID law in which the ID would be provided free of charge when needed, free of hassle, etc."

Doesn't making the voter ID completely hassle free defeat the whole purpose? I thought the point was to force voters to provide more evidence than just a signature that they are who they say they are. If someone who wants to vote fraudulently could just as easily acquire a fraudulent ID, then you haven't really solved anything.

 

[RCon]

And, to be clear, I'm not referring to some of the flawed voter ID laws that have been proposed, or even passed, in certain locations. I'm referring to a hypothetical voter ID law in which the ID would be provided free of charge when needed, free of hassle, etc."

Doesn't making the voter ID completely hassle free defeat the whole purpose? I thought the point was to force voters to provide more evidence than just a signature that they are who they say they are. If someone who wants to vote fraudulently could just as easily acquire a fraudulent ID, then you haven't really solved anything.

I don't think proving who you are is a hassle to begin with, so I'm not sure what the issue is. I don't see a hassle in providing something similar to the requirements to obtain a passport or driver's license.

 

[RCon]

And, to be clear, I'm not referring to some of the flawed voter ID laws that have been proposed, or even passed, in certain locations. I'm referring to a hypothetical voter ID law in which the ID would be provided free of charge when needed, free of hassle, etc."

Doesn't making the voter ID completely hassle free defeat the whole purpose? I thought the point was to force voters to provide more evidence than just a signature that they are who they say they are. If someone who wants to vote fraudulently could just as easily acquire a fraudulent ID, then you haven't really solved anything.

I don't think proving who you are is a hassle to begin with, so I'm not sure what the issue is. I don't see a hassle in providing something similar to the requirements to obtain a passport or driver's license.

And you're not going to let 40 affidavits get in the way of you thinking that.

An affidavit simply stating it was a hassle? No. One with details about why it was a hassle? Depends on the reason and if I believe the reason is real or made up, and if real, whether that particular hassle can be rectified.Again, there is no requirement that voting be 100% hassle-free. Voting entails some level of hassle now. It's all about whether the level of hassle is reasonable.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

And, to be clear, I'm not referring to some of the flawed voter ID laws that have been proposed, or even passed, in certain locations. I'm referring to a hypothetical voter ID law in which the ID would be provided free of charge when needed, free of hassle, etc."

Doesn't making the voter ID completely hassle free defeat the whole purpose? I thought the point was to force voters to provide more evidence than just a signature that they are who they say they are. If someone who wants to vote fraudulently could just as easily acquire a fraudulent ID, then you haven't really solved anything.

I don't think proving who you are is a hassle to begin with, so I'm not sure what the issue is. I don't see a hassle in providing something similar to the requirements to obtain a passport or driver's license.

And you're not going to let 40 affidavits get in the way of you thinking that.

An affidavit simply stating it was a hassle? No. One with details about why it was a hassle? Depends on the reason and if I believe the reason is real or made up, and if real, whether that particular hassle can be rectified.Again, there is no requirement that voting be 100% hassle-free. Voting entails some level of hassle now. It's all about whether the level of hassle is reasonable.

I'm not surprised you haven't heard an answer to your liking when you get to make up imaginary perfect laws and you get to decide what reasons are "valid." Whenever anyone suggests a reason, your answer is always either "that's not a valid reason" or "my made-up law wouldn't prevent that guy from getting an ID."

Going with "that's not a valid reason" this morning?

 

[RCon]

And, to be clear, I'm not referring to some of the flawed voter ID laws that have been proposed, or even passed, in certain locations. I'm referring to a hypothetical voter ID law in which the ID would be provided free of charge when needed, free of hassle, etc."

Doesn't making the voter ID completely hassle free defeat the whole purpose? I thought the point was to force voters to provide more evidence than just a signature that they are who they say they are. If someone who wants to vote fraudulently could just as easily acquire a fraudulent ID, then you haven't really solved anything.

I don't think proving who you are is a hassle to begin with, so I'm not sure what the issue is. I don't see a hassle in providing something similar to the requirements to obtain a passport or driver's license.

And you're not going to let 40 affidavits get in the way of you thinking that.

An affidavit simply stating it was a hassle? No. One with details about why it was a hassle? Depends on the reason and if I believe the reason is real or made up, and if real, whether that particular hassle can be rectified.Again, there is no requirement that voting be 100% hassle-free. Voting entails some level of hassle now. It's all about whether the level of hassle is reasonable.

I'm not surprised you haven't heard an answer to your liking when you get to make up imaginary perfect laws and you get to decide what reasons are "valid." Whenever anyone suggests a reason, your answer is always either "that's not a valid reason" or "my made-up law wouldn't prevent that guy from getting an ID."

Going with "that's not a valid reason" this morning?

Couldn't tell you yet. What's the reason?

 

[RCon]

Among others, that typographical errors in people's birth certificate entailed a bureaucratic labyrinth. Beyond that, your Google works as well as mine does, I imagine. And in the bigger picture, your standard of proof for voter fraud is "conceivable scenarios." Your standard of proof for difficulty in obtaining Voter ID seems to be, "Place the person in front of me, have them tell me their story, produce written evidence showing their difficulty, and let me cross-examine them."

Typo on the birth certificate? Meh. Going to say that's not a common thing, and it's a problem not caused by the voter ID law, and it's an issue the person should want rectified anyway.My standard for voter fraud is reasonable. That is, I have seen the level of verification performed at many voting booths, and it's far too lax.My standard for voter ID is also reasonable. That is, tell me the problem and we'll attempt to rectify it.

 

[Sand]

“Eligible voters who were struggling with getting the photo ID because of the cost and the time involved, or finding out that, for instance, their birth certificate had the wrong name and now they had to go through a major and costly bureaucratic process to try to get that straightened out, when before, they were voting for years,” Neumann-Ortiz says.

FWIW, Wisconsin's law allows you to get the photo ID for free. It's clearing up all the other stuff that can also take time and money.

How often does this happen? Do we have demonstrated proof that this is true? Given the deep slant of the media there is no way you can take statements like these at face value.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

How often does this happen? Do we have demonstrated proof that this is true? Given the deep slant of the media there is no way you can take statements like these at face value.

Exactly. Wait, you were talking about people showing up at the polls and voting under phony names, right?

 

[RCon]

Among others, that typographical errors in people's birth certificate entailed a bureaucratic labyrinth. Beyond that, your Google works as well as mine does, I imagine. And in the bigger picture, your standard of proof for voter fraud is "conceivable scenarios." Your standard of proof for difficulty in obtaining Voter ID seems to be, "Place the person in front of me, have them tell me their story, produce written evidence showing their difficulty, and let me cross-examine them."

Typo on the birth certificate? Meh. Going to say that's not a common thing, and it's a problem not caused by the voter ID law, and it's an issue the person should want rectified anyway.My standard for voter fraud is reasonable. That is, I have seen the level of verification performed at many voting booths, and it's far too lax.

My standard for voter ID is also reasonable. That is, tell me the problem and we'll attempt to rectify it.

That's not a valid reason.

 

[GeauxTigers]

Not only should you have to present a valid ID to vote, but you should also have to own land. I'm sick of all these people that don't pay #### in taxes and don't pay property taxes voting for big government to take my money and give it back to the poor. ####### moochers!

 

[GeauxTigers]

Not only should you have to present a valid ID to vote, but you should also have to own land. I'm sick of all these people that don't pay #### in taxes and don't pay property taxes voting for big government to take my money and give it back to the poor. ####### moochers!

Turn of the millenium Rome is calling your name.

WTF does that mean?

 

[Sand]

Not only should you have to present a valid ID to vote, but you should also have to own land. I'm sick of all these people that don't pay #### in taxes and don't pay property taxes voting for big government to take my money and give it back to the poor. ####### moochers!

Turn of the millenium Rome is calling your name.

You'd be shocked at how little has changed from Roman times through now. Citizenship arguments, land giveaways (i.e. takewaways from govt. holdings) to soldiers returning, how large of a grain dole to give out to the poor to keep them pacified - scary how political machinations are very similar.Though the country would be a lot cooler if we had gladiators back.

 

[Sand]

Not only should you have to present a valid ID to vote, but you should also have to own land. I'm sick of all these people that don't pay #### in taxes and don't pay property taxes voting for big government to take my money and give it back to the poor. ####### moochers!

Turn of the millenium Rome is calling your name.

WTF does that mean?

The Roman Empire circa 150bc also had requirements that limiting the governing of the society to some defined few. Us in America have moved beyond that.

I'd argue with both of those premises. The Roman society was a lot more complicated than that.

 

[RCon]

Among others, that typographical errors in people's birth certificate entailed a bureaucratic labyrinth. Beyond that, your Google works as well as mine does, I imagine. And in the bigger picture, your standard of proof for voter fraud is "conceivable scenarios." Your standard of proof for difficulty in obtaining Voter ID seems to be, "Place the person in front of me, have them tell me their story, produce written evidence showing their difficulty, and let me cross-examine them."

Typo on the birth certificate? Meh. Going to say that's not a common thing, and it's a problem not caused by the voter ID law, and it's an issue the person should want rectified anyway.My standard for voter fraud is reasonable. That is, I have seen the level of verification performed at many voting booths, and it's far too lax.

My standard for voter ID is also reasonable. That is, tell me the problem and we'll attempt to rectify it.

That's not a valid reason.

Frustrating, innit.

Not really. Honestly, if you don't agree that the verification at the voting booth is overly lax, that's more a reflection on your unwillingness to acknowledge reality than anything else.

 

[RCon]

The Roman Empire circa 150bc also had requirements that limiting the governing of the society to some defined few. Us in America have moved beyond that. I was ignoring the real problems and wacky results of your proposal.

<smoo>We in America</smoo>

 

[RCon]

Not really. Honestly, if you don't agree that the verification at the voting booth is overly lax, that's more a reflection on your unwillingness to acknowledge reality than anything else.

It's more about my way to define reasonable by results and theory rather than conjectured and imagined harms. You view restrictions on the voting booth as reasonable based upon a theoretical damage which you perceive. I view your desired restrictions on the voting booth as unreasonable based on there has been on problems with the current system and the large potential harm of being caught versus the small incremental benefit that you gain. In short, your "reasonable" just isn't.

You view my desired restrictions on the voting booth as unreasonable based on conjectured and imagined harms. You still haven't come up with a situation where someone would reasonably be prevented from obtaining an ID.As for reasonable, my town had an election for school board a couple years ago that ended in a tie. One measly vote (for instance, had I asked someone to impersonate my wife, who I knew did not vote) would have changed the outcome. A change in that outcome would have changed the subsequent year's budget by a couple million dollars.

 

[RCon]

Not really. Honestly, if you don't agree that the verification at the voting booth is overly lax, that's more a reflection on your unwillingness to acknowledge reality than anything else.

It's more about my way to define reasonable by results and theory rather than conjectured and imagined harms. You view restrictions on the voting booth as reasonable based upon a theoretical damage which you perceive. I view your desired restrictions on the voting booth as unreasonable based on there has been on problems with the current system and the large potential harm of being caught versus the small incremental benefit that you gain. In short, your "reasonable" just isn't.

You view my desired restrictions on the voting booth as unreasonable based on conjectured and imagined harms. You still haven't come up with a situation where someone would reasonably be prevented from obtaining an ID.As for reasonable, my town had an election for school board a couple years ago that ended in a tie. One measly vote (for instance, had I asked someone to impersonate my wife, who I knew did not vote) would have changed the outcome. A change in that outcome would have changed the subsequent year's budget by a couple million dollars.

The conjectured and imagined harms are in the last 2 pages. Stop with this, "nobody gives me any reasons" shtick.If I had bought Apple 12 years ago, I'd have a lot more money right now. But you don't evaluate risks and rewards looking backwards.

Call me lazy, but I'm not going to go searching through pages of affidavits to find the person's reason. Give me a reason.In the stuff you posted, there was one actual reason listed, which was the typo on birth certificate. I already responded to that reason.

 

[RCon]

Call me lazy, but I'm not going to go searching through pages of affidavits to find the person's reason. Give me a reason.

In the stuff you posted, there was one actual reason listed, which was the typo on birth certificate. I already responded to that reason.

But you want me to go trying to find the affidavits posted online or better summaries so that you can be satisfied?In this case, forty people filed affidavits listing the time and effort that made it difficult for them to obtain photo IDs. The judge deemed it sufficient to overturn the law based on Wisconsin's state constitution. He also found that claims of people impersonating other voters never happened. The weight of the evidence is squarely on the side of these things create problems without solving anything. Yet you motor on with demanding more evidence without providing any that supports your own case.

C'mon, man.

You're the one claiming that obtaining a voter ID is this massive burden on the populace. Tell me why it's such a burden. What is so difficult about it?I've provided plenty of evidence that supports my own case. Specifically, when I go to the polling location, I'm asked for the name of a street, then a name. That's it. No other verification required. If you can't see that there's an issue there, you're the one not facing reality.

 

[dparker713]

Among others, that typographical errors in people's birth certificate entailed a bureaucratic labyrinth. Beyond that, your Google works as well as mine does, I imagine. And in the bigger picture, your standard of proof for voter fraud is "conceivable scenarios." Your standard of proof for difficulty in obtaining Voter ID seems to be, "Place the person in front of me, have them tell me their story, produce written evidence showing their difficulty, and let me cross-examine them."

Typo on the birth certificate? Meh. Going to say that's not a common thing, and it's a problem not caused by the voter ID law, and it's an issue the person should want rectified anyway.My standard for voter fraud is reasonable. That is, I have seen the level of verification performed at many voting booths, and it's far too lax.

My standard for voter ID is also reasonable. That is, tell me the problem and we'll attempt to rectify it.

That's not a valid reason.

Sure it is. Properly screening potential voters is a duty of the government. You may disagree with the conclusion, but that is a perfectly valid reason.ETA: And absence of proof is not proof of absence.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I've provided plenty of evidence that supports my own case. Specifically, when I go to the polling location, I'm asked for the name of a street, then a name. That's it. No other verification required.

That doesn't really constitute evidence of fraud.

 

[humpback]

16 pages- anyone change their mind yet?

Let's call this what it is- there are some arguments for and against voter ID requirements, and most people in here are just arguing based on which side of the isle they're on. If we reversed this and the people who would be "disenfranchised" were R voters, I suspect most of the partisans would be making the opposite arguments that they are now.

 

[RCon]

I've provided plenty of evidence that supports my own case. Specifically, when I go to the polling location, I'm asked for the name of a street, then a name. That's it. No other verification required.

That doesn't really constitute evidence of fraud.

No, it doesn't. However, it shows that it would be quite easy to perform fraud.

 

[RCon]

16 pages- anyone change their mind yet? Let's call this what it is- there are some arguments for and against voter ID requirements, and most people in here are just arguing based on which side of the isle they're on. If we reversed this and the people who would be "disenfranchised" were R voters, I suspect most of the partisans would be making the opposite arguments that they are now.

For me, it has nothing to do with which side of the aisle I'm on. I see the very easy potential for fraud, I think it should be fixed. I then consider the downsides of a way in which it could fixed. I don't see any readily identifiable downside. If someone presented a downside to me, I'd change my mind.